-
-
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says … 33
- Mohammed Assaf, singing sensation out of Gaza refugee camp, torches … 12
- Activists call for a SodaStream boycott at the 2013 Cannes … 3
- Video: Palestinian demonstrators break a hole in the wall during … 3
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 41
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 3
- Exile and the Prophetic: Disappearing Massad, disappearing Palestine 8
- Lapid says ‘Israelis want peace and security and Palestinians want … 16
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 784
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 314
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 145
- San Francisco bus ads condemn Israeli apartheid: backlash begins 121
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 106
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 100
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 91
-
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 96
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 88
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 84
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 74
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 72
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani 63
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
-
- The Latest from Mondoweiss for 05/21/2013 - http://t.co/kh6lMQYfwK, 2 hours ago
- RT @MhmdGaza: @anniefofani Just read your article at Mondoweiss abt Wala's visit to Jerusalem. same here,I should be in Jerusalem in July :…, 20 hours ago
- Activists call for a SodaStream boycott at the 2013 Cannes Film Festival http://t.co/7Dc8qlw7um, 21 hours ago
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite history: They fled ‘of their own free will’ http://t.co/IiL1P0hW5p, 22 hours ago
- Video: Palestinian demonstrators break a hole in the wall during protest commemorating the Nakba http://t.co/cWsoOsAoFy, 22 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says Haaretz — but ‘NYT’ treats it as gospel (33)
- Philip Weiss: Yes I wish I’d understood that and included that insight. Thanks gents
- Hostage: I hereby nominate Isabel Kershner and her husband Hirsch Goodman for the Judy Miller Award, which is of...
- seafoid: As his father said they demolished the walls around Netzarim to remove the evidence. This case is proof...
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite history: They fled ‘of their own free will’ (41)
- Hostage: and am not familiar (or have forgotten if I ever knew) about the other countries. Historian Rafael Medoff,...
- Shingo: “Most of the dead are civilians killed by the shelling.” Rubbish. Qusair is a rebel stronghold and the...
- Obsidian: Yeah. And Robert Kennedy spent time in Palestine in 1948 and wrote articles largely sympathetic to the...
- Mohammed Assaf, singing sensation out of Gaza refugee camp, torches Arab Idol competition (12)
- Inanna: Yes, the judges love him. I think we all appreciate his talent but the fact that he is Palestinian doubles...
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ forum on Nakba (74)
- German Lefty: Here’s a German article about George Galloway walking out of a debate when he learnt that the...
- German Lefty: You’re repeating yourself ad nauseum and it’s not helping your case at all cuz you keeping...
- German Lefty: Israel is a democracy, meaning that the leadership and Israel’s policies are the result of a majority...
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says Haaretz — but ‘NYT’ treats it as gospel (33)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
There are no facts when it comes to israel. Just opinions.
Says you ;-)
Just to recapitulate the Israeli position:
Al-Dura was killed by Palestinian fire but didn't die and, in fact, never existed. Let's talk about anti-Semtism.
You also have to consider that Jewish Israelis enjoy greater credibility here because they are viewed as westerners. When I started dealing with the conflict, I would not have believed a Palestinian who described the Nakba. I needed to hear it from a Jew, preferably an Israeli Jew.
That's the reality and it's horribly wrong. I see no reason why Palestinians should just accept it.
However, non-Zionist Jewish Israelis can use their privileged position to help the Palestinians.
As long as they remember that it is a privilege and an undeserved one at that.
Israelis are as much involved in the Nakba as Palestinians, just in a different way. Non-Zionist Jewish Israelis are victims of the Zionist regime, too. The Nakba is committed in their name against their will. It’s not their fault that they happen to belong to the privileged group. They want equality, just like Palestinians.
The "different way" makes all the difference. I want equality, just like the Palestinians, but my privilege (whether I like it or not, reject it or not) is the privilege of the coloniser, and I am aware of the fact that whenever I speak on behalf of Palestinians - no matter what I say - I do so as a member of the group that has taken everything from them, including their voices.
GL,
I think there are a few issues here, and the division into "victims" and "perpetrators" doesn't quite do the trick.
First of all, this particular discussion seems to have included an element of "if" (I think it's safe to assume that the Jewish Agency rep. wasn't there to propose ways of implementing ROR) - which you agree is not acceptable.
But there is also a very serious question of agency here.
As interesting as the struggle over the Nakba (including "if") within Jewish Israeli society may be, it is also a distraction and an "appropriation" of Palestinian experience and suffering by the very privileged group that includes the perpetrators (my group, as it happens), which has not yet accepted (as a group) the facts of the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestine and taken responsibility for them and which, infuriatingly, is given greater weight (or equal weight, in certain "balanced" forums). That is the "conversation" that Al-Jazeera wanted Susan Abulhawa to take part in.
Why should a Palestinian play that game? It is disempowering and humiliating - particularly on or around Nakba Day. The focus of the programme was the "debate" within Israel, and a Palestinian - the victim, the protagonist of the struggle for justice - was invited as window dressing, to salve some journalist or producer's conscience and give an appearance of "balance"!
Lia Tarachansky and Eitan Bronstein are wonderful people who do great work, but the Nakba is not about them, and a Palestinian should never be asked to politely participate in an essentially Israeli discussion about Palestinian suffering.
Susan believes that the word “Israeli” is synonymous with “Jewish Zionist Nakba denier”... What about Ilan Pappé or Shir Hever?
Asking Abulhawa to appear together with a representative of the Jewish Agency, on Nakba Day, is, in itself an obscenity. I'm not sure about Geva, but Tarachansky and Bronstein would certainly be in the Pappé-Hever category. That wasn't Abulhawa's point, however. Her problem with the show was that it sought to present the Nakba as an Israeli issue -- with a Palestinian present "for balance". As sympathetic as some of those Israelis may be, it is a twisted, offensive way of approaching the Nakba (anywhere but within Israeli society itself, where people like Tarachansky and Bronstein have their work cut out for them).
As Abulhawa put it, in her closing paragraph:
Thanks again, Ira.
The Ellis quote is a little softer than one they originally had from Braverman, but is very much in keeping with Braverman's views on the subject. I don't know whether anyone has linked to it so far, but Braverman's "Beyond interfaith reconciliation: A New Paradigm for a Theology of Land" provides very useful background for understanding the importance of the CoS document and the resistance it has and will encounter from Jewish groups and within the Church itself: link to markbraverman.org
W.Jones,
It's not that easy to shut my friend up :-)
But the experience has made her a little more cautious - especially when it comes to checking out the organisers of such events in advance, although that probably wouldn't have made a difference in the case I cited.
The incident was a little more complicated than just someone in the audience making an offensive remark. It was a Christian group, in a Christian venue, and the commenter was himself a priest. He thus enjoyed a certain status and authority that made it harder for others in the audience to challenge him, harder for my friend to challenge him, and easier for his words to sink in and be accepted as "gospel". The fact that he was a Palestinian further added to his authority, and the character of the group made a frank discussion of mythology (religious and national) prejudice, history, etc. virtually impossible.
Putting oneself in the shoes of the other is crucial, but caseworkers also need to develop strategies to defend themselves, that go beyond simply "turning the other cheek".
Thanks, ritzl.
I think it’s a pretty big but, less sensitivity has to be shown for (a lower priority has to be given to) combating/discussing anti-semitism than for advocating Palestinian justice. It’s impossible to do both, imho. And by less sensitivity, I mean by both supportive Jews and Palestinian leaders.
I agree, and that's usually my policy - except where I think it can harm the main goal. There is a lot of instrumentalisation of the Palestinian cause, in all sorts of weird directions. Here too, I think it's generally a good rule of thumb to follow the lead of Palestinian activists -- first of all because it is their struggle and their movement and it is up to them to decide priorities; second of all (and this a little -- note, a little -- like the Jewish advantage in countering unjust accusations of anti-Semitism), Palestinians have an advantage and greater authority when it comes to pointing out real anti-Semitism within the movement or among its hangers-on.
By the way, I don't mean to turn this discussion into a discussion of anti-Semitism as well, but if we are talking about the role of Jews in the Palestinian solidarity movement, this is an aspect that also needs to be addressed, if only as a "meta-discussion" (talking about talking about anti-Semitism).
A couple of anecdotes that I think are relevant to the broader discussion:
1. At a recent event I attended (solidarity and justice, not "dialogue"), there was a panel that included 3 Palestinians (1 of them an Israeli citizen) and 1 Jewish-Israeli activist. Things were going really well, until someone from the audience (a European) interrupted one of the Palestinian speakers, and shouted that none of the panelists had mentioned the root of the problem: world Jewish finance. She was immediately put in her place -- first and foremost by the Palestinians, who told her that financial and other powerful interests were certainly involved in the oppression of Palestinians, but that finance has neither religion nor ethnicity, and that the strength of the Palestinian struggle lay in the focus on justice and equality, not prejudice and generalisation. A somewhat heated discussion ensued, however, and an event that was supposed to deal entirely with Palestinian rights turned into a debate about anti-Semitism.
2. Another local Jewish activist participated in an event (I wasn't there, but she told me about it), presenting a book she had edited on the subject of Zionism, colonialism, racism, etc. She spoke of the Nakba (65 years) and Zionism (over a century), and was interrupted by someone in the audience (a Palestinian Christian) who said that he was fed up with this bullshit, and that "you Jews have been breaking our balls for 4,000 years". My friend didn't quite know what to say, raised an eyebrow and went on with her talk. No one else felt any need to say anything. She felt attacked and vulnerable, and is now thinking twice about participating in another event.
In my view, the main role of Jewish allies in Palestine work is to strive to open spaces for Palestinians to narrate their history for themselves and to create ways for Palestinians to lead the process of their own liberation. Jewish allies should challenge the common wisdom around discourse on Palestine/Israel that affords greater credibility to Jewish commentary on Israel.
I agree completely. As the author notes, there are other, personal and internal reasons for Jews to engage in the struggle for Palestinian rights, but those are secondary and should never be allowed to take priority over solidarity.
These pieces are part of an ongoing conversation in activist spaces about “Jews identifying as Jews”. We published Elisha Baskin and Donna Nevel on this issue recently.
Phil's interview with Ben Ehrenreich is also worth mentioning -- particularly the final question and answer:
But I do know that in colloquial Arabic, the word Khara means ‘poop’.
In Hebrew too (a biblical word!), and I'm sure there's an association there in the minds of Israelis who use "harta", but I think the Arabic origin of the word has something to do with lying or boasting (somehow related to "engraving" or "etching" maybe? - for which there is also a Hebrew cognate, but with "h" rather than "kh"). In any case, I'm guessing more colloquial than classical.
Sorry, in Arabic that should probably be khrṭ with a kha.
I learned a new hebrew word today: Hartata.
It's "harta" (ḥrṭh), and I think it's actually from Arabic (ḥrṭ) -- which makes the title "Nakba harta" ironic as well as repugnant.
As Steve Bell so eloquently put it: link to guardian.co.uk
Thanks for a great report, Allison.
I think two quotes say it all:
* There were a number of Palestinian towns/villages named Majdal. Here's one to remember on 15 May (Nakba Day): link to palestineremembered.com
A keeper if there ever was one :-)
At the risk of publicly acknowledging my unhealthy obsession with the lies of Alan Dershowitz
I was about to suggest you see someone about that, but then I realised that I've been reading every word...
I'll try to redeem us both by suggesting that you've put your finger on a much broader phenomenon than a single pathological liar. "Singling Israel out" is, of course, one of the favourite hasbara memes and, more often than not, it has little if anything to do with reality ("Why does the UNSC only condemn Israel?"; "Why are there no other boycotts?" "Why are drones OK when the U.S. uses them?"). I sometimes wonder whether it's all a matter of propaganda and point-scoring, or whether those who resort to it really don't hear anything that doesn't have to do with Israel, but then want to know why everyone else is obsessed with Israel? Could it be that Dershowitz (the Symbolic Dershowitz [hereafter, SD]) is so absorbed in his little Israel/anti-Israel universe, that he neither hears nor imagines that Desmond Tutu could ever have spoken up on any other topic?
Another possibility is the "axis of evil" theory -- that is, if someone is "overly" critical of Israel, they must be on the side of evil, and could thus never have condemned China or Zimbabwe. SD knows the kind of thing that "Israel haters" condemn and the kind of thing they don't condemn. He doesn't need any silly old fact-checking or Google searches. That's for people like David Samel, who think that the world isn't divided neatly into good (us) and evil (them).
Then there's the post-modernist explanation, but I think we're already redeemed (if redemption is ever really possible, that is).
Source: link to icahdusa.org
The full South African Human Sciences Research Council study can be found at:
link to electronicintifada.net
Ira,
To the first claim I would add the idea of "continuous presence" (in the form of a small Jewish community in Palestine) and that of a historic "emotional bond" (as reflected e.g. in liturgy), regardless of the historical veracity of the biblical and exilic arguments.
Regarding the Jesus "clause", you're probably right that it will be omitted from the final draft (assuming the final draft even resembles the original report), but the CoS is a Christian church expressing a Christian theological perspective: There is a "new ... message for the people of God [the Jews]". As long as nobody tries to force that "message" down my throat, let us render unto the Church of Scotland that which is the Church of Scotland's.
W.Jones,
"The best values of the age" is not a compromise but a challenge. Even assuming divine origin of Scripture (or the divinity of Christ), the messages can never transcend human comprehension, which necessarily evolves (through moral challenge).
The idea of the universality of the "promise" certainly exists within Christian tradition (as the idea of universal justice exists within Jewish tradition), but this would have been interpreted in one way in the time of Jesus, another in the age of colonialism, and yet another today. This idea is clearly recognised in the CoS document:
W. Jones,
I think you are taking Shereshevsky too literally. The promise is not "practical" because it conflicts with other, fundamental religious values - as understood in the context of modern ethics. Without minimising the theological differences between Judaism and Christianity, the precise interpretation of the biblical passages in question is less important than the principle that religious values must conform to the best values of the age. In other words, concepts of justice and morality come first, and theologians will express those values in the idiom of their respective religious traditions. I think this is evident, for example, in many of the questions posed on p. 4 of the CoS report.
MK,
With all due respect to Rabbi Liebermann and ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionists in general, their arguments are fundamentally reactionary and of little relevance to those who do not share their very narrow worldview. I have read both Yoel Teitlebaum's Vayo'el Moshe and the earlier Orthodox anti-Zionist anthology Or layeshorim, and have found very little of modern theological or ethical value in either work.
W. Jones,
I think Dr. Shereshevsky's argument is very similar to that of the Church of Scotland in its original report. There is a sense of morality and justice that guides religious faith and tradition at its best, and as mores change over time, so does our understanding of Scripture and God's will. That is why Dr. Shereshevsky asks "What is the practical, real meaning today?", concluding that it cannot possibly mean dispossessing an entire people and holding onto the land by force and repression. As the CoS report explains, ideas that may have been perfectly acceptable in the heyday of European colonialism are repugnant to us today.
Shereshevsky also points out that those who cite the "divine promise" as justification for such behaviour are either "fascist unbelievers, or believers and God fearers with fascist opinions". The opinions themselves are fascist and, as such, worthy of condemnation -- whether those who profess them are "true believers" or merely instrumentalise Scripture.
I'm going to do the "as a Jew" thing -- apologies to anyone who finds it offensive.
As a Jew, I too reject "claims that scripture offers any peoples a privileged claim for possession of a particular territory”, and am offended by the suggestion that such a statement in any way "perpetuates anti-Semitism" or "negates and belittles ... deeply held Jewish" beliefs of any kind. Judaism is denigrated not by those who uphold universal values, but by those who claim that oppression, domination, racism and exclusion are core Jewish values worthy of respect and understanding.
The words of Dr. Simon Shereshevsky (an Orthodox Jew, and leader of "Ihud" - The League for Jewish-Arab Rapprochement) bear repeating:
Thank you, bintbiba. I had you in mind when I was thinking about all those who hold Jerusalem dear.
Marissa,
I'm not an outsider either. I grew up in Jerusalem, and participated in many Jerusalem Days as a teenager. I remember the feeling of dancing from Merkaz Harav in Kiryat Moshe to the Kotel, celebrating divine Providence and the "beginning of Redemption". I did not bang on the closed shutters in the Arab market in the middle of the night or shout racist slogans, and was upset by those who did, but that was not how I understood the holiday.
Nevertheless, we had something in common. We were both basking in religious-nationalism, treating hundreds of thousands of the city's residents as if they didn't belong. I chose to ignore them, while the more "extreme" preferred to taunt and provoke them (mostly just showing off or whistling in the dark, as there were no Palestinians in sight), but in the end we were doing the same thing. We were so busy feeling good about ourselves, our holiday, our religion, our history, that we refused to see the other.
You write that for you, the Jerusalem Day celebrations represent "unity, the force that can bring us together at least this one time a year, to express the love for the city we all have in common." Your "unity", "us", "love", "we" and "in common" are at least as exclusive as they are inclusive. Where are the Palestinians? Do they not have the city "in common"? Do they not "love" the city? The answer is that they are there (whether present or absent, or "present-absent") as "them", as the others whose exclusion lies at the very heart of the day -- whether it feels like a "racist vendetta" or not.
Thanks David.
I especially liked this bit:
This addresses both the issue of "singling Israel out" and the nonsense about Intel chips. It's a political strategy, for God's sake, not a religious taboo or fear of "infection"?
Yonah,
I wasn't making excuses, I was asking you what is "idiotic" about thinking one thing, being exposed to new information (colleagues' opinions, requests), and coming to another conclusion? Would you have thought him an idiot had he declined the invitation at first and then been convinced by Israeli (or Palestinian) colleagues that his ethical and political concerns would be better served by participating and expressing his views at the event itself? I doubt it.
he is an idiot for agreeing to come and then pulling out.
Hawking explained that he had originally thought that going and talking about the occupation would be the right thing to do (a position taken by many academics and artists who support the Palestinian struggle), but was then asked by Palestinian colleagues to reconsider his decision, and to respect the boycott. He decided to accede to their request. How does that make him an "idiot"?
If he wanted to boycott, he should have done so quietly.
Boycott is a political protest action, not a life choice. If you do it quietly, you might as well not bother.
That is the message of the academic boycott in general to the Israeli elites: Your colleagues, mentors and students -- people for whom you have deep respect and admiration -- are outraged by Israeli policies and long-standing intransigence, and wish to express solidarity with their (and your) Palestinian colleagues, by not crossing their picket line. As more and more academics, like Stephen Hawking, join the boycott, it will get harder and harder to dismiss them as naive, misinformed, manipulated, hateful or hypocritical.
The message is that business cannot simply go on as usual in Israeli faculties and labs (as well as at high-profile media events like the "Presidential Conference"), while policies of apartheid and oppression are implemented only a few kilometres (or metres in some cases) away.
I would be my pleasure, James. Of course man does not live by demonstrations alone ;-)
Congratulations, James! Yes, I'll be here.
Questioning the wisdom of the BDS campaign to vilify Israel does not automatically mean someone must be a Zionist.
No it doesn't, but positing that the purpose of BDS is "to vilify Israel" would appear to indicate that the person making such a statement is a supporter of Israel. Not 100%, but a pretty safe bet.
I am questioning the supposedly ” progressive ” credentials of those people and organizations who wish to vilify Israel as uniquely evil.
Of course you are. Well, not really, because you have already answered your "question" with extraneous premises regarding the wishes and motivations of the subjects of your "inquiry".
In other words, a sanction-backed boycott against Israel is a fight that we can win. This is not a principled defence of Palestinian self-determination, let alone an assertion of anti-imperialism; it’s a search for the most viable arena for personal vainglory.
You figured me out, Miriam. I thought to myself, where's there an easy “human rights” battle I can win so I can get me some personal vainglory? And the obvious answer was staring me right in the face: why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of course!
OK Phil, Miriam's got our number. Time to move on.
whatever the vainglorious campaigners against Israel say, boycotts and sanctions won’t liberate Palestinians either.
So you mean it won't be as easy as we thought? Definitely time to move on.
Israel is the world’s only Jewish state.... There is little question that if Israel were a country of 1 billion rather than a few million, no one would consider boycotting it.
So what is it, Hophmi? Anti-Semitism or the fact that in Israel's case a boycott might actually have an impact?
Naomi Klein:
Thanks, tree. I guess I haven't got my sea legs back yet. Good thing Sassan is so forthcoming ;-)
Nice to see you worked that cognitive dissonance thing out, Sassan. Dr. Hawking unreasonably caved in to the "Palestinian Islamofascists who would love to have [him] executed for being an atheist", and all's well with the world. So simple. So neat. So eminently logical.
... but that would just be to reduce my cognitive dissonance
Thanks for your honesty, Sassan. You've just explained the whole circus around Hawking's principled (yes, I'm afraid that's what it was) stand.
Some of the highlights of the rationalisation-overdrive we've seen here and elsewhere:
1. He was used.
2. It's not true.
3. He's off his game.
4. He's not that big of a "celeb" anyway.
5. He's an anti-Semite/acting like an anti-Semite (singling out, etc.).
Cognitive dissonance: Israel is good and BDS (or any forceful criticism of Israel) is bad, so why do people I respect or appreciate sometimes support it? The only possible answers are that they were manipulated, are not too bright, are misinformed, didn't mean it, or were never worthy of my respect in the first place. There couldn't possibly be any other explanation, could there?
Shmuel, while you’re at it , perhaps you could translate the 7th stanza of “Ani Maamin” or -better yet-: the entire poem.
I'm sure Barakeh was well aware of the Zionist allusions in the poem, but one need not be a deconstructionist to apply such sentiments to all of the inhabitants of "the land" (same goes for the definition of "my people").
As to inter-marriage, with Shavuot around the corner, we could mention the most momentous inter-marriage of all: Boaz and Ruth the Moabite, producing the “line” of David and his dynasty.
Not a very good example, because Ruth married "in" rather than "out (and Boaz was just doing a mitzvah ;-]). Mahlon and Kilyon are not exactly remembered as heroes.
It would be fair to mention that Tchernichovsky was also a Zionist.
Absolutely, mention away.
ToivoS,
The birth of a red heifer (not necessarily in the Land of Israel) is considered a harbinger of the rebuilding of the Temple, as it is a required for a purity ritual (see Numbers 19), without which the Temple cult cannot function.
The ancient Egyptians also had a thing about cattle (Osiris, Apis, Mnevis), the colour red, and even red cattle (see Frazer, The Golden Bough, ii, 59-62).
The allusion to a legendary connection between Typhon and the Jews is intriguing.
Yonah,
I won't argue with your memories of Ben-Artzi, but I think it's fair to say (based on his activities and statements since the Rabin days) that he is at the extreme right of the political spectrum.
I get the anti-intermarriage "impulse", but I also get the allusions to "miscegenation" - especially when such arguments cross over (as they inevitably do in the "Jewish" state) to general and official discourse (see e.g. the current post by Ginsberg/Jabara).
Tchernichovsky was not only an assimilationist, but also a "Hellenist" ("Before a Statue of Apollo") and a humanist ("For I believe in man"). It's a good thing that Ben-Artzi managed to latch onto Manya Tchernichovsky's religion, because that other stuff is harder to explain to the broader Jewish-Israeli public. Right-wing, religious "guardians of the faith" like Ben-Artzi and Bennett are expected to remind everyone else of the "shared values" of the "Jewish Home" (like the anti-intermarriage "impulse"), but they must also be mindful of the fact that they are not ("yet", they say) the majority.
I think the comparison to Bob Jones is a fair one, not because Ben-Artzi opposes intermarriage in and of itself, but because his opposition is part of a much broader, racist ideology that finds comfort in religion.
See Simon Shereshevsky (from Magnes Zionist):
The Israelites seem to have been rather keen on cattle deities themselves (Aaron's calf, Jeroboam's calves, Hiram's oxen), but the Yahwists got to write the books (and destroy the ones they didn't like). All's fair, eh? You don't hear the Baalists or the Ashtorethists whingeing, do you?
Turning Tchernichovsky into a “national icon” was a terrible idea and would set a bad example – because of his longtime marriage to a Christian woman, he explained.
Shhhhh. Not so loud, or everyone will want one!
I'll save Yonah the trouble, by pointing out that Hagi (not Hagai) Ben-Artzi is a member of the lunatic fringe.
What I want to know is what were they thinking honouring the author of "Sahki sahki al ha-halomot" (Ani ma'amin/I believe), which MK Mohammad Barakeh once suggested Israel adopt as a more inclusive national anthem (in place of Hatikva)?
Excerpt (translation mine):
link to zemer.co.il
The question of Jewish Zionism is one that could be raised, but labeling someone’s background as Zionist based on association with BBYO seems to be perverse. Associating with any Jewish organization other than United Neturie Karta or Jews for Palestine would thus be forbidden on any Jew’s resume, according to Phil’s standards.
You exaggerate, Yonah, but where does the perversity lie? Jewish solidarity is understandable, but when that solidarity almost inevitably entails at least indirect (ignorant, passive, deluded, wishful, whatever) support for ongoing crimes against humanity, and is almost ubiquitous in institutional Jewish circles, there is a serious problem, and it has nothing to do with Phil asking or not asking questions about Froman's political views, based on his past associations, in an administration already heavily biased in Israel's favour.
Are we really rebels? Had I been a real rebel, I would have stayed in Israel (I got a little finger-wagging about that last week from a visiting Palestinian MK). I know Israelis who have gone the way of Miko Peled, but they tend to stick around and fight "on the ground" (although they often blame their non-emigration on language, culture or family).
As for books, my two most recent (highly recommended and NOT macroeconomicky): Romain Gary, The Roots of Heaven; Elias Khoury, Gate of the Sun. The two are actually related, in their rejection of simple dichotomies of human good and evil (without losing sight of right and wrong), as in the following passages:
Khoury:
Gary (the tale of the prisoners and the may-beetles):
I am sure Shmuel would have a different perspective, though without the American angle, alas (still, would love to hear all its angles – hint, hint).
I can take a hint (although it sometimes takes me a few days). Italy is not exactly the "golden land" for Israelis. Heaps of Israelis come to travel and study here (especially medicine and art), but very few actually stay. Then there are the diplomats, "shlichim" (envoys of Zionist movements and associations), reps of Israeli companies, etc. (Aside: Why do Israelis -- official and non -- always ask me whether I'm a "shaliach"? But hey, someone asked me whether I work at the mosque, yesterday.) People have offered to introduce me ("dont' you want to meet other Israelis?"), but if I wanted to hang out with Israelis, I could have stayed in Israel. I have come across the odd Israeli pro-Palestinian actvist and a number of Palestinian citizens of Israel, but they are not the subject of your comment or Ellis' post (or Abrabanel's insights).
My "sample" is thus very small. Limited to a few friends who have left the country (one more or less fits your pattern and the rest don't, but I'm guessing I have somewhat of a "selection bias"), and various friends and family-members who would like to leave or have left and gone back.
By the way, Have you read Sami Michael's "Maof habarburim" (English title: Flight of the Swans)? There's an incidental story of two families who decide to leave Israel and go to the States (some time in the '60s or '70s). One man is "sent" to head the El Al office in New York, while the other, decides to follow his friend, explaining that Israel is too racist and warmongering (he is married to a Palestinian woman, who converted to Judaism) and he hates the place. He decides that he will sell Israeli-made clothing to the Americans (do you remember the "Ata" brand? LOL). A rather odd choice, all things considered. His Palestinian wife cannot bear the thought of leaving her homeland and her family.
Amateurs. Real clowns, like Ivan Prado support Palestinian rights (and scare the living daylights out of humourless Shin Bet agents).
Vineyards, Naboth, Ahab!
Exactly. At the risk of mixing metaphors, I would add ewe, Nathan, David.
Walid,
What's that old boomerang piece of wisdom about "never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity"? Israel has endless chances to do really easy things to create good will, but would rather screw things up and then spend millions on "improving their brand". My guess is that Peres will spend most of the time lecturing Francis on anti-Semitism. His Holiness may not even bring up the situation in Cremisan (or the suffocated Bethlehem area in general) -- with far bigger fish to fry regarding Church taxes, legal standing and the restoration of the Caenaculum to the Franciscan "Custodians of the Holy Land" (issues under negotiation between Israel and the Holy See for the past 15 years).
I wonder whether the pope will raise the issue of Cremisan in his upcoming meeting with Shimon Peres (30 April, at the Vatican). The subject of the meeting (as reported by the Italian press) is in fact the legal and fiscal status of Church properties in the Holy Land. Thus, even if His Holiness doesn't want to offend his guest by talking about such pesky issues as occupation, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, torture, administrative detention, etc., he can safely broach a subject directly pertaining to Church real estate.
tomorrow maybe Martians
As everyone knows, Mars is full of Fascists.
i was beginning to think you dumped us for good.
Perish the thought.
He surfaces. ;-)
Alternating periods of under- and over-employment will do that to a body. Now where was I ...
What is "alienating and hateful" is the misrepresentation of SB160 as "calling on the ASUC and the UC Regents to divest from three companies doing business with Israel" or "using the guise of human rights to unfairly assign blame and tarnish the reputation of Israel".
What is "alienating and hateful" is the implication that being a "world leader in technology and innovation" somehow absolves Israel from moral and legal responsibility for its actions.
What is "alienating and hateful" is that such a campaign in defence of human rights violations and crimes against humanity is conducted by Jewish communal institutions in the name of the entire Jewish community.
Did Elizabeth Taylor and Sammy Davis, Jr. have a “right of return”? They both converted to Judaism.
That's what the law says.
Do I take it you are saying that John Kerry’s children can “return” to Israel, if they pretend to be “Jews”?
John Kerry's children (to the best of my knowledge), have no Jewish grandparents and so are not entitled to Israeli citizenship according to the Law of Return. As ordinary non-Jews, their chances of naturalisation in Israel are pretty slim - unless they happen to marry Jews (if they marry Palestinian citizens of Israel, they can forget about it entirely).
What I was saying about John himself is that although his paternal grandparents were born Jews, they converted to Catholicism, and so are not considered "Jews" according to the Israeli Law of Return -- hence, no rights for John.
Does John Kerry enjoy the right of return to Israel, for exaple?
The Law of Return states that:
Kerry's "Jewish" ancestors (paternal grandparents) converted to Catholicism, so no citizenship for John, I'm afraid.
I guess Sam was ‘barred from entering Israel’ after he began his divestment campaign against Israel
Um, no. When he was granted Palestinian residency (by Israel) and, as far as Israel was concerned, became just another Palestinian.
but not before he got his M.B.A from Tel Aviv University.
As long as Israeli authorities denied him Palestinian residency (15 years), he was considered a US citizen, and was allowed to go to Tel Aviv.
I admire Sam, I just don’t feel very sorry for him. Why should I?
No need to feel sorry for Sam Bahour or any other Palestinian. Respect for their rights and freedoms will do nicely.
What’s Sam’s legal status in the West Bank?
Sam was finally granted Palestinian residency, 15 years after his first application. There are no guarantees for any Palestinians, that they will be allowed to return to their homes after a time abroad, but his status is more secure than before, and now matches that of his wife and daughters. On the other hand, despite his US citizenship, he is now barred from entering Israel or Jerusalem (where some of his business lies).
link to harvestinghopeamongstolives.blogspot.it
Israel’s Law Of Return is neither discriminatory nor unique – Germany, Finland, Russia and Italy ...
False. The differences between Israel's immigration policies and those of various European countries have been discussed countless times in this forum. If anyone is interested, they can search the MW archives.
Not that it will stop this particular piece of dishonest nonsense from being trotted out every time the subject comes up, but here's something from a recent post by Jerry Haber (Magnes Zionist):
link to jeremiahhaber.com
There are more Jews who are part of a “minority population”(ie. in the USA) BY CHOICE, than there are Jews who are part of a majority population in Israel.
And then there are the hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews who have emigrated to the US (Germany, UK, Australia, Canada, etc.) and the millions who dream of doing so. Speaking for myself, equality in a democratic state beats majority ethnic/religious privilege any day.
Thank you, bintbiba. Good to be back.
Horowitz, Weiss and Ajl are not Israelis, so they cannot be traitors to Israel.
I am an Israeli, but the label is irrelevant to me. It's dimadok's (and Millman's) frame of reference.
The "treason" (or "self-hater", or "moser" or whatever) card is a strategy (conscious or not) employed to silence critics and, perhaps more importantly, to neutralise the internal effect of their criticism. A settler does not threaten the liberal Zionist worldview the way an anti-Zionist does (although many liberal Zionists do perceive the settlements as a threat to the Zionist project). The problem is not extremism per se, but a perspective that undermines certain convictions on the basis of common values (professed by all but the most extreme lunatic fringe). The loyalty argument is a moral cop out -- the excuse of mafiosi and torturers -- and they know it.
I would expect nothing less of a foundation "headquartered" at a university built on ethnically-cleansed land (a fact it won't even commemorate with a lousy plaque -- see the epilogue on Shaykh Muwwanis in Shlomo Sand's "Invention of the Land of Israel").
As for living "behind walls" (Where does Wieseltier think Palestinians live? In front of walls?), yeah, colonialism's a bitch.
any image with Jews
But Netanyahu is not "Jews"; he is Netanyahu. And nothing in the cartoon suggests otherwise.
Do christians out there really need to refer to a bible passage or two to clarify that a war crime, especially an enduring and ongoing one, should be categorically objected to with every fiber in them?
Amen.
Chaim Weizman when asked what he wanted in return for the acetylene supply to the H .M. of UK in times of war replied that the Jews wanted establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine?
Historians such as Tom Segev (One Palestine Complete) and Shlomo Sand (The Invention of the Land of Israel) have also provided far more convincing explanations of British policy at the time. Sand calls the acetone story "naive", although he doesn't rule out the possibility that it may have been a contributing "factor".
In terms of the Palestinians the Israelis have a consensus
Not counting those Israelis (about 20% of the population) who are Palestinians, of course.
Can Israelis living outside the country cast votes?
Only diplomats and members of the merchant marine.
in case you didn’t pick up my drift, it’s not as if i like the guy
I got that :-)
but obviously a bunch of israelis think he’s the cats meow
So the polls say - loud and clear. I spoke to a relative in Israel a few minutes ago, who told me that she knows far too many people who will vote for him and that he is the most dangerous candidate of all (saying a lot).
channeling rabin’s murder is a tad creative don’t you think?
The religious right is still smarting from its "demonisation" after Rabin's assassination and, in a way, Bennet is their vindication. That's certainly been on a lot of minds during this campaign. The creative part was in his making Netanyahu both victim (along with the national-religious) and demoniser (of the national-religious today). I think it was more than a tad forced, but as I said, he wasn't talking to me.
I will say that he looked good compared to the interviewer, who was a total disaster.
i thought it was masterful campaign slickatude.
Maybe it loses something in the translation, but I thought it came across more as a novice's botched attempt at "slickatude" than the real thing. Shouting "smear job" when you're in a tight spot is a political classic, but Bennet's delivery was way off.
Talk about slick, this guy is very talented and slippery.
I watched the whole interview, and he struck me as a bully who clumsily dodged every question about his own candidates by repeatedly mentioning their army service and pointing out all the 'traitors' in Labour. The way he remembered to pepper his tough talk with a periodic "we're just nice guys who want to do good" was also very artificial and unconvincing.
Then again, I'm not exactly his target audience ;-)
I want there to be a rational explanation for that [Lucifer Farms].
It is an English transcription of a Hebrew distortion of the Arabic name for the hill, where the Jordanians had a police station (known in Hebrew as "Mishteret Lutzifer").
he judged Kovel’s conversion to be superficial
Not his conversion, but his critique of Judaism.
What has Satan got to do with Zionism? If God is "a process that lives in [all of] us", presumably so is Satan. I understand what Yonah is saying, but I think he is focusing on the mote rather than the beam that Kovel points out: the grotesque manipulation of human ideals.
There would be virtually no practical way to implement RoR.
Not true. The only real objection to RoR is that it would "change the Jewish character of the state".
See e.g. Abu Sitta's classic article, "The Feasibility of the Right of Return" (from 1997, but the principles are still sound): link to prrn.mcgill.ca
Netanyahu and Lapid speak for Jews collectively.
No, they speak for Israelis collectively (albeit an ethnically-engineered electorate - by means of selective immigration, ethnic cleansing and apartheid).
You seem to be saying, in effect, that we need to accept the radical Palestinian position, period.
Not really - although I do consider the right of return, as understood by the UNGA and the refugees themselves, to be a moral, legal and pragmatic imperative.
The thrust of my comment was that you do not in fact accept RoR, and so it is dishonest to state that you do - redefining the concept to the point of emptying it of all meaning. If you reject Palestinian RoR (as do the vast majority of Jewish Israelis), please say so, instead of playing semantic games.
it seems to me that demanding the RoR to their actual former homes inside Israel , without admitting that that’s a euphemism for the destruction of Israel – there’s the dishonesty.
The expression "destruction of Israel" is also dishonest in this context, as advocating the RoR implies no such thing. What it does imply is an end to ethnocracy, apartheid and ethnic cleansing. I would call that "constructive" rather than "destructive", but to each his own.
I don’t oppose the Palestinian RoR, as long as it’s implemented in the context of the Palestinian State.
That's a rather dishonest way of putting it, jon. In matter of fact, you oppose the Palestinian right of return (as defined by UNGA Res. 194 and its subsequent reaffirmations, and by the Palestinians themselves), and suggest that it be replaced by something else entirely - that would, in any case, be up to a sovereign Palestinian state to decide, without any need for "concessions" or "permission" from Israeli Jews.
Unlike the Zionist concept of "return", which is national and necessarily disconnected from specific property, homes, villages, regions, etc., the Palestinian right of return is an individual human right that cannot be satisfied by repatriation to some part of a national territory.
As you clearly oppose the Palestinian right of return, where do you stand on the questions of Israeli acceptance of responsibility for the Nakba (and subsequent ethnic cleansings) and compensation?
Poor Isi, still wearing wide lapels. Where else would he pin all those "Israel Must Live", "I Am a Zionist", "Free Soviet Jews" and "I [heart] Golda" buttons? (That was a rhetorical question, Mooser.)
You can educate yourself on that topic here:
/article:
/title Post-Zionism and the Sephardi Question
/author Meyrav Wurmser
Meyrav Wurmser is a Memri/Hudson Institute polemicist, with a "post-Zionist" fetish. I'd go easy on the word "educate" when referring to anything she's written or said on the subject.
On Azzam Pasha's "genocidal statement", see Tom Segev, "The makings of history / The blind misleading the blind"
@Annie, you might have a difficulty identifying with a ‘home’ as you describe it, but that is because you cannot appreciate or understand the intrinsic connection all Jews feel and express every year at end of the Passover seder when they say “Next year in Jerusalem”.
My mind-reading skills are not as keen as Mayhem's, but I would guess that most Jews (although by no means "all" - if only because many are asleep or only semi-conscious by the time the last Passover song is sung) are thinking things like "thank God it's over", "I shouldn't have eaten that last macaroon", "I'm never coming here again for the Seder/inviting the X-es to the Seder", "I wonder if X is seeing anyone - she'd be perfect for X", "Mom looks tired - we should take her to a nice hotel next year", "why does Uncle X always have to talk politics at these gatherings", "I can't wait to upload the pictures I took tonight - the kids were so cute", etc.
You'd think "all Jews" were as uptight and focused as Mayhem.
Thank you, bintbiba.
Thank you also for your comment on the passage I cited from Romain Gary's Roots of Heaven the the other day. I'm glad you saw the beauty and hope in his words. May Palestine always be blessed with "elephants" like Bassem Abu Rahmah.
but when those same human beings get together and form a national movement that has its aims and objectives that will cause a crushing blow to another people and religion, then I will not accept this and will fight with everything I have to make sure that this objective is not met
So which anti-Zionist organisations have you joined?
Bassem Abu Rahmah ,that great big amazing hero,was given the nickname “!Feel! ” (Arabic for Elephant).
Incidentally, that’s how Israel purchases oil from Iran.
And pistachios.
For me the baseline is rights and as long as the three demands of the BDS movement are met, I think the actual configuration on the ground is less important.
Adam,
Knowing many of the signatories, I'm sure you're not the only one. It's a shame whoever wrote the petition didn't take that into account.
I've signed a number of "Jews for Palestinian right of return" petitions in the past, and agree that "The full measure of justice, upon which the hopes of all humanity depends, requires no less." But does "the full measure of justice" also require "a democratic state throughout historic Palestine"? Are there no other possibilities? Can we - specifically as Jews - presume to dictate the modality of the "reversal of dispossession" (as Dr. Haidar Eid puts it)?
However, from a doctrinal point of view, the purpose of religion is to facilitate the communion between the human and the divine (to “reconnect” as the Latin root would have it), whereas the primary purpose of rabbinic Judaism was merely the preservation of Israelite law for the the ultimate purpose of re-establishing it as the legislative framework of a newly-established Kingdom of David following the advent of the messiah.
From the Bible to the Nazarenes (and numerous late Second Temple cults) to Yavne to the Talmud to the Pietists, philosophers, mystics, messianists, Hasidim, ethicists, etc. there has always been tension in Judaism between the Law and communion with the divine (just as there have been tensions between law/power/hierarchy and communion with the divine, or rationalism and gnosticism, in other religions), with a lot of intermingling between the two. Interaction between Judaism, Islam and Christianity also had a profound effect on the development of Rabbinic Judaism. Attitudes to the Temple cult and the land also varied - from the very beginning of Rabbinic Judaism which actually arose as an alternative to the centrality of the Temple, to Maimonides' explanation and rejection of animal sacrifice.
To posit a single "doctrine" of preservation of the law for the specific purpose of re-establishing the Jewish kingdom in the Messianic Age is to completely misunderstand Rabbinic Judaism, Jewish spirituality and eschatology. It is also to repeat the shallow law vs. love argument employed by Christians to distance themselves from Judaism and "prove" its inferiority.
I’m sorry for confusing you Shmuel. The sentence was intended to make fun of the idea that any body could tell me my religion wasn’t a religion.
You were as clear as a fine borscht.
I hope you don’t think that I wrote that crap, do you?
Not a chance.
Within some streams of the Jewish religious tradition, Armageddon = the defeat of all of Israel’s enemies at the hands of the Jewish Messiah (the King of Israel), among other things
As I said, the name Armageddon is NT (the reference to "Har Meggido" in Zechariah notwithstanding), but Judaism does have a Doomsday concept, and it is an element of the Zionist world view.
“Without going too deeply into the history, from a Biblical perspective there really is no such thing as “Judaism”, merely a tribal nationalism based on its own creation myth with a territorial constitution held together by a theocentric mythology.”
"Without going to deeply into the history" is right - from a biblical or any other perspective.
What do those borscht-eaters know about real religion?
Which brings us back to the subject of this post. I can assure you that the biblical prophets, Sa'adia Gaon, Bahya ibn Paquda, Yosef Albo, Maimonides, Gersonides and Hasdai Crescas knew a thing or two about religion and "spiritual content", but they most definitely did not eat borscht or even barszcz.
Jews who decide that Zionism has too much damaged the Judaism brand may choose any number of paths to disengage from the Jewish religious establishment
Or they can decide that Judaism is not a "brand" and that they can dissociate themselves from those who have actually done wrong without making unnecessary generalisations or rejecting their own beliefs, culture or identity.
Beinart is right that many of those (particularly young people) who have no other knowledge of or connection to Judaism beyond Israel and Zionism will be quick to dump it, but those who see far more to the tradition than a part of the reality (albeit an increasingly dominant part) of the past century have no such problem.
You responded to my remark that Joel Kovel took the radical step of converting to Christianity with two words: “Non sequitur.” How so?
Sorry about the terseness of my response. I meant that the comment about Kovel's conversion did not follow from your argument about Christian/Anglo-Irish/Jewish humanism.
Now that you've explained, I don't think it follows from the "damage to the Jewish brand" either (as Kovel explained in the interview he gave Phil). He had a tenuous connection to Judaism and some unpleasant family experiences, and found things that spoke to him in Episcopalianism.
Thanks for nicely summarizing my original argument! :)
Well, how do you like that — I am in perfect sync with all of Shmuel’s recent statements in this thread. :)
I think there is a clear distinction between our positions (and yours and Sand's), but I'll leave that up to ever has had the patience to wade through this long and rather repetitive thread.
2. Armageddon
Armageddon is NT, but if you mean some form of Doomsday, yeah it "plays" (see e.g. A. Raz Krakotzkin on the nuclear option as redemption and Doomsday all rolled into one).
Nothing in Kimmerling's analysis contradicts what I have said.
Sands gives many other examples of how Zionism radically departed from the beliefs and themes of classical Judaism.
Well of course it did; it is a modern nationalist movement. It is you who injected "vibrancy" and "consistency" and such like into the discussion. But none of that is to say that it did/does not seek to ground its modern ideology in ancient/classical myths etc. - some marginal, some eccentric and some reinterpreted to the point of being barely recognisable.
My argument here and elsewhere has been that Zionism of all stripes is a modern European ideology that both secular and religious Zionists have sought to present as the fulfilment and natural conclusion of Jewish tradition (shorthand warning). Some of what they have done is pure fabrication, but some is rather similar to Sand's characterisation of historiography, involving choices regarding both what to include and what to ignore. The ancient (shorthand) sources have always been viewed through contemporary lenses and have never had absolute and immutable meaning. The rest is merely a matter of degree - often dealt with in the past by declaring heresy and/or excommunicating, which is a little more complicated than it used to be.
Halevi is a favourite of religious Zionists particularly because of his conclusion to Kuzari, in which he urges all Jews to settle in the Holy Land (and please don't tell me that he didn't mean establishing a modern nation-state - that is patently obvious) and his personal example of such settlement. Maimonides is mostly popular for his "Laws of Kings" and vision of the messianic age (natural as opposed too supernatural polity, free from foreign domination, laws of war, etc.).
(Of course, “religious Zionism” comprises a large theological/ideological “tree”–your particular education may represent only one branch.)
I kind of addressed that in a couple of my comments. Reform religious Zionism is closer to secular Zionism (which, as I have written, also resorts to said myths etc.). The additional elements I have mentioned pertain primarily to, shall we say, right-wing Conservative to National-Haredi, although due to some inferiority-complex issues in the Reform movement, they have also made inroads into Reform Zionism. My particular branch was pretty close to the settler movement, which has come to dominate Modern Orthodox (or National Religious, in Israel) Judaism.
But the very fact that it is debatable shows that it is not a trivial point, and certainly not a matter of tautology.
No, it doesn't. It just shows that we have to work on clarifying our definitions, and perhaps pick a few less nits.
Sibiriak,
So we have established that Zionism (and certainly religious Zionism), according to Sand, is grounded (provided with a basis, justified) in "ancient" Judaism: "The foundation myth was, of course, the textual cosmos of the Old Testament."
As for "classical Judaism" (as you have defined it), where has Sand argued that religious Zionism has not grounded its ideology in the myths, symbols, themes, etc. of Rabbinic Judaism (take as shorthand for whatever you said)? Does he say that the "beginning of redemption" (athalta de-ge'ulah) is not a "vibrant mythos" of religious Zionism? Does he say that the ideology and theology of religious Zionism is not rooted (without necessarily being a "natural" product of it - witness Haredi attitudes to Zionism) in the literature of the "Rishonim" (such as Halevi, Nahmanides and Maimonides)? I went through the religious Zionist education system in Israel, and I can assure you that it most certainly is.
You can say: ‘You are lying about your birthday’. But when you qualify my statement as a ‘tautology’ you don’t contest it, you agree. – Same with Sean.
Of course I agree with sean's statement. I have never said otherwise. I just think it is trivial. Unlike your birthday assertion, sean's statment is empirically verifiable. Yours is simply false (forgive the assumption without actually checking your birth certificate).
That definition works for me as well.
OK. Contemporary religious Zionists "ground" their ideology (provide a basis for, justify) in the myths, symbols etc. That ideology ("contemporary religious Zionism") is thus "grounded" in the myths, symbols, etc. It is the idiom of religious Zionism. It is how religious Zionism explains its own concepts and beliefs. Sand has never said otherwise.
“Playing fast…” is not the same as “pulling a fast one”, of course. But you were just paraphrasing, I know. -:)
Actually, I wasn't. I was addressing the implications of your (incorrect) characterisation of my poor innocent paraphrases :-P
“Ground”= “The foundation for an argument, a belief, or an action; a basis.”
Btw, “classical Judaism” is not the same as “classical Jewish myths, symbols etc.”. You are playing fast and loose with terms.
Can't a guy paraphrase a little, without being suspected of trying to pull a fast one? Trust me; it was just meant as shorthand.
Sean’s statement wasn’t a tautology (it could be empirically wrong). But anyway, Shmuel agrees with the statement – by calling it a ‘tautology’ – as he would agree that I’m now 13 years old.
No, I don't think it could be empirically wrong, if the language and reality it refers to is understood correctly.
You're 13? How is that a tautology?
There is no logical reason why “contemporary Jewish religious Zionism” could not be grounded in Jewish religious themes, symbols etc. from outside the traditions of “ancient and classical Judaism”.
It is grounded in those as well (as are all contemporary forms of Judaism, including Haredi Judaism). That does not mean that that it is not grounded in "ancient and classical Judaism" (sean did not say "exclusively grounded"). Take the concept of the "beginning of redemption" for example, common to all streams of religious Zionism, or the "covenant between the halves", or the prayer for "return to Zion", or Nahmanides' understanding of the obligation to "possess the Land", or even "it is a matter of law that Esau hates Jacob".
In fact, one of Sand’s major contentions is that both religious and secular Zionism are in fact NOT grounded in the traditions of classical Judaism
Sand argues that Zionism is not a product of classical Judaism and that it had to transform Jewish tradition to serve its purposes, but nowhere does he claim that Zionism (especially religious Zionism) has not sought to ground its modern nationalist ideas in classical Jewish myths, symbols etc. On the contrary.
So is it the word grounded that we understand differently?
If you still want to disagree, that's fine with me :-)
It could be. Whether it is or not is a factual question, not a logical one.
The logic is based on the facts, or more precisely the meaning of the expressions. Only someone who does not understand the meaning of "contemporary Jewish religious Zionism" or of "the myths, symbols, beliefs and themes of ancient and classical Judaism" (assuming we agree on the meaning of the word "grounded") could assert that it might not be grounded in etc. That is precisely what religious Zionism is and what religious Zionism does. The opposite is demonstrably false.
In this case, however, it would be perfectly *logical* to assert the opposite of what Sean asserted: that “contemporary Jewish religious Zionism is NOT grounded in the myths, symbols, beliefs and themes of ancient and classical Judaism.”
I disagree. I do not think that it would be logical (with or without the asterisks) to assert the opposite. Zionism that is not "grounded in the myths, symbols, beliefs and themes of ancient and classical Judaism" would not be "contemporary religious Zionism". That is precisely what makes this particular form of Zionism "religious". It is the meaning of the term religious in this assertion.
To ‘take a certain step’ is something real life – and not a logical conclusion from certain premises. – You avoid a real life answer by saying that the step is not a logical conclusion.
I should have been more explicit. The non sequitur is between sean's statement regarding "Jewish humanism" and his reference to Kovel's conversion, implying that Kovel took his humanism to some sort of logical, universal conclusion (although sean himself also equated "Christian humanism" with "Jewish humanism").
Klaus,
This is the statement I referred to as tautology:
A reasonable definition of "contemporary Jewish religious Zionism" would be 'a form of Zionism grounded in the myths symbols, beliefs and themes of ancient and classical Judaism'. Hence, tautology.
Sibiriak noted a difference in phrasing between sean's original assertion and my restating of it. I had no such intention, but was merely paraphrasing.
How and when do you envision Judaism disentangling itself from Zionism and Jewish nationalism when current historical trends are driving that already deep and thorough entanglement towards even greater entanglement?
The obvious answer is that the effective end of Zionism will constitute a crisis of Sabbatean proportions for those dominant groups within public Jewish life that have thrown their lot in with it. The earlier the respective groups come to terms with it and try to pick up where their religious, cultural, ethical and spiritual forebears left off before sidetracked by Zionism, the better they will fare. Most will have other values to fall back on, some will crash and burn or break away from the new mainstream, while others will simply cease to exist as currents within Judaism.
You know, I don’t describe myself as a Christian humanist, or an Anglo-Irish humanist, or an American humanist — I describe myself simply as a humanist. I trust that Shmuel and Hostage will see my point.
I don't describe myself as a Jewish humanist either. They are two elements of my culture, beliefs and identity that are intertwined (as is each with many other aspects of my existence), but neither is a qualifier of the other.
Joel Kovel took the radical step of converting to Christianity.
Non sequitur.
According to Max Nordau ...
That is the Zionist claim. Nordau was a Zionist ideologue. Of course he would say that, but that doesn't make it true. The historian Shlomo Sand, for example, has argued that such claims have absolutely no basis in fact.
My "essay" (thanks for the compliments) was meant to outline cause and effect, essence and accident. Admittedly the relationship between Jewish religion and nationalism is a little more complicated than that, but as long as we are in the realm of “mostly true”, I think it's a pretty safe assertion.
But this is the most important point: the biblical themes in Jewish religious Zionism greatly overshadow the European nationalist themes. In fact, most Jewish religious Zionists are extremely hostile to European nationalism.
Once upon a time, there were a bunch of European Jewish assimilationists, who wanted nothing more than to be good Germans, Austrians, Hungarians and Czechs. When they discovered that their discarded religious origins were a greater impediment to that goal than they had originally thought, they decided that if they could not be good Germans etc., they would become like good Germans etc. ... but Jewish!
They had their work cut out for them. They needed to invent a people, a homeland, a national language, mythology, folk culture, high culture, symbols, holidays, etc. Some things could be borrowed (with a few necessary changes) from the Jewish religious traditions they had rejected as primitive and backward, while others would have to be baked from scratch. The political and cultural model would of course be mitteleuropäisch, but the specific content would have a different national flavour. European folk cultures were a good place to start, with a little orientalism thrown in (after all, Jews were "semitic" and the moorish style was all the rage in modern synagogue architecture) and a little religious culture to taste (weren't European nations infused with their religious culture?)
Bourgeois assimilationists weren't buying it, nor were religious Jews of all stripes. So they looked eastward to the impoverished, but largely traditional Jewish masses. That meant upping the dose of religious elements in Jewish nationalism (Palestine, myths, symbols, holidays, etc.) and even tossing in a little socialism (for those Jews so inclined), but that couldn't be helped. They enjoyed a modicum of success, but were still opposed by virtually all religious leaders, although they were quick to exploit any sign of religious support for their new ideology - whether that had been the intention of the leaders in question or not.
They were eventually joined by a small group of religious Jews, who embraced their modern, European national aspirations, but needed to flesh out the religious justification for it (and develop their own mythology regarding their role in the movement from its very inception, and even before). For the most part, these religious Zionists aligned themselves with the mainstream within the movement. Some had serious doubts and fears of where such nationalism might lead, and took moderate, pragmatic positions.
Fast forward. The State of Israel is established and gradually, the reformist religious streams that had been vehemently opposed to Zionism, come around, but (not believing in the supernatural or the divine authorship of Scripture) adopt the secular Zionist positions. After the '67 war, both secular and religious messianism went wild, with Orthodox religious Zionism finally finding its niche in the movement - largely imitating the culture of the earlier, secular settlement movement on which they had missed out. From a small, core group of mystic-nationalists, Orthodox religious nationalism spread to virtually the entire Orthodox Zionist public, even making inroads into some Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) groups. They rallied around the Zionist flag - but heightened its "authentic" Jewish meaning; embraced the army, guns, violence, apartheid and ethnic cleansing - but sanctified them and sought religious justification and precedents; and developed a theology that would explain the secular origins of the Zionist movement and the scant enthusiasm it had aroused among religious Jews.
Of course religious (and secular) Zionism is "hostile to European nationalism". It is both modelled on it and a reaction to it. Rival nationalisms often resemble one another, although they would never admit it.
Given the ubiquity of chickpeas throughout the Mediterranean area I have to assume that the ancient Hebrews had a word for thyem – any clues?
What ain't in the Bible, ain't in the Bible - and the evidence for identifying the word "hometz" or "hamitz" as chickpeas is pretty weak.
In Mishnaic times (1st-2nd century CE), it is likely that chickpeas were referred to in Hebrew as "afunim" with or without an additional qualifier (the Mishnah uses the same word to refer to a number of different legumes, often with a qualifier, such as "white", "black" or "large"). By that time however, Aramaic and Greek were the dominant languages in Palestine.
i have to ask you, as part of the public mind, has the establishment succeeded in collapsing all distinction between judaism and zionism..for you? do you agree Judaism and Zionism have become inextricably entangled?
shmuel, is there no distinction in your mind between Zionism and Judaism?
No, I think there is a chasm between Judaism and Zionism - despite intensive efforts by Zionists (and some anti-Semites) to create the impression that they are one and the same.
Has communal Judaism been corrupted by Zionism? Tragically, yes. Those of us who actively reject Zionism on ethical, spiritual and religious grounds often find it difficult to participate in mainstream Jewish cultural, intellectual and religious life - except in the narrow context of anti-Zionism and Palestinian solidarity. In that sense, anti-Zionism has also become "entangled" with Judaism.
Post-Zionist Judaism will not only have to replace Israel (and the Holocaust) as exclusive or predominant components of Jewish identity and expression, but will also have to deal with the challenges of modernity that Zionism has, to a large extent, put on hold.
Would you regard these to be true or untrue statements?
1. I would say that the bulk of the various Jewish religious establishments – from Jewish Renewal to Lubavitch (mutatis mutandis) – have largely embraced Jewish nationalism and made it an integral part of their respective religious cultures and belief systems. So I'd opt for “mostly true”.
2. Tautology. Of course Jewish religious Zionism is grounded in elements of Jewish religious tradition. As a matter of fact, so is secular Zionism. Both groups however, have stressed those elements of tradition that reinforce their beliefs (Zionist and otherwise), reinterpreting, reinventing or discarding those that don't. Both groups are also products of modernity, grounded in modern myths, symbols, beliefs and themes. If you are referring to the Gush Emunim variety of religious Zionism, they certainly go to great lengths to find “Jewish” roots for all of their beliefs and actions. The views of "progressive" (e.g. Reform) religious Zionists on the other hand, are virtually indistinguishable from those of their secular Zionist counterparts.
Note, also, how this knowledgeable character equated the kipa with the keffiyeh
Noted.
As long as you're here ...
The Hebrew root ḥmṣ has to do with fermentation (hence leaven, vinegar, acid, sour, etc.). In Arabic, I understand it has to do with baking or roasting. Is that correct? If so, the connection between the two is obvious (in Aramaic, it also means "heat").
By the way, we grew chickpeas in our garden this year, and the fresh pods had a distinct, sour, lemony taste :-)
that’s my family’s experience with ‘white’ solidarity, aviG. they were ‘stupid f*cking pollaks’ when my grandparents came to the US in the 20s
And on your dad's side, "nègres blancs d'Amérique du Nord", n'est-ce pas?
This is one of the most quintessentially Zionist comments I've seen here in a while.
The Hebrew word for chickpea, "himtzah", is a modern, invented word, based on the Aramaic "himtza" (final aleph, rather than heh) and the Arabic "hummus" (the invented Hebrew word is hardly ever used in Israeli Hebrew, which simply uses the Arabic). A modern interpretation of the two biblical verses AbeBird cites suggests that such a Hebrew word for chickpea may have existed in ancient Hebrew, although there is no indication in the verses themselves or elsewhere in the Bible or post-biblical Hebrew literature that this is indeed the case. Traditional commentators (including Arabic-speakers such as Abraham Ibn Ezra and David Kimhi - who actually cites an Arabic cognate in his interpretation of Ruth 2:14, but not the word for chickpea!) offered other explanations of the verses in question.
So what we have here is the tangible reality of an element of Palestinian Arab culture (and Arab culture generally) countered by invented mythology desperately trying to "prove" a more ancient and thus (at least by implication) superior claim to that element: romantic fantasy attempting to trump reality. (Note also the attempt to link all Jews to "ancient peoples" of the region, while stressing the extraneity of the Johnny-come-lately "Saudi Arabian invaders".)
Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin has referred to this "denial of reality" in favour of invented mythology/eschatology, as a central element of Zionist thought and Israeli policy.
Interestingly, the entry for "himtzah" in Even Shoshan's classic Hebrew dictionary notes that it is consumed "particularly among Mizrahi Jews [edot ha-mizrah] and Arabs", concluding with the colloquial "houmous" and a transcription of the Arabic word from which it derives.
To better understand the Ma'aleh Adumim (or East Jerusalem to Jericho) settlement strategy, it's worth reading this B'tselem-Bimkom report from 2009, entitled "The Hidden Agenda: The Establishment and Expansion Plans of Ma'ale Adummim and their Human Rights Ramifications": link to btselem.org
A look at the Peace Now "Settlement Map" wouldn't hurt either (paying particular attention to the area around Jerusalem and between Jerusalem and Jericho): link to peacenow.org
A north-south "corridor" or tunnel or helicopter shuttle service or giant catapult won't change the reality of the division of the West Bank (at least) in two, or the isolation of East Jerusalem from the West Bank - on all sides. This strategy has been promoted by Israeli governments since Oslo, particularly the Sharon, Olmert and Netanyahu governments, with an eye to annexation of as much land as possible, stretching toward Jericho (note, in particular, the route of the separation wall, stretching as far east as Alon [East of Kfar Adumim], areas of settlement jurisdiction, and settlement roads).
And a recent B'tselem summary of the impact of E1 (including the question of a "single access road" between the northern and southern West Bank): link to btselem.org
But isn’t it interesting that there is a fine line (if a line at all) between the simple truth of the statement and its sheer offensiveness?
The interesting part lies in its perception as offensive and refusal to let it slide. Livnat's statement is not only reality, but it has always been the stated position of virtually all Zionist leaders. It is only over the past 20 years or so that publicly contesting it and striving for something else has become acceptable - among Israeli Palestinians (see Rabinowitz and Abu Baker's Coffins on Our Shoulders - original Hebrew title The Stand Tall Generation ), and among "radical" Jews.
In any event, Nima’s point, that more and more radical discourse is becoming the norm, even among such “liberals” as Yehoshua, is unfortunately quite persuasive.
"Radical discourse", in the sense of racist, ethnocentric discourse, has always been the bread and butter of Zionism - including and perhaps especially "liberal" or Labour Zionism (with a brief toning down during the early Oslo years). The right may be a little less self-conscious than it used to be, but that's what comes with power. I think the real change has been in attitudes to dissent and practical measures against dissent, within Jewish Israeli society. I see no change in Yehoshua, who I find an amazingly brilliant and sensitive novelist, but a lousy political analyst and even lousier human being.