Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 755 (since 2012-06-27 14:34:05)

Stephen Shenfield

Stephen Shenfield is a British-born writer. After several years as a government statistician, he entered the field of Soviet Studies. He was active in the nuclear disarmament movement. Later he came to the U.S. and taught International Relations at Brown University. He is the author of Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements (M.E. Sharpe, 2001). He now works as an independent researcher and translator. He is a member of the World Socialist Movement. A collection of his writings is on his new website at


Showing comments 755 - 701

  • Why did Herzog run scared? He fears the Israeli people
    • The "political activists" who staged the assassination of Kennedy were people inside the US political and security establishment itself. There is plenty of evidence for that.

      Members of the Israeli security establishment were also implicated in Rabin's assassination, if only by not acting decisively to prevent it. This is an important aspect of the situation that intimidated Herzog. He does not fear the Israeli people as a whole but a section of the Israeli people and, above all, a section of the Israeli power elite.

  • Apartheid is no longer verboten word for Israel in 'NYT' and 'CNN'
    • Ramzi: Is this really the first time you have felt disgust at Zionism? What did you feel before? After all, there has been so much to feel disgusted at in Zionism, and for such a long time already.

  • 'Do US Jews need a Jewish state for our safety?' debate begins in wake of Netanyahu victory
    • Marcus Garvey didn't think up the idea of resettling black Americans in Africa. He just elaborated it. The idea had already long been promoted by white racists (including Lincoln and other opponents of slavery) and was embodied in the new settler state of Liberia. The black American settlers and their white American backers did not treat the native people all that well, and the legacy of the experiment is still a factor in Liberia's internal divisions.

  • Meet the Knesset members from the Joint List
    • I noticed that the official name is simply the Joint (or United) List. It is not in principle an Arab list. It contains one Jew and in future there may be more, especially if it aims to attract more Jewish voters. So let us call it by its correct name, without the qualifier "Arab."

  • Who can save Israel now?
    • No coalition of parties that Herzog could gather could reach the 61 seats needed for a majority, even if the Joint List were included. Zionist Camp 24 + Meretz 4 + Yesh Atid 11 = 39. Adding the 14 seats of the Joint List brings that up to only 53. Where would the other 8 seats come from? Kahlon's Kulanu will certainly not join such a coalition. So it would need BOTH the religious parties. That too is hard to imagine.

  • Why I hope Netanyahu will be crushed tonight
  • Separating anti-Semitism from anti-Zionism
    • "It is quite possible for an anti-Semite to be a Zionist – he may think that what is wrong with the Jewish condition arises from Jews’ having often been strangers in our midst and that Zionism has a chance of putting these things right."

      Herzl himself initiated the tactic of appealing to anti-Semites to support Zionism. He went off to Russia to see Plehve, the interior minister and a notorious anti-Semite, and tell him: "I understand that you want to be rid of your Jews. I can help you achieve that. Help me to help you." And Plehve listened and helped. Some of Herzl's colleagues in the nascent Zionist movement were shocked by this tactic, but the collaboration between Zionists and anti-Semites continued and expanded.

      The politics of the issue of allowing Soviet Jews to emigrate to Israel is indicative in this regard. There was a Palestinian student in Moscow who tried to persuade influential Soviet figures to block Jewish emigration. He got nowhere, especially with the Russian nationalists, who told him: "We too don't like the Jews and for that reason we are glad to be rid of them." Conversely, a lot of the opposition to allowing Jews to leave came from officials who were not in the least anti-Semitic and did not want to lose the contribution that Soviet Jews made to the country's economy, science and culture.

  • Israel's Foreign Minister calls for beheading Arab citizens and it's not anywhere in the New York Times
    • I have noticed that Zoabi is a favorite target of Zionist hate speech. There was a recent report on Ynet about an election meeting at an Israeli college where Zoabi was on the panel and a student came up and poured a soft drink over Zoabi's head. Commenting on this report, one student with a Jewish name at en elite high school in Philadelphia says what a pity that it wasn't gasoline poured on her head. Another says what a pity it wasn't acid. A third clearly hints that she should be killed. I fear she will be killed before long, as Zoabi does not seem to have bodyguards and is constantly exposing herself to the malice of a hostile Jewish public.

  • Two-state-solution is at last disputed in Israeli elections (though not 'nation state of the Jewish people')
    • There are a lot of Zionists who are themselves completely non-religious but strongly identify with an ethnic group they call "the Jewish people" (whether or not others accept that such a thing exists or is even possible). They passionately resent the power of the Orthodox rabbinate in Israeli society. Their trouble is that they are unable to think up any alternative non-religious definition of Jewishness that is precise and verifiable enough to be used for legal and bureaucratic purposes in maintaining the "Jewish character" of the state. Therefore they have to rely on the rabbis to do this job for them, much as they hate doing so. It is this that explains the apparent paradox of atheists creating a state based on religion.

      The secular Zionists also needed the religious Zionists to form a governing coalition, but that is a more superficial, secondary factor: the crucial point lies deeper.

      I'd like to add that I didn't work this out for myself -- I am drawing on the analysis pioneered by the anti-Zionist Israeli organization Matzpen.

  • 'NYT' reports 'surge of hostile sentiment against Jews' nationwide -- on what basis?
    • Why? Different propaganda lines serve different purposes. There is no need for consistency. It has nothing to do with their minds.

      As I keep on saying, Zionists are addicted to anti-Semitism. They crave it. Their deepest anxieties about the survival of Jewish identity arise out of the near-absence of anti-Semitism in Western societies. Talk of a "surge" of anti-Semitism is a sort of magical spell by means of which they hope to conjure more anti-Semitism into existence.

  • Netanyahu speech was 'very dark day for American democracy' -- Matthews
    • "Any compassionate person must acknowledge the profound injury to the collective psyche even 70 years later."

      No. Why does a compassionate person even have to acknowledge that there exists such a thing as a Jewish "collective psyche"? Unless he or she happens to believe in the constructs of Jungian psychology. Let us talk about the real psyches of individual human beings.

      We have already repeatedly discussed on this site the methods by which the appearance of a collective Jewish psyche is sustained over the generations. Shouldn't that make us aware that it is indeed only an appearance? Phil, you thoughtlessly surrender to the key concept of tribal collectivism, then you hasten to add your "and yet" -- but too late. It is as though you open the treasure house of the Enlightenment to the marauding tribalists and then beg them: please don't take everything, leave a little bit behind.

  • Over one quarter of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress consisted of applause and standing ovations
    • lysias -- no, he says (if I hear him right): "Da, dostatochno." It's at link to

    • In "The Gulag Archipelago" Solzhenitsyn describes how the mayor of a small town was sent to the Gulag for being the first to stop the applause at a meeting in honor of Stalin's birthday. This was after the ovation had already continued for 20 minutes.

      A bell or buzzer might be used to stop applause. I just watched a video of Stalin being applauded at the Bolshoi Theater in 1937. After several minutes in which repeated ringing of a bell fails to stop the applause -- when it dies down someone else always rises to shout "Ura!" and set it going again -- Stalin himself intervenes, you can hear him shout "Enough!" and motion with his hand.

  • Netanyahu's speech and the American Jewish condition
    • Well said.

      Many American Jews who claim to be traumatized by the Holocaust despite the lack of any real personal connection to it are indeed traumatized -- let us grant them that much. Not by the Holocaust itself, however, but by a CULT of the Holocaust that deliberately perpetuates and sanctifies the horrifying images of that receding fragment of the past.

      This cult exploits the not very well known phenomenon of secondary trauma -- the trauma induced by witnessing the suffering of others. For example, journalists, aid workers, and other outsiders in a zone of war, plague or famine are often traumatized by what they see. This is why we should not allow children to view graphic films of such horrors, although this is precisely what "educators" working for the Holocaust Cult do (so that they will "know who they are").

      It has been frequently pointed out that with the decline of religious faith the Holocaust and Israel have become central to (post-?)Jewish identity. And within this recast identity the Holocaust has come to occupy the leading role, with Israel assigned the derivative roles of refuge from the last Holocaust (though it wasn't) and beachhead for desperate resistance to the Holocaust-to-come. So except for surviving old-timers like our good friend Mooser it is now adequate to define "Jew" as "a victim and perpetuator of the Holocaust Cult."

    • Dammit, it's already after 12. I missed the free offer!

  • Leading NY institutions discuss the Nakba -- and there is not a Palestinian in sight
    • Shapira is right to say that in the 1940s the expulsion of populations was still widely regarded as a "normal phenomenon" and aroused less indignation than it does now. However, things were already starting to change in that respect and the best people of the time were greatly distressed by and denounced all these "transfers" -- not only in the case of Palestine. Thus the Mahatma made a last-ditch effort to head off the partition of the Indian Raj because he realized what it would entail in human suffering. The British (and Jewish) left-wing publisher Victor Gollancz went against the stream to protest against the expulsion of Germans from the East and other cruel treatment of Germans during the Allied occupation of Germany (although he finally proved unable to resist Zionism).

      By contrast, Stalin and the Soviet leadership at the time were quite happy with the expulsion of the Palestinians. A Soviet representative even suggested that they be resettled in Soviet Central Asia. This is hardly surprising in view of the fact that Stalin -- in addition to bearing much of the responsibility for the expulsion of Germans from the East -- had already expelled numerous ethnic communities to Central Asia during the war, just a few years before.

      So I would ask Shapira and her ilk -- are you satisfied to line up with Stalin and against the most decent people of the time?

  • Netanyahu speech is 'destructive' of 'bipartisan, immutable relationship' between US and Israel, Rice says
    • So Netanyahu was afraid to visit Britain out of fear of arrest. His visit to Washington provides an excellent opportunity to arrest him there. I suggest that in order to maximize the dramatic effect he be arrested and taken away in handcuffs just as he is about to address the Congress.

  • The 15 billion dollar deal that will make or break Israel's regional hegemony
    • The world urgently needs to switch from hydrocarbons, including gas, to renewable energy in order to bring global heating under control. I would have thought this would be an especially urgent imperative for a country like Jordan, which already has very high summer temperatures. And Jordan surely also has plenty of terrain that is suitable for the collection of solar energy.

  • Cycle '48: Remapping the Nakba
    • The erasure of Palestinian history is not as coherent as it might have been. The Zionists could have blown up all the remaining ruins, but even after all these decades they haven't done so. It was from those ruins that I discovered the Nakba while hiking in my youth. I reflected then that if they had systematically destroyed the ruins I would not have sussed out what had happened. I am still curious as to why they haven't done that. I suspect they simply can't be bothered. After all, they themselves can't "see" the ruins before their eyes and they may assume that no one else can either (except for Palestinians, I suppose, but they don't matter).

  • Racism is in the air: Video showing racist exchange between Israelis and a flight attendant goes viral
    • I have a vague childhood memory of a teacher at cheder (Jewish religious school) -- I think she was an Israeli -- referring to a badly behaved child as a "lobbus" (Yiddish for "little monster"). Her tone was one of affectionate amusement rather than condemnation.

  • Jewish groups that blindly support Israel make US and European Jews potential victims of violence -- Avnery
    • A crucial part of the Zionist project has always been to create the "new Jew" who would be the opposite of the despised "old Jew" of the diaspora. The old Jew was polite, peaceful, submissive to authority, so the new Jew was brought up to be rude, aggressive, etc.

    • They have a long history of "sacrificing a few of their co-ethnics to further their agenda" or even more than a few if "necessary." In order to create and populate their "Jewish state" they did all they could to block schemes to save European Jews that would have meant taking them to countries other than Palestine, killed Jews (as well as non-Jews) in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, assassinated Jews (as well as non-Jews) trying to achieve an insufficiently Zionist resolution of the conflict, blew up Jewish cafes in Egypt and Iraq to stampede Jews to Israel, etc. etc.

  • Is flying a nationalist flag ever a progressive act?
    • "For Palestine and the Palestinians anything and everything." What does that mean? That any means chosen by Palestinians are justified in such a noble cause? That could lead to some rather paradoxical conclusions. For example, Palestinian conservatives might insist that upholding traditional values, even by such means as "honor" killings, is essential to the Palestinian cause, while Palestinian feminists might be equally insistent that changing those values is essential to the same cause. So in that controversy one would have to support both sides.

      However much we may sympathize with the plight of any group, such carte-blanche indulgence is potentially dangerous and does them no real service. Many well-meaning people used to extend the same sort of indulgence to oppressed Jews and Zionism got enormous benefits from that uncritical solidarity.

  • One-state 'fantasy is very dangerous' because it cannot tell us what the military looks like -- Manekin
    • I agree that if you take the current state of opinion as a given, as Jeff does, then no solution is possible. That is because at core the conflict is not about how many states there should be, what they should be called, or their cultural orientation. It is about whether the century-long process of dispossession of Palestinians by Zionist Jews should continue, be frozen, or at least partly reversed. Even the most moderate Palestinians insist on partial reversal and most Jews are unwilling to accept that.

      Jeff hides behind majority Jewish opinion as though it were a fixed objective constraint that has to be recognized. In fact, that majority consists of individual Jeffs who are free to change their opinions. If Jeff were to take a clear stand against the majority instead of using it as an excuse then he would be contributing to the needed change.

    • The future state could be called Palestine and its citizens, including its Jewish citizens, would then be called Palestinians, as was the generally accepted usage under the British Mandate.

      Manekin and Beinart's position seems to me contradictory. On the one hand, they complain that the advocates of a 1SS have not worked out their ideas in sufficient depth and detail, implying that if they did do this those ideas might be worthy of consideration (otherwise why go to the trouble?). On the other hand, they know in advance that "trying to be creative" is a waste of time. If all aspects of a 1SS were fully worked out would they then consider it? Of course not.

      My impression is that their claim that "virtually no Palestinians are interested in it" (a 1SS) is now incorrect.

  • A place where Palestine doesn't exist (Notes from a Zionist education)
    • This fascinating scientific digression could be avoided by following Swift's Gulliver's Travels and having the two tribes differ on which end they break open eggs. Are you a big ender or a little ender?

    • Up to 1939 the Nazi regime allowed the German Zionists to run youth camps in Germany to train young Jews for aliyah under the Transfer Agreement. There were indeed many similarities between the Nazi and Zionist youth movements, though that doesn't necessarily mean that they were copying one another. Rather, both had their roots in the broader European culture of romantic and militaristic nationalism that arose earlier in the century. There are also links to the British imperialist youth movement, the Boy Scouts.

  • Are supporters of Palestinians using the power of shame to its potential?
    • First on the difference between shame and guilt. Shame is what you feel when you look bad in the eyes of others -- not any and all others, but others whose opinion of you matters to you. Guilt is what you feel when you look bad to yourself.

      "Pure" Zionists cannot be made to feel shame or guilt because both they and the others whose opinion matters to them see nothing wrong in mistreating Palestinians. But many Jews, especially in countries with a liberal culture like the US, are "mixed" Zionists and the contradiction between their Zionism and their more humane attitudes can be used to induce shame or guilt. That shame or guilt may not translate into immediate action because the impulse is paralyzed by contrary fears and feelings. Such conflicted individuals may feel caught in a Catch-22 situation: if they act as good Zionists they will feel shame before one set of people; if they oppose Zionism they will feel shame before another set of people. They also feel guilt in both cases, as the self is divided. There is a chance that they will break the impasse by reconfiguring the self and ceasing to care about the opinion of those who are holding them back.

      The reader can work out the practical implications of this model. For example, whether you are able to induce shame in a particular individual depends on whether you are -- or can make yourself into -- a person whose opinion matters to him/her.

  • The left needs to stop hounding Elizabeth Warren on Palestine, says Warren supporter
    • It is impertinent for voters to want to know where a presidential candidate stands on important public issues. We shall be informed in due course, at an appropriate time. In the meantime we should decide whether to support a candidate on the basis of how we like the look of her face and the sound of her voice. In any case, it is futile to know a candidate's positions because they are bound to change, perhaps repeatedly.

  • A cosmopolitan's regrets: Roger Cohen on the Jewish condition
    • 1. Not all Jewish families' stories ended in Zionism. Therefore it was not inexorable.

      2. Is feeling comfortable really the most important thing in life, overriding all else?

      3. The world being as it is, isn't there something wrong with a person who can feel totally comfortable in it?

      4. Surely anti-Semitism is not the only thing that can make a Jew uncomfortable? But if there are other sources of discomfort, then won't they be present in Israel too?

  • Ari Shavit pimps AIPAC in Scarsdale
    • Why then didn't he say "moderate Moslem"? Not all Sunnis are pro-American, are they? Al-Qaeda is Sunni. I expect he wanted to convey the impression of being knowledgeable about the Moslem world.

  • New leftwing anti-semitism is when Jews feel 'attacked' over Israel's conduct
    • The British institute seems to be saying that something is anti-Semitic if it makes a sufficiently large percentage of Jews FEEL under attack, if they FEEL that it is anti-Semitic. The criticism does not have to be intended as an attack on Jews; there does not have to be any rational basis to the feeling -- it suffices that the feeling exists (or, rather, that these Jews SAY they feel that way). The assessment depends on an inner state that no one else is in a position to verify. It amounts to claiming the right to censor as illegitimate anything you want to censor, without providing any further rationale.

  • One state in historic Palestine, but -- what kind of state?
    • I'm just warning what may happen unless more attention is paid to the economic aspects of a democratic single-state solution.

    • What basically happened in South Africa is that a deal was brokered between the ANC and the white corporate and landowning elites (and behind them the institutions of global capitalism) by which formal political equality was established but existing property relations were left untouched. The abolition of apartheid could be regarded as a first step toward a just solution; the problem was that the first step was made strictly conditional on no further steps being taken.

      At a certain stage in the Palestinian struggle something similar might happen in Palestine/Israel. Those Palestinians who do not have formal political rights would receive them, but subject to built-in constraints on their use -- for instance, severely limiting the restoration of former Palestinian land rights. These constraints might be justified in terms of partly preserving the Jewish character of the state (a sort of minimal or watered-down Zionism). The formal right of return might even be ceded, in the knowledge that only a few Palestinians would have access to the means of livelihood (land, capital, jobs) needed to exercise the right of return and actually resettle in Palestine.

      An example of such a constrained right of return is the situation of the Crimean Tatars deported from Crimea in 1944. They were eventually allowed to return to Crimea but not to their old houses and lands, which remained in the possession of the families (mainly Russian) that took their place after the deportation. They are still confined to marginal land and eke out a bare subsistence.

      So it would make sense to work out an alternative to this scenario in advance -- some arrangement that would be a little less unjust while still not hopelessly unrealistic.

  • Chair of Democratic National Committee opposes Jewish intermarriage and MSNBC showing Gaza carnage
    • It's hard to imagine only because real anti-Semitism is nowadays so marginal in US politics (and the difficulty of imagining it is a good sign of that marginality). But there are people who fear the dissolution of WASP identity and intermarriage is on the list of things they worry about, though not very high on the list compared to Hispanic immigration, say. And some of them perceive intermarriage with Jews as having a specially corrupting effect.

    • The Zionists WANT to be "hated for what they are." They are addicted to anti-Semitism. They crave it. It confirms and strengthens their ideology. When they say "we are hated for what we are" they are actually pleading: "Please, please, please hate us for what we are, as you did in the good old days, so that we do not have to look critically at what we do."

      Loving them may not help, but hating them entrenches their delusions more deeply. The best response is: "We do not hate YOU. We hate what you DO" -- because that directly challenges their delusion about why they are hated. (Isn't there a Christian saying about "hating the sin not the sinner?")

  • Charlie Hebdo: The sacred of the 'wretched of the Earth' and its desecration
    • I accept the need to be tactful and respectful of others' sacredness and especially the sacredness of the oppressed and colonized. But can we also acknowledge that who is oppressed and colonized and who is oppressor and colonizer varies over space and time? Before the Spanish conquest the Incas were themselves colonizers, so were the Arabians at the time of Islam's ascendancy. And even today the Christians of Pakistan, for example, are oppressed by supposedly Moslem rulers. Pakistani Christians punished on false charges of insulting the Prophet would be surprised to learn that this is not prohibited. What the author says is perfectly valid for the here and now of France or the US, but we shall never understand our situation if we remain wholly anchored in the here and now. People are inevitably influenced by what they know of other places and remember of other times.

  • How Rahat became a symbol of Israeli inequality
    • Masada was a victory -- over the greater evil of enslavement. At any rate that is how Israelis see it. Soldiers take their oath there (or used to). American soldiers do not take their oath at Waco. At some level the Israelis know that mass murder-suicide is the logical culmination of Zionism, as Masada was of the revolt against Rome. That is no reason to renounce Zionism because it is also a glorious culmination -- as glorious as the murder-suicide of any Moslem jihadi.

  • Phila Inquirer publishes a lie: 'Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same'
  • How a culture remembers its crimes is important: A review of 'American Sniper'
    • It reminds me of a point Chomsky often made about the American war in Vietnam. The establishment consider It permissible to question American competence and good judgment, provided the assumption that the US has good intentions is maintained.

  • Diaspora Jews are not in 'exile,' they are at home
  • #JeSuisUnJuifBritannique
    • It's very hard to disentangle the "ethnic" from the "religious." Historically Jewish identity is so deeply immersed in religion that even atheists who wish to preserve a Jewish identity are forced back into religious practices. For instance, my father, who did not believe in God and thought of himself as a communist, nonetheless had me circumcised (under the false guise of a medical procedure). He paid a considerable sum each year to reserve a good seat in the synagogue (just in case he might want to go, as he explained) but never went. Both my sister and I married non-Jews: our parents accepted it but did not hide the fact that they would have been happier if we had married "Jews" (ideally atheist Jews, of course). None of these contradictions is in the least atypical. Opinion surveys are quite incapable of probing them, only in-depth interviewing, preferably under hypnosis, might do so.

    • Cohen's "loyalty to Israel" should not be taken at face value. It is probably just a rhetorical device to deflect Zionist ire (safer to preface criticism with "I love Israel but").

      My impression from living the first 40 years of my life in Britain (which I agree is basically a very tolerant society, certainly from a comparative perspective) is that mainstream British Jews want to be loyal to both Britain and Israel at the same time. They are British patriots and Zionists simultaneously. This is a totally illogical stance, but there you are.

      On the historical evolution, my impression (e.g., from talking with my parents) is that Zionism initially took hold among British Jews with some difficulty. One major reason was that their loyalties were torn by the conflict between the British mandatory authorities in Palestine and the Zionist underground. Most were shocked by the blowing up of the King David Hotel and other acts of Zionist terrorism.

    • Not only do Yorkshire and Lancashire people tend to be very different in character, but the War of the Roses between York and Lancaster is still fresh in their minds, having ended a mere half a millennium ago (in 1487). Give them time.

  • ICC opens war crimes inquiry into Israel over Gaza war as Palestinians prepare another UN resolution
    • "Peace requires compromise." So if Israel already possesses, say, 90 percent of Palestine, the Palestinians must agree to a settlement that gives Israel 95 percent. If in the meantime Israel grabs some more and reaches, say, 98 percent, leaving only 2 percent, then the Palestinians must agree to make do with just 1 percent. Only a fanatic would object.

      Clausewitz pointed out that the occupier always wants peace, which he interprets as submission to occupation.

  • It's not the cartoons-- a contrarian perspective from a Muslim cartoonist
    • The cartoon as a genre has a long tradition of making the target look ugly and repulsive. It is not a form of rational criticism but relies on inducing a feeling of disgust in the reader. The whole tradition is one of bigotry. Katie Miranda's cartoons do not belong to this tradition. Her drawings are emotionally neutral. Her aim is to make the reader think.

    • Abu Bakr announced the death of Mohamed in the following words: "Let those who worship Mohamed know that Mohamed is dead. Let those who worship God know that God will never die."

  • Netanyahu crashes Paris unity march, French gov't fumes
    • I agree. Doesn't France have border controls? Why didn't Hollande issue instructions that no Israelis should be allowed entry until after the march? Or better still he could have used the opportunity to arrest Netanyahu and put him on trial.

  • 'With God’s help, the journalists at Haaretz will be murdered just like in France': Death threats follow publication of cartoon in Israeli newspaper
    • In response to Keith: I'm not sure. The English are (relatively) tolerant but that doesn't mean they lack internal cohesion. I think intolerance reflects a sense of being under constant threat, which is a form of weakness not strength.

    • "Tribe" is a technical term in anthropology, like clan, caste, etc. If it applies why not use it? Nowadays tribalism is regarded as passé if not regressive, so it is rarely used in a positive sense, whether in reference to Jews or not.

  • A tale of two tests
    • But if non-government terrorists come to power they can then retroactively legitimize their past terrorism. So if you are going in for terrorism it is best to make it succeed. "Treason never prospers because if it prospers none dare call it treason" (Hamlet, I think).

  • Jo Roberts on Jewish trauma, the Nakba, and the olive tree
    • Ultimately, given the dense intermixture and interdependence of the two peoples in a single territory, I don't see how they can manage without a common narrative. Certainly a single democratic secular nation would require such a narrative in order to avoid the Lebanese scenario. Allowing space for two narratives is a step toward their integration into a single narrative. Ilan Pappe has made a first attempt at combining the narratives in his History of Palestine. The main prerequisite is for people to see themselves first and foremost as human beings and only after that as Jews, Arabs, and whatnot.

  • Hillel exec likens Open Hillel to biblical rebel against Moses who was swallowed up by the earth
    • Aaron and Miriam also questioned Moses' authority by opposing his marriage to a Cushite (Ethiopian) woman. Miriam was punished with a nasty skin disease but God made her well again after seven days when Moses interceded for her. Aaron wasn't punished at all. It seems a bit excessive in this context for Korach to have been swallowed up alive, but then unlike Aaron and Miriam he wasn't related to Moses.

      What does Mr. Fingerhut think about intermarriage? I would expect that as a Zionist and tribalist he would be on the side of Aaron and Miriam. But that would mean that he too questions Moses' authority and is hardly in a position to condemn Korach.

  • Anti-Semitism at Fordham?
    • Anger, fear, joy, anxiety etc. -- those are feelings. But "being a victim of antisemitism" is not a feeling (though no doubt it is accompanied by feelings): it is a perception. Feelings are subjective, but perceptions are beliefs about reality and are open to criticism as such. "I feel that I am being a victim of antisemitism" confuses the two concepts; the sentence should start "I think" or "I believe."

Showing comments 755 - 701