Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 549 (since 2011-03-04 04:19:18)

Thomson Rutherford

male, Anglo-American, over 50

Showing comments 549 - 501
Page: 6 5 4 3 2 1

• One state solution featured on NPR and in Carter 'IHT' Op-Ed
  • Thomson Rutherford April 13, 2012 at 2:55 am

    O.K., the well-connected Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman is featured again today in the op-ed pages of the NYT, our 'national newspaper-of-record', and its sister publication, the International Herald Tribune. Entitled "Beware of Faulty Intelligence," the article notifies the American public that war with Iran is imminent - once again.
    link to nytimes.com

    So nice of the Times to be so accommodating of the Israeli propaganda machine.

• Grass smears in 'Times', plus new translation of his 'I've had it with the West's hypocrisy' poem
  • Thomson Rutherford April 8, 2012 at 12:27 am

    ... a country whose leader has threatened it, referring to it as a “cancer” that must be “wiped off the map” ....

    Annie, if you don't know yet that the "must be wiped off the map" part (as a minimum) of this statement is not true, I suggest you also might do some rethinking or at least re-reading on the subject.

    The meaning of your comment on the whole seems obscure to me. Can you clarify it if you are planning to write further about it, as you say?

  • Thomson Rutherford April 7, 2012 at 11:56 pm

    What's wrong with the messenger? I don't see it.

  • Thomson Rutherford April 7, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    ... German silence in the face of Israeli wrongs, because of the preemptive operation of self-censorship through an accurate awareness of guilt.

    Accurate? With few exceptions, present-day Germans are not guilty of events that happened 67+ years ago. Get over it, people! Stop letting industrial-grade accusers send you on that guilt trip for their own nefarious purposes.

• The intellectual cowardice of Günter Grass’s critics
  • Thomson Rutherford April 7, 2012 at 2:36 am

    This furiously continuing flap demonstrates once again, as if we needed any more illustrations, the extraordinarily powerful influence that Jews have over the media. Certainly, the New York Times doesn't want to let it die. I'm sure that doesn't surprise Guenter Grass.
    link to nytimes.com

• With 'last ink,' Gunter Grass breaks silence on Israeli nuclear program threatening world peace
  • Thomson Rutherford April 6, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    ... most German soldiers were NOT members of the Nazi Party, but most were racist. Likely Grass was too, at 17 years of age.

    Colin, I'm curious about your two statements above which I highlighted in bold. Do you mean 'racist like most Europeans - and Americans- were in those days'? Do you mean German soldiers, through effects of (supposed) special political indoctrination, were more racist/anti-Semitic than the German (or, say, Polish) general populations? I rather doubt that, but would appreciate your mentioning any specific references that address the point.

    Can you share any insights you might have into the racial attitudes of one Guenter Grass around the age of 17, near the end of the war?

  • Thomson Rutherford April 5, 2012 at 11:19 pm

    i meant during the war thomson, were their other german soldiers besides nazis?

    Annie, surely you jest?

    During WWII approx. 18 million men (not all of them German nationals or ethnic German) served in the Wehrmacht (combined German armed forces - army, navy, and air force). Conscription of German nationals into the Wehrmacht began (actually was resumed in violation of the Treaty of Versailles) in 1935, and this conscription of Germans and foreign nationals under German control continued throughout the war (1939-45). It has been my understanding that the great majority of men serving in the Wehrmacht during the war, including German nationals, were conscripts - not volunteers. All German nationals upon entering the Wehrmacht were required to swear personal loyalty to the Fuhrer (Hitler). I don't know if this requirement was imposed on all non-Germans serving. Except for a relative few, there was no requirement to join the Nazi Party, swear loyalty to it, or identify with its ideology.

    The Waffen-Schutzstaffel (weaponized arm of the SS) stood apart organizationally from the Wehrmacht, though it was integrated operationally under control of the Wehrmacht Supreme High Command (topped by Hitler). About 1 million men served in the Waffen-SS during the war, many of them foreign nationals. In total, about one-fifth of the W-SS during the war were conscripts. Conscription into the W-SS began in 1942-43, depending on the type of unit. All officers in the Waffen-SS were required to swear loyalty to Adolf Hitler by name - not to the Nazi Party or its political ideology. However, I feel sure that a greater percentage of the German-national officer corps in the W-SS chose to belong to the Nazi Party, as compared to the Wehrmacht officer corps.

    Guenter Grass, as I understand it, was a conscript into the Waffen-SS at age 17, not a volunteer. At the end of the war boys 14 and younger were found fighting in the Wehrmacht in defense of the Heimat. Nazis?

    P.S. in edit: I notice now a few others have already answered you. Should have saved the effort. :-)

  • Thomson Rutherford April 5, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    weren’t german men in decent health all nazis?

    Actually, no. The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (abbr. NSDAP, short form NAZI) was an established political party in Germany, and a party member might be called a 'Nazi'. Alternately and more weakly, since the term 'Nazism' refers to the fascist political ideology of the 'Nazi' party, 'Nazi' might mean any adherent to that ideology. From my 12 years of living in Germany and my study of German history, it has been my understanding that a majority of German men during the period of Nazi government were probably not 'Nazis' in either of the above senses.

    It was also my understanding that Guenter Grass was never a Nazi in either of the above senses. Can anyone cite evidence to the contrary?

• The liberal Zionist predicament
  • Thomson Rutherford April 5, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    David, congrats on an outstanding post, very well written.

    But I agree with Sin Nombre's comment. Just as "Jewish and democratic state" is an oxymoron, so is the term 'liberal Zionist'. One cannot be a liberal in the American sense and accept the racist and theocratic premises of Israeli Zionism. Therein lies only political Zionism, no liberalism. Just call them Zionists and avoid confusion.

  • Thomson Rutherford April 5, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Toivo, oops! Sorry, strike my first sentence above. I momentarily got you confused with another commenter.

  • Thomson Rutherford April 5, 2012 at 3:25 pm

    ToivoS, you seem to have stuck your foot in it again for want of doing your homework.

    I wonder if you understand how 'liberal' politics in the U.S. works. Jewish people would have pressured a group of Palestinian writers to dismiss Atzmon precisely because he a Jewish problem - for them. And don't think they lack the wherewithal to do it.

• Beinart gets a Jewish conversation going in the media (just don't call us a cabal)
  • Thomson Rutherford April 5, 2012 at 12:35 am

    Thanks, gazacalling, for the clarification. I like your moniker, by the way. You may be one of the few commenters here who don't have a partisan attitude, one way or the other, about the I/P conflict. At this blog I think most people root for the underdog.

  • Thomson Rutherford April 4, 2012 at 6:04 pm with 26 replies

    I criticize Israel a) because US policy is directly involved, and 2) because I love Israel. I always try to emphasize that. It’s about Israel’s long-term best interests.

    gazacalling, I am curious about your nom des discours. You give no information about yourself (your right), so I would like to ask if you are actually 'calling' from Gaza. Do you live there, permanently or temporarily? Really? Do you work for an aid organization from within Gaza? Or are you simply wishing to suggest empathy for the Gazan's plight while declaring your undying love for their oppressors?

• My spirit is American (a religious manifesto)
  • Thomson Rutherford April 4, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    I’m talking tactics here, the most effective way to oppose occupation.

    Sorry, hophmi, but if you are suggesting that you are looking for effective ways to oppose the opposition your statement is not credible. If that's the interpretation you want me to give it, it reads like pure subterfuge.

  • Thomson Rutherford April 3, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    From hophni: Peter can accomplish more by focusing on changing the policies rather than engaging in grandstanding. He needs to maintain his access to make that difference, and putting op-eds on the pages on the NY Times is not the way to do it.

    Sorry, hoppy, but Beinart is a writer and author, not (yet) a political activist. As a political thinker and writer, his role is to influence other people's thinking broadly so that they will be motivated to help change policy.

    I suspect that one of the things you don't like about Beinart's current methods is that they inevitably will take the 'conversation' beyond the 'community' into a wider world where many are watching, transfixed - whether Beinart intends that or not.

    America needs thinkers like Beinart. He is a catalyst.

  • Thomson Rutherford April 3, 2012 at 12:14 am with 4 replies

    Do I sound like a nativist? I don't care; Israel never called to me. ... I don’t want my foreign policy guided by Jeffrey Goldberg who felt unsafe here and emigrated to Israel. I would rather a nativist foreign policy that is thoughtful of the Americans who are likely to have to go off and do the fighting (not us).

    Very powerful words, Phil. I would like to make just one suggestion: Do as Jeffrey Blankfort (for example) seems to have done, decades ago, to try to extend your 'conversation' to non-Jews in the same way you do with Jews. Your story is not only potent but has a broad potential scope extending well beyond mere tribal interests. In my estimation, you are bigger than Peter Beinart.

    Do this and your book, when it comes, will influence a much greater range of Americans and people elsewhere.

  • Thomson Rutherford April 2, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    Alec, I want to second what Danaa has said above. Please continue to display all the comments every time, or at least provide a toggle (All/New). If storage requirements are a genuine problem, perhaps you can implement a cut-off of comments to a post after a certain number of comments or a certain age of the post has been reached.

  • Thomson Rutherford April 2, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    As Jewish identity has been merged with support for Israel, all the mythic horse feathers of the Israeli project get dumped on an American Jew. ... I’m an American Jew, emphasis on America.

    I wholly agree, Sean. Only Philip Weiss can, and does, write such a moving personal story about his identity in society. I especially empathize with the statement quoted above.

    But I do wonder about the characterization "American Jew." Why has the personal designation 'Jewish American' fallen out of favor over the last half-century or so? It used to be the more common appellation, but (according to a PBS production, "Jews in America") a poll a few years back showed that most American Jews prefer to be called that and identify more with the 'Jew' part rather than the 'American' part. This has been a very significant change in the nature of American 'Jewish identity'.

    Philip Weiss: Do you prefer to be called 'American Jew' rather than 'Jewish
    American', and, if so, would you care to explain why? I'm sure your reasons are sound, either way.

• Covering Adelson, Matthews leaves out the 'Obama Oy Vey' factor
  • Thomson Rutherford April 2, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    Piotr, I 'liked' the second story better, too. But that wasn't my point, which lay in the Time's representation of the relative social values of Passover and Easter observances. This invidious contrast - along with the preponderance of column-inches devoted to the Jewish observances - is no accident; it happens in the NYT every year during December and April 'religious' holiday periods. I was expressing, among other things, my annoyance because I consider this an aspect of an agenda that I find disturbing in what purports to be our national 'newspaper of record'.

  • Thomson Rutherford April 1, 2012 at 10:28 pm

    This is a test to see if I am still able to comment here. Mysterious failures have occurred.

  • Thomson Rutherford April 1, 2012 at 9:08 pm with 2 replies

    Phil writes: Obviously this story is about Jewish support for Israel and also Jewish identity. The Israel lobby is a huge factor in our politics. Matthews won't touch it. Why the silence? ... (my emphasis, here and below)

    News flash! Our mainstream media are dominated by Jewish interests. My favorite example of this is the New York Times (together with its global edition, the International Herald Tribune), our leading 'liberal' Zionist newspaper and booster of 'Jewish identity'.

    Take the coverage of Passover and Easter in today's Sunday edition. There have been several feature stories in the Times recently about Passover and its Seder. On the op-ed page of today's website we find an article entitled "Why a Haggadah?" by Jonathon Foer. It begins:

    I SPENT much of the last several years working on a new Haggadah — the guidebook for the prayers, rituals and songs of the Seder — and am often asked why I would want to take time away from my own writing to invest myself in such a project.

    All my life, my parents have hosted the Seder on the first night of Passover. As our family expanded, and as our definition of family expanded, we moved the ritual dinner from our dining room to our more spacious, mildewed basement. One table became many table-like surfaces pushed awkwardly together. I always knew Passover was approaching when my father would ask me to take the net off the ping-pong table. All were covered in once matching, stained tablecloths.

    At each setting was a Haggadah that my parents had assembled by photocopying favorite passages from other Haggadot ....

    link to nytimes.com

    It's a lovely description of a cozy family gathering on a beloved Jewish holiday.

    Till today, there have been no such feature stories in the Times about Easter celebrations. But one article did appear in today's Times Sunday magazine - a story of an entirely different character. It is entitled "Easter among Strangers," by a young author named Hanna Pylvainen, and it is a story of total alienation from Easter, family, and childhood faith. Here are excerpts:

    Upon leaving the Finnish fundamentalist faith of my youth, I made my parents a promise that I would still attend church on Christmas and Easter. It was my fifth such Easter, but I was still anxious, aware that everyone would be looking to see what unbelieving had done to me. I removed my nail polish and earrings, arriving late to avoid conversation, only to discover that the church was full — there was not even space by the bad kids in the back. I was forced instead to parade to the front, feeling underdressed and like the prodigal child, and take a seat next to my little cousins.

    It was early in the sermon, and already I was not listening when I felt a presence behind me. I turned to see a large black man, wearing jeans and a black T-shirt .... In the 18 years I attended the church, I never saw a black man; the church was white by heritage and white by location — it was west of Detroit — though they sponsored missions in Togo and Ecuador. The only mention of black people was as outsiders, men who were said to have tempted church girls into faithlessness — into teenage pregnancies and dancing at strip clubs.

    I hurried to make room, hoisting my toddler niece onto my lap, wanting to communicate to the man that despite the predominance of blonds around us, his race was not an issue –– and then it occurred to me that he would think I was one of them. ... And then I realized that the entire church most likely thought I had invited him to Easter, that this was my boyfriend, and I was in a kind of torment, wanting to communicate to those around me that I had not invited this man — that I was not that kind of unbeliever — while communicating to him that I was no longer a part of this stringent faith.

    An hour later, after the closing hymn, I turned to him and wished him a happy Easter, and he returned the formality, and then I said that I was sorry he had got stuck sitting next to the black sheep of the family.

    “Are you the black sheep, then?” he asked.

    I told him I left the church a number of years ago.

    When he made no reply, I asked him where he was from, how he found the church.

    Of all the pasts I imagined for him during the sermon, I had not imagined this: he had been coming to the church for two months. Everyone was welcoming, he said. He liked the sermons; he liked the singing.

    My prejudices overwhelmed me. My cheeks and ears flushed. I made my excuses and ended the conversation, only to spot my cousin’s husband inviting him to Easter dinner.

    In my cousin’s colonial, I watched him sip coffee with my aunt, who wore a pastel dress and matching hat. When we went outside to hide Easter eggs, he tagged along and hid them in places no one else could reach. He teased me; perhaps, flirted with me. ...

    After dessert was eaten and hymns were sung, I rose to say goodbye. I shook everyone’s hand and awkwardly, as always, they did not say “God’s peace” to me. He took my hand and shook it. He asked me if he would see me again at church. I said probably not. He said that he was sorry to hear that.

    And he told me –– as no one at church had ever told me –– that I was welcome anytime. He did not let go of my hand.

    “Thank you,” I said, meaning it, feeling as I left, driving alone to my apartment, the radio silent, the heat on, that it was Sunday, that it must be Easter.

    The contrast between the two stories, one of Passover and one of Easter, could not be more stark. Passover is presented in the favorable glow of loving family and enduring faith; Easter in a harsh light of alienation from faith, family, and community. The young writer, Ms. Pylvainen, must have known that the Times would be receptive to her dismal story at Easter time.

    For these are not isolated examples of the disparate ways that the Times every year treats Passover and Easter, Hanukkah and Christmas. They are typical of a pattern: Jewish holidays and holy days good, Christian holy days bad.

    Why does it matter? For a start, the NYT still has pretensions of being the national 'newspaper of record'. Instead, in focusing so heavily on Jewish interests, it has gained the reputation of being the Jewish newspaper of record. Clearly, the Times considers one of its key missions to be pumping up 'Jewish identity'. And another, related key mission is to serve as the principal organ of 'liberal' Zionism, acting in what it sees as the true interests of the Israeli and Jewish nations.

    So I would pose again Plato's question, slightly modified: Is the New York Times good for us?

• Sullivan forces American attention on the settlements
  • Thomson Rutherford March 31, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    Annie, I acknowledged your 4:19 pm comment in my "edit p.s." above and indicated that I had not seen it when I composed my 5:59 comment, but I sent that comment anyway because I felt you needed a mild 'rebuke'. And now I want to close by wishing you also a happy and glorious :) - -. Keep up the good work!

  • Thomson Rutherford March 31, 2012 at 7:26 pm with 3 replies

    I want to be clear about my meaning above in using the phrase "very sharp rise in genuine anti-Semitism." I meant an unprecedented escalation in America of personally-felt hatred toward Jews, on a widespread basis.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 31, 2012 at 7:03 pm with 4 replies

    From N49: Phil has quipped in the past that this is a conversation Jews must have.

    Like Annie, I would urge people to read Sullivan's review of Beinart's book. As Sullivan implies, the most probable plan of the present Israeli government is the immiseration and then total expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank - even though no Arab nation is likely to be willing to accept them.

    Let us presume for the moment that this most probable outcome will be the actual outcome. Then what conversation will American Jews have, after the fact? Please try to imagine the political environment that will be developing in America simultaneously, while this 'final solution' to the Palestinian problem is being consummated.

    Here is the question I would like to ask American Jews, earnestly and without malice: Do you think, in the deepest recesses of your souls, that this ghastly process can be executed without a very sharp rise in genuine anti-Semitism in the U.S.? And throughout the world?

  • Thomson Rutherford March 31, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    Annie, ignoring Shmuel's warning above you are enabling this troll to hijack the thread. You need to be more vigilant and discriminating about such things. MW should not be regarded as a chat-board, especially not for trolls.

    Edit P.S. - Just saw your last comment above so please regard this as a caution only.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 31, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    From American: The Americans ... have been prevented by the msm from even knowing what Israel really does ....

    While I agree, American, with the gist of your comments about the lateness of the hour and the despicable culpability of the Jewish and non-Jewish 'communities', I would like to add that for all those decades the Zionist movement had an iron-clad hold on the U.S. national and local media. Only with widespread access to and use of the Internet has it become possible for anti-Zionist, anti-Lobby voices to be heard in significant numbers.

    This (together with the M&W book) is what has finally made it possible for non-Jewish critics like Sullivan to have some influence wrt Israel/Palestine. Even if the worst occurs and the Palestinians suffer a fate reminiscent of what the N@zis intended for the Jews, it will still be necessary to have a Truth Commission to try to recover some morality in the world.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 31, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    From pabelmont, this actionable phrase: ... this AIPAC-dominated world ....

    Thanks for that, Peter. Makes me feel less lonesome.

• Head of Bill Kristol's lobby group calls on Israeli army to use Palestinian protesters as 'target practice'
  • Thomson Rutherford April 1, 2012 at 11:18 am with 2 replies

    From CigarGod: Police/military training/tactics have become globally uniform.

    CigarGod, if you can't see the differences between typical police tactics and IDF tactics in support of brutal expulsion of an oppressed people then I'm afraid you are hopeless.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 31, 2012 at 9:23 pm with 4 replies

    Question: How are IDF troops operating in Palestine different from the Sturm Abteilung (SA, ‘Storm Troopers’, ‘Brownshirts’)? Substantively and functionally, I see no difference. And little difference ideologically.

    And more to the point in this thread, how do Kristol, Pollack, and Rachel Abrams differ from the SA's most rabid anti-Semitic supporters in the U.S. at that time?

• Land Day in Pictures: Israel, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank
  • Thomson Rutherford March 31, 2012 at 3:39 pm with 1 replies

    Question: How are IDF troops operating in Palestine different from the Sturm Abteilung (SA, 'Storm Troopers', 'Brownshirts')? Substantively and functionally, I see no difference. And little difference ideologically.

• Land Day vs. the 'Jewish State': an interview with Haneen Zoabi
  • Thomson Rutherford March 31, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Israel's nearest neighbors - Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, prospective Palestine, Egypt (and Turkey) - are not Islamic states in the same sense that Israel claims to be a Jewish State.

    I do have a question, though. Can an American citizen - born of and raised by (say) two observant Orthodox Jews with certifiable Jewish ancestry going way back - immigrate to Israel and receive full Israeli citizenship, even though he/she has publicly converted to Christianity and is not married to a Jew? The answer to this question would help clarify whether the 'Jewish nationhood' of Israel is based on an exclusive religion.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 31, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    From Leander: “Germans” are only the result of post French Revolution nationalist power struggles between Austria and Prussia, or the part of the German speaking people unlucky enough to be left inside the national borders.

    Leander, this statement reveals too things. First, your profound ignorance or naivity. By your quasi-logic, can you tell us when 'Frenchmen' or 'Italians' or 'Czechs' or 'Englishmen' or 'Poles' or 'Serbs' or 'Hungarians' came into existence?

    Second, your comment is evidence again of deep antipathy towards Germans. Why have you chosen Mondoweiss to express your anti-German feelings? To help me, at least, understand you better, would you explain what is your connection, if any, to Israel?

• Obama and Republicans have to support Iran war 'because of funding from certain ethnic groups'
  • Thomson Rutherford March 29, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Aaron David Miller, a prominent 'liberal' Zionist who has become a leading Apologist for the Israel Lobby, has an interesting piece of hasbara at foreignpolicy.com, entitled

    "Six Big Lies about How Jerusalem Runs Washington." link to foreignpolicy.com

    The fifth "Big Lie," according to Miller, is Election-Year Politics Are Driving Obama to War with Iran. Miller presents a vigorous defense of the Lobby as just another facet of the American political scene. Nothing ethnic about it.

• Sen. Rand Paul blocks Iran sanctions bill, calls for 'thoughtful debate' before we start another war
  • Thomson Rutherford March 29, 2012 at 12:46 am

    Don't forget Sen. J. William Fulbright of Arkansas.

• Ethnocentrism and journalism (Beinart's double standard for Israel and Iraq)
  • Thomson Rutherford March 29, 2012 at 9:54 pm with 4 replies

    Sean says, On the subject of ethnocentrism ....

    Interesting you would say that, Sean. Here I sit watching a two-hour program (not very entertaining; too much Jew vs. goy stuff ) on PBS about Yiddish theater. Last night I watched a two-hour program (really enjoyed it) on PBS about Jews in baseball. Yesterday on the International Herald Tribune (global edition of the NYT) website I read four articles about Israel (two on the front page and two on the op-ed page) and one theater review of a Neil Simon play under the caption "Three Generations of Loss." No surprise here: It's about Jews. And nothing unusual about such an intensive, single-ethnos barrage, either.

    How did our mainstream media become so fixated on the ethnocentric interests of one small ethnic group (according to the CIA, 1.8% of the population)? Is there any other identifiable group in America, regardless of size, that garners so much attention in our national media? For whom is all this concentrated cultural material written or produced? To what avail and for whose benefit?

• 'Tribefest' excommunicates group of young Jews who dared to speak about ethnic discrimination
  • Thomson Rutherford March 25, 2012 at 5:11 pm with 2 replies

    Tribefest! Can you imagine how that sounds to a stereotypical waspish goy like me?

    I myself would like to attend the Tribefest as an observer. And I would be happy to add my signature to the Letter to the Honchos that the youngsters are preparing. But I guess that's not how this tribalism thing works, is it? They are us and I am them. The Other.

    And for this we dropped the barriers?

• 'I didn't say I liked Beinart's book' -- J Street head sells his star guest out to his antagonist, Goldberg
  • Thomson Rutherford March 26, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    P.S. - That is, to the lengthy chapter entitled, "Upon Having My Failings Plainly Exposed and Finding Bluster to Be No Longer Persuasive."

  • Thomson Rutherford March 26, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    And as usual, I went of half-cocked, thus adding to the evidence that circumcision can as harmful as circumlocution.

    Mooser, could it be that circumcision and circumlocution are not only highly correlated, but both more ubiquitous than you imagine? Anyhow, thanks, I must add it to my own book of excuses.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 26, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    American, here is Goldberg speaking at the start of the Beinart 'interview' you cited:

    I'm not Orthodox, but I do feel a spiritual connection to our homeland. Without this connection, can Israel's location in what was Palestine be justified? Shouldn't it have been built in Bavaria?

    (bold emphasis added)

    This is a very revealing statement from the self-appointed arbiter of 'liberal' Zionism. He says that the homeland of 'liberal' Zionists like him and Beinart is the Jewish State of Israel, not the country in which they are natural-born citizens and which sustained their upbringing. This is true, he says, in spite of the fact that the choice of location for "our homeland" was arbitrary. In his view, why not Bavaria, the Geburtsland of German Nazism? Goldberg dons the robe of a "spiritual connection" to his "homeland" so as to justify the military expropriation of Palestine instead. The 'citizens' of Goldberg's "homeland" are Jews around the world, whether they feel that "spiritual connection" or not.

    In all this, there is not a hint of any moral principle that would extend beyond the interests of Jewish tribal identity. Goldberg is an instructive writer for non-Jews to read in gaining better understanding of what they are up against in opposing political Zionism.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 26, 2012 at 1:46 pm with 1 replies

    Too late now. The Israeli fetish has too much hold on US political system. This thing is going to have to play out to the bitter end.

    American, I'm not sure it's too late. It is true that Zionism has captured the American political system during my lifetime. But the revulsion against this is growing daily as more and more people (and political figures) become aware of the true extent of Zionist domination of government. I see the possibility of a colossal political civil war that will transcend traditional liberal-conservative boundaries and in so doing will result in much figurative blood-letting.

    As the political war develops, of course, the 'major Jewish American organizations' (Zionists) will see it coming and attempt to control it by conventional divide-and-conquer strategies. But AIPAC and the CPMJAO will be caught in the middle and their armies are not trained or equipped to withstand massive frontal assaults from all directions.

    I know, it's not going to play out that way .... Or will it?

  • Thomson Rutherford March 26, 2012 at 5:11 am

    RoHa, think of them as 'three peas in a pod'.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 25, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    From Ben-Ami, as quoted above: ... and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state solution. If we don’t, both left and right will push Israel into a “one-state nightmare” – forced to choose between its Jewish and its democratic character.

    What a cruel joke! Is Ben-Ami so naive as to think that these are the only two choices - or even the most salient options in play? Israeli Jews don't even consider transforming the Jewish State into a true democracy, nor do they consider extending any democratic rights under that state to 'Arabs' beyond the Green Line or the Gazan border, nor do they consider preserving the existing rights of 'Arabs' within the Green Line, nor do they consider a time in the future when the lands and resources within Eretz Israel under control of 'Arabs' will not continue to shrink to an eventual vanishing point - with all possibility of survival of the impoverished people within the stockades extinguished.

    The option in play is the gradual eradication of the people we call Palestinians or Arabs from any lands seized by the Israeli war machine. Some less kindly than I might call it 'ethnic cleansing', some even less kindly might call it 'extermination'. You know, they say: what was attempted by the Nazis against the Jews of Europe. They learned their lessons well - 'Never again!'

    But this time the deed is being done much more cleverly, under the eyes of a fretfully watching world that has no answer which can be spoken aloud, while remote dreamers and charlatans like Ben-Ami spin their artful webs of evasion and deceit.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 25, 2012 at 2:38 am

    This is an excellent comment, Krauss. That's the Krauss I like to see.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 24, 2012 at 7:33 pm with 3 replies

    Mooser, I think you must have misunderstood the intent of Phil's statement you quoted. It seems to me that, in saying that 'Palestinians must be treated as equals', he was referring to the leadership of the anti-Zionist movement outside of Israel; e.g., in America. This is a position that Peter Beinart apparently does not accept, wanting instead to keep any opposition to political Zionism solely within the Jewish 'community' (I know you don't like that term so don't chastise me). That would seem to put Phil at odds with Beinart on this important point.

    Gabriel Ash had a post recently at Mondoweiss, link to mondoweiss.net
    in which he attacked Beinart's Jewish-centered approach to 'BDS' precisely because it weakened or discarded Palestinian leadership of the PSM and hence would drain most of the energy from the movement. On the point at issue, that would seem to put Phil closer to Ash than Beinart. Me, just count me on the side of the Palestinians.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 24, 2012 at 6:18 pm with 3 replies

    American says, It is a ‘given’ that Jewish groups for or involved in the issue are involved for Israel as their guiding concern.

    American, I agree - but I would argue that a second motivation for organized Jewish groups in the Diaspora is to safeguard the standing of the Jewish 'community' in their home countries. This, in the long run, is their point of vulnerability - not moral conscience. Tribal self-interest will result in the slow death of political Zionism outside of Israel.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 24, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    JB: Because I don't think that it makes any sense to put negative pressure on people whose behavior you hope to change. I think that the way that Israelis will feel comfortable making the compromises and the sacrifices--and Israel as a whole, not just the settlers --is when they really feel that not only American Jews, but the United States, is going to be there for them.

    This strategy was allegedly tried by the U.S. for 45 years and it has failed miserably.

    Jeremy Ben-Ami is a fraud and a craven 'liberal' Zionist Apologist for the Israel Lobby. As I see it, he never intended to be anything more than a fig leaf for the American Jewish 'community' when inevitably the sh!t hits the fan. He and Jeffrey Goldberg make a fine couple, indeed!

• The 'folly' of the 'war lobby'-- What if NYT's top-pick comments reflect popular opinion?
  • Thomson Rutherford March 22, 2012 at 3:01 am

    Annie, there's another outrageous article in today's International Herald Tribune (the global edition of the NYT) by Avi Shalit of Ha'aretz, entitled "The Bomb and the Bomber". I don't know whether it appears in the NYT itself because I am blocked from that paper's website.

    The gist of the article is that the whole world will go to hell either if Iran gets the bomb or if Israel bombs Iran, and it's 'the West's' fault because we didn't impose punishing sanctions soon enough, and Israel will bomb this summer, and the the U.S. must and will [why?] join in the destruction to save Israelis from getting killed.

    Perhaps Phil or Adam would like to critique the article tomorrow? Here is the link:

    link to nytimes.com

• Wikileaks: Google caught in spy games on execs and 'regime change'
  • Thomson Rutherford March 22, 2012 at 5:53 pm with 1 replies

    seafoid says,

    I think you overrate Mossad.
    and,
    I think Mossad is made of cardboard.

    seafoid, I think you are in denial about the importance of Mossad. The interesting question is why. Is it naivite? If you had been following for the last several decades publicly-available reports and descriptions of widespread Mossad operations in the U.S. and worldwide, you would not have made statements like the above without a reason. Is the desire to protect Mossad's operations from American public awareness the same tribal concern that motivates many Jews to deny the significance of the 'Israel Lobby', broadly defined, which undoubtedly has informal (read: largely hidden) ties with Mossad and helps make that foreign intelligence organization so effective in identifying willing collaborators?

    And this,
    It’s [Israel's] totally parochial and treated as such. What self respecting financial galactico is going to waste his or her time on Israel?

    You're out to lunch. Let's start with Stanley Fischer, an Israeli-American currently Governor of the Bank of Israel, formerly Chief Economist of the World Bank, a former high official of the IMF who was recently a top contender for the position of Managing Director of the IMF. Fischer for years was Professor of Economics at MIT and has enormous influence in the fields of international macroeconomics and financial economics, as theorist, empiricist, and mentor. When he speaks, as with Bernanke, the world of finance listens.

    Fischer's career is not unusual among Israeli-American economists and financial experts. For example, look up the biographies of Don Patinkin, William Baumol, and Daniel Kahneman, to name only a few among many. Since the end of WWII, the field of economics in America, including financial economics and mathematical finance, has been dominated by Jews. For the entire life of the the Jewish State, many of these top experts at schools such as U. of Chicago, U. of Rochester, Carnegie-Mellon, Cornell, Harvard, MIT, etc., have had personal ties to Israel, through thick and thin. These scholars have been involved in the granting of Ph.D.s in economics or finance to thousands of Jewish students who have gone on to compile riches on Wall Street, in many cases carrying their personal ties to Israel with them.

    And you want to tell me no respected or self-respecting financial expert or high official or top executive is going to want to spend time on pathetic little Israel? Pull your head out, seafoid.

• Beinart's 'Zionist BDS' will only help entrench the occupation
  • Thomson Rutherford March 20, 2012 at 7:05 pm with 1 replies

    There is little chance that it [Beinart's proposal] would achieve even the limited goals of ending the occupation. Why? Because the strength of BDS is tied to its Palestinian leadership and the way it puts Palestinian concerns at the center of the struggle. ... The movement that Beinart proposes would be, in contrast, led by Jews and put Jewish concern at its center.

    You make some great and largely persuasive points, Gabriel. It seems to me that your argument would be valid, not only wrt the objective of ending the occupation, but equally so in the context of the more realistic need to obtain equal rights for non-Jewish citizens in the evolving 1SS - which is avowedly your 'preferred' outcome.

  • Page: 5
• Pentagon fears Israeli strike on Iran would drag US in
  • Thomson Rutherford March 20, 2012 at 4:48 pm with 2 replies

    Richard Cohen, the 'liberal' Ziocon at WaPo, comes out and admits it plainly in today's paper: Israel should bomb Iran, not because the Persians might get the bomb, but to slow the brain drain caused by emigration of Israel's high-tech specialists from the Tel Aviv area. Here are excerpts from the article, entitled "Israel's Short-Run Problem":

    But Israel also has a short-term objective — and that is to play for time. ... Why can’t it just hang on? What’s wrong with containment? ... How is Iran different? ... Iran is different because it has explicitly threatened Israel.

    It is about economics. Israel has a humming economy with a marvelously vibrant high-tech sector. The statistics are astounding. Until recently, Israel, with fewer than 8 million people, was second only to America when it came to companies listed on the Nasdaq .... Talent, though, is fungible. It can get on an airplane and move. It can come to the United States where Israelis, as it happens, swarm all over Silicon Valley. Everyone has a different figure, but at least 250,000 Israelis live in the United States, an Israeli official tells me.. That’s a significant slice of the country’s population. These Israelis are in America for a variety of reasons — education, jobs, etc. — but some of them may like the fact that nowhere in America do rockets rain down or terrorists run amok. If Israel is to keep its talent, it must provide a safe and secure environment.

    As long as Iran supports anti-Israel terrorist groups, Israel remains — to one degree or another — a dangerous place. An Iran with nuclear weapons becomes a more potent protector of its client terrorist groups ....

    Sanctions may cause Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, if indeed that’s where it is now heading. But critics of Israel’s approach have to understand that Iran’s program looks different from Tel Aviv than it does from Washington. In the long run, an Israeli attack on Iran will accomplish nothing. In the short run, it could accomplish quite a lot.

    (emphasis added)

    I think Richard Cohen has just given me a new nickname for Israel: 'The Short-Run Nation'.

    Here's the link:
    link to washingtonpost.com

• Jon Stewart keeps upping the ante
  • Thomson Rutherford March 20, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    tod says,

    Land of the free my ass! It’s the land of the happily deluded! You cannot criticize a foreign country for fear or reprisals, it’s not much lower that you can go.

    Ruefully, tod, I must agree with you. It is infuriating.

• Beinart calls for boycott of settlements 'to save Israel'
  • Thomson Rutherford March 20, 2012 at 11:09 am

    Oh, yeah - and I wanted to say I feel left out of this discussion.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 20, 2012 at 2:03 am with 2 replies

    Sure, it’s not very fashionable or comfortable, but it makes fence-sitting while you wait for your inheritance so much more comfortable.

    And what about the goyim? What's a stereotypical waspish goy like me to think? What's it going to do to my 401k? I'm already paying almost $4 a gallon for gas! Where's it all going to end up?

    Those d@#n Jews are at it, again. Robbing and stealing those people blind, their land and all. And wasn't that Madoff guy Jewish? What's this about a Green Line? Judea and Samaria are on the Jewish side of the Jordan River, right? I learned that a long time ago in vacation bible school. How come there are Arabs living in the Holy Land, anyhow? All those people deserve what's coming to them - that's what I think. There's this song by Pink Floyd - "Another Brick in the Wall" - I really dig that because it sorta says where I'm at with this whole business,

    I don't know, those folks over there are really f@#ked up. I think that's why I never liked history and geography in school, you know.

    ,

• How important is it to the Times (and us) that Greg Smith is Jewish?
  • Thomson Rutherford March 18, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    Sydnestel says,

    To speak about “Jewish power” (as if it were a coherent thing) influencing American policy is precisely the type of thinking that underlies much racism and certainly historic anti-semitism. So yes, I do think, that talking about the negative influence of “Jewish power” is antisemitic.

    Philip Weiss, Peter Beinart, Jeffrey Goldberg, Gilad Atzmon, Mearsheimer and Walt, the late and missed Tony Judt, Yuri Slezkine, Andrew Sullivan (even Charles Krauthammer, at times) and numerous other (mainly Jewish) commentators have opened discussions about Jewish power in the U.S. That horse is already out of the barn. The fig leaf can't hide the elephant in the room any longer.

    In proposing the question, "Is Jewish power good for society?", I meant to invite positive as well as negative answers. As I said above, I see the proper answer as being complex and not trivial. I am interested in others' answers to the question, on the premise that a significant level of organized Jewish power does influence political and cultural matters within the U.S. I gave links to previous comments on another thread that provided the core of my initial thoughts on the question, based on my understanding of the American democratic ideal - the links being shown in this comment above:

    link to mondoweiss.net

    Is it true, as you say, that talking about the negative influence of “Jewish power” is antisemitic? Well, no. But your statement in interesting. Do you say it as a rhetorical ploy to shut down discussion of a topic you find objectionable, or have you been conditioned by your particular cultural milieu to see such discussion beyond the confines of your tribe as being intrinsically 'anti-Semitic'? Do you have trouble with concepts such as 'the good of society' (Jews included, BTW), or 'the general welfare' (Jews included, BTW)? In your mind, can 'us' include you as a Jewish person, without your specific permission, while 'we' talk about a 'Jewish' role in 'our' society and whether it is, on balance with all things considered, good for 'us'?

    I would like to see you contribute some constructive comments expressing your own opinions about the substance of the question, rather than simply claiming that the question is illegitimate. My own mind is far from being completely made up about it, particularly looking forward into the future when possibly political Zionism may be a less crucial aspect of the dominant American Jewish identity.

    P.S. - I strongly believe that questions like this one are highly germane to the problems of justice for the Palestinians and America's foreign wars of choice.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 17, 2012 at 7:51 pm with 16 replies

    Quoting me, sydnestel asks,

    “American Jews flaunt contempt for this natural antipathy at their own collective peril.” – is that a threat, wishful thinking, or just a dispassionate opinion?

    It's neither a threat nor wishful thinking. Of course, you would need to ask. It's my opinion, but is it dispassionate? Lacking passion? - Yes. Lacking pathos or feeling? - No. It's about as objective as I'm able to get in my opinions. But to get to the intent of your question, in wishing for greater equality of economic outcomes and political power in American society, I am not wishing that harm come to Jews.

    What would you suggest? Ethnic/religious quotas (upper limits) in government, in the media, in the universities?

    In a constitutional democracy like America's, there is always an inherent tension between the competing ideals of individual freedom and equality of opportunity. Jews, more than any other ethnic group (protected both as a religion and as a small, mostly-invisible ethnicity), have been able to use that tension to their advantage, playing either the equality or the freedom card as convenient - a sort of situational political morality. The result of this and other forces has been highly disproportionate representation of Jews in government, in the media, and in the universities.

    I asked the normative question, 'Are such manifestations of Jewish power good for us?' - not what should be done about it. Is that a subversive question?

  • Thomson Rutherford March 17, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    Krauss, in my reply above I referred to one of your previous comments in which you did attempt a rather awkward defense of Jewish power. In expressing my own views I did not mean to imply disrespect for yours, for I have read many interesting and informative comments from you here.

    I did not "demand" anything of you or hold you "responsible" for anything. I asked you to elaborate here, if you wished, on the question of whether Jewish power, as it now stands, is a good thing for us all, or at least most of us. I think it's a normative question worth discussing, beyond the mere fact of Jewish power, because in my mind the answer is complex. I would like to hear the honest opinion of Jews about it.

    A central element of your initial comment above was this statement,

    I’m telling you that this road is right down the alley of classic anti-Semitism.

    And your reply to me carried on in this vein. I would hope that we could avoid that line of discourse. If I were an anti-Semite, I would be expressing my opinions somewhere other than Mondoweiss.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 17, 2012 at 3:46 pm with 11 replies

    Krauss says,

    I’m telling you that this road is right down the alley of classic anti-Semitism. ... But yeah, there is reclusiveness on these topics. And I’m somewhat sympathetic to that view. Anyone with even a scintilla of knowledge of Jewish history should be.

    Krauss, the time when that defense of disproportionate Jewish power could be effective is rapidly passing. The conversation will pass to non-Jews and not be limited to licensed Jews.

    We are talking about America's future here, not Jewish tribal self-interest. I asked you on another thread to explain why you seem to think Jewish power is good for us, the American people.

    link to mondoweiss.net

    The question is not 'Is it good for the Jews?' because 98% of us are not members of the tribe. Why is such predominant Jewish power good for America and our democracy? Why is it good for our foreign policy and relations with other countries? Why is it good for Israel/Palestine?

  • Thomson Rutherford March 17, 2012 at 2:56 pm with 18 replies

    How large is the Jewish portion of the establishment? How central is Jewish opinion to the ideas and reforms that can produce social change-- in the Middle East or on Wall Street? My own sense is that We make up the bulk of the east coast establishment today.

    Funny thing, that's my sense. too. And thank Goodness there is a Philip Weiss who is willing to say such erstwhile-taboo things in public so that the matter can be discussed.

    Yes, it is clear to all sentient beings that Jews "make up the bulk of the east coast establishment today." No need to argue about that if you are aware of the facts in our society. The question, as I have put it on a recent thread, should be, "Is Jewish power good for us?"

    link to mondoweiss.net

    I think that Phil and I would probably answer that question differently. His view would be that of a concerned Jew having pride in the tribe. Mine would be that of a simmering goy wondering, 'WTF is going on here?' How did American society get to this point in the last half-century, and why?

    Yes, prior to this time our nation's Establishment had been peopled primarily by the infamous 'wasps'. 'White' American Protestants were the demographic majority, and in a democracy it is natural that they would have been predominant in the Establishment. Unfortunately, most other religious/ethnic groups were under-represented in the centers of power - such as Catholics, Blacks, Hispanics, etc.

    Jews, then as now, constituted 2% or less of the nation's population. They were generally not under-represented in America's power sources, such as universities, national media, high finance, commerce. Likewise, they were generally not under-represented, during, say, the half-century from 1880-1930, in countries like Germany, Poland, Hungary, Britain where Jews had a small but significant numerical presence.

    But now, in America, Jews' place in the American power structure has become so large and overwhelming that Philip Weiss can say matter-of-factly that Jews make up the bulk of the East Coast [our most significant] establishment, and that a Jewish voice is more powerful than a non-Jewish one. I might add that a Jewish voice not only carries more weight within the power centers, but they (the 2 per cent!) are heard most frequently in representations of the power centers to the general public.

    It is now quite appropriate to speak of a Jewish power structure, and to ask how it arose. As before, I tender this caveat civis:

    America for a half-century or more represented the zenith of 'government of the people, by the people, for the people.' Under the Constitution, 'the people' means all the people, not one or more ethnic groups.

    Whatever the realities on the ground, democracy has always been a defining ideal of the American republic. The ethos of democracy is egalitarianism, not elitism - especially not elitism based on ethnicity or religion.

    Revulsion against ethnic elitism runs deep in the historical American psyche. American Jews flaunt contempt for this natural antipathy at their own collective peril.

    link to mondoweiss.net

• Wall Street firm slammed the door on young Warren Buffett for religious reasons
  • Thomson Rutherford March 16, 2012 at 10:44 pm

    I think that the Jewish rise to power was ultimately a good thing.

    You didn't do a very good job of explaining why, Krauss. Could it be that you think that simply because you are Jewish? Is a non-Jewish person likely to see it as you do?

    link to mondoweiss.net

  • Thomson Rutherford March 16, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    And as we can see from Graham’s firm, there was also discrimination favoring Jews, at the expense of others.

    Judging from the names of prominent people on Wall Street that I have seen mentioned in the NYT and WSJ over the years, I suspect that there is still widespread employment favoritism shown to Jews in our financial capital. Can one really posit that such predominance of a small minority is due to the putative 'meritocracy'? Wall Street firms are said to recruit from well beyond the NYC area.

    And I agree with a comment above: I don't think there has ever been a time in the last 150 years when Jews were actually under-represented on Wall Street.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 16, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    I do think that white Americans have some things in common with one another–for starters, the fact that we’re not minorities here.

    Texans tend to feel that we have something in common, too - and we are about 35% Hispanics and at least 12% Blacks, with a sizable Asian-American population thrown in as well.

    But I do agree that the main reason that most American 'whites' do not regard themselves as being 'ethnic' is because we are still a substantial majority. And, although 'white' Americans have derived from many distinct European ethnic cultures, the 'melting pot' meme really did apply here among 'whites'.

    As I see it, for all of American history to this point, 'white' America served the role as 'anchor' for American society, in the same sense that the Bundesbank anchors the Euro System of national central banks making up the European Central Bank. But fifty or so years from now, when 'white' Americans are in a steadily-decreasing minority, they may begin to regard themselves as a single ethnic group in an American society 'anchored' by the Hispanic majority.

    On the other hand, maybe by then old ethnic identifications in America will have become so weak that an inexorably-expanding melting pot will create a single American national 'ethnicity' comparable to German, French, Japanese, etc.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 16, 2012 at 2:26 pm with 6 replies

    HRK, what is Buffett's ethnicity? Most 'white' Americans cannot be ethnocentric unless they strongly identify with some specific ethnic culture such as German, Irish, Jewish, French, Czech, etc. At least not in the 'heartlands' where Buffett (and I) came from. 'Whiteness' may in some questionable classifications be considered a 'race', but it is never properly considered an ethnicity.

    Do you think of non-specific 'white' Americans (because of our skin color) belonging to an ethnicity? I think the most that can be said is that we are part of a diverse American culture.

• 'Tablet' describes American veterans of IDF experiencing 'dual loyalty' issues
  • Thomson Rutherford March 17, 2012 at 9:50 pm

    David Samel says,

    Also, I remain ambivalent about the whole dual loyalty charge. It seems to rest on the principle that one should be loyal to one’s country and that country’s interests. The problem is, what if your country is doing bad things, and its leadership is defining the country’s interests in bad ways? I much prefer loyalty to principles, such as fairness, equality, freedom, justice , etc. ... What I find wrong with Americans joining the IDF is not that it’s foreign, but that it does horrible things.

    However, David, it does appear that most people lean more toward chauvinism than universalism, and so profess loyalty to country, blood, and soil rather than principles. The term 'dual loyalty' often seems intended to serve as a euphemism for prevailing loyalty to a foreign country. In the case of Israel, some people prefer to dispense with euphemism and use the provocative label 'Israel Firster'. Some would go even further and say 'single loyalty' to the foreign country of Israel.

    In a previous discussion with you (around a year ago, I think), I suggested that if a critic wanted to imply a bit more than the literal meaning of 'dual loyalty', the term 'single-minded loyalty' to Israel might be appropriate. Such a naming would imply that moral principles are not a significant consideration.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 16, 2012 at 12:19 pm with 1 replies

    Dan, I think the common perception is that these guys are more loyal to Israel than to the US, their country of birth, and that explains the cool reception back home from the majority of Americans who are not Israel-lovers.

    The term 'dual-loyalty' is often simply a euphemism for primary loyalty to a foreign country that represents the person's ethnicity.

• Tribal hathos
  • Thomson Rutherford March 16, 2012 at 12:30 am

    ... (though it is true that every so often he appoints a gentile to serve as White House chief of staff).

    This ethnocentric hubris is disgusting, and I'm hardly the only one who thinks so. All the more so because Jewish Americans in powerful positions are pushing the country toward another war at Israel's behest.

    Our 'meritocracy' at work!

• Palestinian and Palestine-solidarity activists issue critique and condemnation of Gilad Atzmon
  • Thomson Rutherford March 15, 2012 at 9:27 pm with 1 replies

    yourstruly says, ... we don’t need jewish identiy politics to abolish israeli apartheid.

    I respect your opinion, but I think you are wrong. Please explain how you would go about abolishing Israeli apartheid without 'turning' a whole lot of dedicated Jewish Zionists. Since, for most of them, Zionism is a critical part of their identity, if not the dominant part, and founded on Jewish ethnocentric nationalism, how can these powerful people be turned without major changes to their core sense of Jewish identity?

    Neither the U.S. nor the world will go to war with them. How else do you think the Palestinians are going to be saved from destruction?

  • Thomson Rutherford March 15, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    Keith, thanks for that highly informative comment. Well done!

  • Thomson Rutherford March 15, 2012 at 8:50 pm with 3 replies

    ... crap he writes when he says Jewishness is ‘inherently intolerant’.

    Ianna, I don't know if it makes any difference to you, but Atzmon normally takes pains to distinguish between 'Jewishness' (the attribute of being Jewish) and 'Jewish-ness', a term he uses to indicate the attribute of having an extremely ethnocentric Jewish identity. He doesn't say all Jews possess 'Jewish-ness', only some (by choice, not birth) - particularly those who are Zionists or tend to support Zionism.

    His harsh criticism is directed toward 'Jewish-ness', not 'Jewishness'. Unfortunately, the hyphen - which is very significant in his clumsy and provocative terminology - is often dropped at some points in his discourse, leading to unnecessary confusion about 'condemning all Jews', etc. In a comment above addressed to Elliot, I provide some excerpts from Atzmon which clarify the distinctions I have just tried to explain for you.

    Of course, if you happen to be one of those extremely ethnocentric Jews, all this is not likely to soothe you.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 15, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    Annie says, i do not recognize collective jewish traits nor extreme generalizations about all jews or judaism = zionism or anything like that. so it’s hard for me to take the man too seriously.

    Annie, I'm afraid that you have been misled. Atzmon does not say that all Jews have any collective Jewish traits other than being Jewish. He does not make extreme generalizations about all Jews. He does not say that Judaism = Zionism or anything like that. Those false allegations, and others, have been made in order to discredit the man because a large portion of the Jewish 'community' do not like Atzmon's characterizations of some types of Jewish identity and Jewish identity politics.

    That's why the man himself has become so controversial. His actual views, as expressed in his core writings, are similar in many ways to some that I and others have expressed many times here at Mondoweiss. Those views would not gain applause in the wider Zionist-infested Jewish 'community'. He addresses issues about Jewish identity, as it relates to Zionism, Israel, and anti-Zionism, that we deal with here regularly - more or less at Phil's invitation. But his is an intentionally harsh criticism of a particular type of extremely ethnocentric Jewish identity that he implies is a critical foundation of political Zionism.

    It is important to note that Atzmon takes great pains to emphasize that these harsh criticisms are not directed toward Jews as a people or 'race', nor toward Judaism as a religion. He is talking about a portion of the Jewish people who, he says, choose to be extremely ethnocentric. (They weren't born that way.)

    Unless you want to carry PC to outlandish lengths, I think you need to recognize that groups of people can be defined who have some common characteristics.

    Annie, if you look down below in this thread for two lengthy comments I addressed to Elliot and Sean McBride, you can read some of Atzmon's own words in which he says most of what I explained above. In particular, I wanted to let him (indirectly) rebut charges of anti-Semitism and 'racism' made by some of our commenters here. I think it might help you to read those excerpts, and I can supply more if you want.

    I know that there is another side to this argument, but I think it is based at bottom on misreading, or worse, misrepresentation or falsification for purposes of the same 'identity politics' that Atzmon decries.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 15, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    Leander says, Mossad couldn’t have invented a better tool than Atzmon to hurt the struggle for Palestinian human rights ....

    Leander, your whole comment amounted to nothing more than a spiteful diatribe, with no substance behind it. My impression is that you are simply reacting reflexively to the lead of your favorite authority figures.

    Would it be too much to ask you to provide some reasoning to support your statement above? I'm sure that if you try you must be able to think of something that sounds logical.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 15, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    Sean says, *Within* that community there are many individual dissenters, dissidents and free thinkers, of course — but not nearly enough to have any meaningful impact on the politics of Israel, the Israel lobby and the Jewish establishment.

    Exactly. That's why I pay a lot of attention to the dissenters and free thinkers in Jewish thought. Spinoza, Martin Buber, Hanna Arendt, Avraham Burg, Ilan Pappe, and a host of others come to mind. Atzmon is just one more in a long list of Jewish dissidents who, to varying degrees, have stood at the margin of the margin of society - the margin, in Atzmon's diction, being Jewish culture.

    But what Atzmon has done is to take a vantage point beyond the margin of the margin, outside the 'community', to provide a blistering critique of an aspect of Jewish culture (not shared by many Jews) that we are all familiar with, and that he labels 'Jewish-ness.' The hyphen is important because it distinguishes the Jewish-ness of a subset of Jews inculcated with a 'Jewish philosophy' that permeates their identity and identity politics - from the ordinary Jewishness that is an attribute of almost all self-identifying Jews. (In the latter sense, 'Jewishness' = being a Jew.)

    Atzmon insists that not all Jews are alike in some very significant ways. However, perhaps for the sake of conciseness, he makes a mistake in portions of his discourse by referring to 'Jews' as though they were some homogeneous cultural group. A close reading of his work should indicate to anyone that he actually is talking about that subset he delineated. Jews imbued with the 'Jewish-ness' identity tend to be political Zionists and to engage in Jewish identity politics. But some may be anti-Zionists. The cultural attribute of 'Jewish-ness' does not equate to Zionism but is a foundation on which political Zionism was built. Again, many many Jews are not subject to this cultural disease - but they experience its influences in various ways because, or if, they are within the marginal (unassimilated) 'community.'

    In Chapter 6 of his book, named "Think Tribal, Speak Universal," Atzmon writes ironically of the opposition he has faced:

    At a certain stage, around 2005, I thought to myself that I might be King of The Jews. I have achieved the unachievable, accomplished the impossible. I have managed to unite them all: Right, Left, and Centre.... Jews for this and Jews for that, for the first time in history all spoke in one single voice. They all hated Gilad Atzmon equally.

    ... Yet, I was slightly confused by my own achievement.... I was what some call an 'independent critical thinker', I may also be what some Jews regard as a 'proud, self-hating Jew'. Could it be that it was my comprehension of the Jewish political identity that brought so much Jewish animosity to my door?

    At the time I came across an interesting insight into the subject of anti-Semitism. It goes like this: 'While in the past an anti-Semite was someone who hates Jews, nowadays it is the other way around, an anti-Semite is someone the Jews hate.'

    My guess is that a large part of the Jewish opposition to Atzmon comes from the fact that he does criticize major aspects (not all) of Jewish political culture and identity from his chosen vantage point beyond the margin of the margin, from outside the 'community' - all the time carrying on his back the burden of his own Jewish identity initially formed as an Israeli. He criticized elements of the tribe right out there where the goyim were listening.

    But I must say that I don't understand the virulence and viciousness of much of the attacks on Atzmon. In a dark and ugly way, it seems to confirm some of his analysis of Jewish identity and identity politics.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 15, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    ... i think the lobby like the FBI have numerous roles with in the system and am generally ignorant of american conditions and dont think i will be visiting anytime soon.

    Gamal, I think I understand your sentiments, some of them.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 15, 2012 at 7:55 am

    He [Gurvitz] does not confound Judaism and Zionism, and does not equate “Jewishness” with the worst elements in Jewish tradition.

    Shmuel, I think that Atzmon typically does not do these things, either. You seem to have misread him - if you have read him.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 15, 2012 at 7:39 am

    the difference is that mw commentators don’t generalize from the israel lobby to all jews. and talking about inheritance of evil ....

    yourstruly, if you are talking about Atzmon, he does not do those things, either.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 15, 2012 at 7:32 am

    Thanks, Dan, for replying - and with perfect clarity! Less importantly, I suppose, I agree with every word you said.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 15, 2012 at 7:19 am

    So, I’m going to have to read it and see if I agree.

    Good, please do, and let us know what you think. IMO, chapters 1 and 3 warrant particular attention.

    For anyone somewhat familiar with the wide range of controversial Jewish thought, is there anything in this book (or his other core writings) that is uniquely, unforgivably controversial? If there is, I didn't see it. Does any of it justify the blanket condemnation from the long list of luminaries above? If so, I don't see it.

    There's something weird going on here and it needs better explanation. What in hell is 'solidarity' supposed to mean, anyway? Maybe I don't want any part of that straitjacket.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 15, 2012 at 5:21 am

    Keith, an excellent post!

  • Thomson Rutherford March 15, 2012 at 3:40 am

    Sean says, I’ve read only bits and pieces of Atzmon and don’t feel confident about judging his work as a whole. But is it that case that Atzmon has argued that “Jewishness” is inextricably entangled with >>ETHNOCENTRISM<< at various levels of intensity....

    Sean, I think that, concerning Atzmon's views on this point, you might find my long reply to Elliot helpful - it's a short distance above. Shmuel has told me before that he hasn't read much of Atzmon, so not fair to pick on him. I prefer to let Atzmon address your point (indirectly) in his own words. There's more I could add to fill in some gaps, if you like - but, again, in his words.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 15, 2012 at 3:16 am

    Leander, your sense of humor is a bit off. I think you know very well that he meant ethnic groups which are already Christian [without barriers to entry] standing as equals within Christianity. Were you intending to express an anti-Christian bias?

  • Thomson Rutherford March 15, 2012 at 2:56 am

    Here is Elliot speaking:

    I haven’t read much Atzmon either but I’ve heard the accusation that he rejects all Jewishness as being evil, even uniquely evil. I haven’t seen a rebuttal of that.

    The problem with Atzmon is not that he addresses problems that Jews have ... but that he lumps all Jews together. That’s where it becomes anti-Semitic ....

    I, too, have not read much Atzmon .... But, I see no difference between Meir Kahane’s racism against Arabs and Atzmon’s racism against Jews. If you label an entire group and deny the legitimacy of their group identity as Atzmon has done, you’re a racist.

    Jewishness [a term used by Atzmon in a special way - TR] is not Judaism. I’m curious why he doesn’t change his name to indicate his disdain for all things Jewish…

    (my emphasis added)

    Here is Gilad Atzmon speaking for himself:

    I will present a harsh criticism of Jewish politics and identity. Yet, it is crucial to mention at this early stage that there will be not a single reference to Jews as ethnicity or race. In my writing, I differentiate between Jews (the people), Judaism (the religion), and Jewish-ness (the ideology). This book doesn't deal with Jews as a people or ethnicity.... In short, those who are searching for blood or race-related interpretation of Zionism will have to look for it in someone else's work.

    In my work, I also refrain from criticizing Judaism, the religion.... I deal with Jewish Ideology, Jewish identity politics, and the Jewish political discourse....

    ... Or, alternatively, what do people mean when they call themselves Jews? As far as self-perception is concerned, those who call themselves Jews could be divided into three main categories:

    1. Those who follow Judaism.
    2. Those who regard themselves as human beings that happen to be of Jewish
    origin.
    3. Those who put their Jewish-ness over and above their other traits.

    The first two categories may denote a harmless and innocent group of people.... The third category is problematic.... You may be a Jew who dwells in England, a Jew who plays the violin or even a Jew against Zionism, but above all else you are a Jew. And this is exactly the idea conveyed by the third category.

    It is about viewing Jewishness as the key element and the fundamental characteristic of one's being. Any other quality is secondary. This is exactly the message the early Zionists were interested in promulgating.... This line of thinking was apparent in most early Zionist writings.... These racist ideas predate Nazism. Jabotinsky wasn't alone ....

    The Zionist is first and foremost a Jew. He can't be just an ordinary British citizen who happens to be of a Jewish descent. Though he is British by birth he is also the 'ultimate other' by choice.

    from "The Wandering Who" (2011), Chapter 1, The Right to Elaborate

    (my emphasis added)

    Unlike you, Elliot, I have read a good deal of what Atzmon has written, including the book from which I quoted above. The excerpts I presented are typical and representative of his views, for the most part. Notice the following:

    1. Atzmon does not "lump all Jews together," as you said without having read him. This is the reason you gave for saying he is "anti-Semitic," which is false.

    2. He does not "reject all Jewishness as being evil," as you said. He specifically does not do that. He created the term Jewish-ness (with a hyphen) to represent the ideology of a particular kind of Jew, which he defined as outlined above.

    3. You say, "If you label an entire group and deny the legitimacy of their group identity as Atzmon has done, you’re a racist." This is incorrect. I deny the legitimacy of the KKK; that doesn't make me a racist. Secondly, Atzmon, like me, doesn't consider Jews to be members of a "race" - a categorization I consider to be prima facie illegitimate. Thirdly, Atzmon goes to considerable lengths to say that he doesn't think that being a Jew by birth or heritage, or subscribing to Judaic beliefs, is illegitimate. Rather, he wishes to render a harsh criticism of a kind of "Jewish ideology" (his term) he describes as "Jewish-ness" (not Jewishness in a more general sense). He thinks that Jews who conform to the strictures of "Jewish-ness" do so by choice or indoctrination - not by accident of birth - like, say, joining the Jewish Kiwannis Club and attaching your entire identity or sense of self to that.

    4. Atzmon's ideas about the relationship between "Jewish-ness" and political Zionism are interesting but a bit complicated, and seem to be beyond the concerns you expressed. I think I may have some problems with his views in this area, given my own concept of political Zionism as Jewish ethnic nationalism.

    Bottom line: Your contention that Atzmon is anti-Semitic or racist seem to be based on no knowledge of what he actually thinks, and have little if any merit when examined in light of his core writings.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 14, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    Elliot says, I haven’t read much Atzmon either but I’ve heard the accusation that ....

    Just below that, here's Elliot advising HRK:

    HRK – Atzmon makes an essential point, not one of degree. I don’t see him making the distinction that you do. Per Atzmon, Jews are a uniquely rotten group.

    Please! That seems to be pretty typical of the Atzmon-haters. (For the record, I have read a good bit of Atzmon, including his articles at Counterpunch and his latest book, The Wandering Who.)

  • Thomson Rutherford March 14, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    Donald says, As for Mearsheimer and others who defend Atzmon, I’ve already outlined various reasons why someone might do that which don’t require anti-semitism ....

    Here's another to add to your narrow list: Some of the controversial things that Atzmon (like many another Jewish writer) says may actually be wholly or partially true, but extraneous to your own purposes, preferences, or core beliefs.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 14, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    If someone thinks Atzmon’s comments are acceptable, then that person has no standing to condemn Islamophobia.

    More Donald pontification. Not infallible, intrinsically debatable.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 14, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    Uniquely equating “Jewish” with “exclusivist” is racist.

    I didn't see where NorthofFortyNine uniquely equated "Jewish" with "exclusivist." Distorting an opponents views via extrapolation or extension is an old tactic of pilpul. And that , BTW, is a tactic used against some of Atzmon's views and their defenders.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 14, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    Mooser, your “historical memory” extends only to your own birth? Gosh, mine goes back a lot further. That was such a warm and comfortable place. Got a little cramped and stuffy sometimes. But there was so much fascinating stuff going on outside.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 14, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    Dan, I like to read your comments but I've asked you before to try to avoid ambiguity. (Don't be opaque, cryptic, obscure, Oracle-like, etc.) People want to know what you actually think. If you are ambivalent, that's fine - say so. My feeling is that you are still groping for firm opinions.

    Your exchange above with Annie was helpful. Among other things, you appear to want to oppose 'The Lobby' without having 'the Jews' mentioned. O.K., but many of us think that 'the Jews' (some of them) and Jewish identity are an important aspect of the Israel lobby and the Zionist ethnic nationalism that drives it. My guess now is that this makes you very angry and is the main reason why you periodically lash out at Mondoweiss and its participants.

    Again, considering that you like to comment here regularly, I want to suggest that you make a concerted effort to formulate and express your views in a coherent and consistent way, and back them up with some evidence when appropriate. As I told you on another thread, I value your comments - I just want to be able to understand them.

    P,S. - In return, if you think I am ambiguous in my comments, please let me know.

• Gaza scoreboard
  • Thomson Rutherford March 14, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    Somebody's gotta do it!

  • Thomson Rutherford March 14, 2012 at 1:01 pm with 5 replies

    Dan, I don't want to see you stop commenting at Mondoweiss, although I have done the same myself for months at a time.

    I certainly agree with your criticisms about the morality of current-day Zionists and Zionist sympathizers, but I think that most in the MW 'community' are as anti-Zionist as you are. So I don't understand your statement, "You all have a glaring moral blind spot. And yes, Mondoweiss is indeed becoming 'The best Liberal Zionist Website'.” You all?

    I do understand your frustration. I feel it myself. But it's a slow educational process, and MW has become a significant instrument of that process. Over the years, as reader and commenter, I have watched the prevailing tenor at MW gradually change from cautious 'non-Zionist' to confirmed 'anti-Zionist,' from preferred 2SS to only-option 1SS.

    Despite all our faults and failings, the American people on the whole, including most Jewish Americans, are a moral people. The great enemy of a proper public morality is ignorance. Mondoweiss has a role to play in dispelling that ignorance about Israel/Palestine, and in arguing for a morality founded on justice.

    You have been a part of that effort, and so I hope that, after a few deep breaths, you will rejoin it.

• Beinart: Time for a Jewish conversation about Jewish power and responsibility
  • Thomson Rutherford March 13, 2012 at 8:01 pm

    The Zionist consensus that once undergirded diaspora Jewish life is collapsing.... It is time for a Jewish conversation that faces—rather than evades—the realities of our time. (Peter Beinart)

    What is good for the City [Athens] and Man? (Plato)

    It is time for Jews - particularly American Jews - to reconsider Plato's question and attempt to answer it rationally. Not from a tribalist perspective but from the universalist viewpoint that many Jews used to wear as a badge of honor.

    While Plato himself was no great fan of rule by the demos, his city Athens was the prototype for Western democracy. America for a half-century or more represented the zenith of 'government of the people, by the people, for the people.' Under the Constitution, 'the people' means all the people, not one or more ethnic groups.

    Whatever the realities on the ground, democracy has always been a defining ideal of the American republic. The ethos of democracy is egalitarianism, not elitism - especially not elitism based on ethnicity or religion.

    Revulsion against ethnic elitism runs deep in the historical American psyche. American Jews flaunt contempt for this natural antipathy at their own collective peril.

    So I shall give an answer to my own question stated above: "Is Jewish power good for us?" At its present levels, No. Not for non-Jews and Jewish Americans alike.

    P,S. - Imagine that every American were polled on this question - "Is Jewish power good for us?" - and honest replies were obtained. What percentage of non-Jews do you think would answer "Yes"? And of Jews?

  • Thomson Rutherford March 13, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    Yes Jews are powerful; but are we so powerful that we must exclude all the other Americans who are affected by these policies? (Philip Weiss)

    Well, yes, unless they/you want to see your power diminished over time (perhaps you do?). That's the way of closely-held elite power - especially ethnic or religious elite dominance. Exclusion of others is the foundation for group exceptionalism.

    My own feeling is that if Jews wish to avoid widespread discriminatory practices in the future they must reduce their own discriminatory tendencies. That must entail a decline in the tribalistic ethos, which requires some kind of suppression of the Zionist impetus that drives so much of modern Jewish identity off the cliff.

    So that brings us back to that great evil, not only for modern Jewish identity, but for modern American society. I speak, of course, of political Zionism.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 12, 2012 at 9:08 pm with 1 replies

    ... Jews delight in our newfound power. What could be more exhilarating for a people ... an American Jewish community capable of making politicians pander in the most obsequious of ways? (Peter Beinart)

    This post, the excerpt from Beinart, and the usual culprits in the above commentary all put me in mind of a question I have often pondered: Is Jewish power a good thing? And if it is good thing, why?

    Now one might say that it must be a good thing because it is so abundant, that it exists in such large measure. And, being a man-made thing, it must surely be good if we maintain it in such bounty.

    It hardly needs to be asserted that Jewish power is plentiful. Jewish writers themselves tell us so, with increasing frequency. A casual observer of the national scene, one capable of distinguishing Jews from non-Jews, must see evidence weekly, if not daily, of the prominent roles that Jews play in government, in news media, in education and publishing, in the entertainment industry, in the councils of foreign policy, and in the worlds of high finance and commerce. Indeed, is there any major center of political, economic, or social power that is not well populated with Jews? (You've heard of the 7/10 rule, haven't you? Try it out; it seems to work surprisingly well, at least in the media and in publishing.)

    The question is not whether Jewish power is significant, it's whether it is good. And good for whom? If it is good for all humanity - such power in the hands of such a small minority - what is it about Jews that makes Jewish power good for, say, me? Perhaps, as sometimes asserted, it's because Jews are more intelligent, more industrious, more morally fit, more ... in other words, more 'meritorious'?

    Note the two questions I am skirting: (1) Why Jewish power? and (2) Is it good for the Jews?"

    When I was growing up, I was taught in Sunday School that Jews are the Chosen People, except that they were now outside the Almighty's grace because they didn't accept the 'New Covenant.' Whatever. As long as Jews believe they are still the Chosen People and other people are willing to grant them that distinction, it would make a sort of de facto sense that Jews are a kind of natural aristocracy, wouldn't it - like Plato's philosopher-kings or Leo Strauss's intellectual-elite?

    Plato asked, "What is good for the City and Man?" Cicero, as it were, replied, "The Republic does not bring to light the best possible regime but rather the nature of political things – the nature of the city." Yuri Slezkine (The Jewish Century, 2004) wrote, "The Modern Age is the Jewish Age .... Modernization is about everyone becoming urban .... Modernization, in other words, is about everyone becoming Jewish." To Plato and Cicero, 'Man' is essentially political, the political animal. To Slezkine and many another Jewish thinker, 'the Jew' is the epitome of the political animal.

    So is Jewish power good for us? Consequently, are Jews our natural rulers? Just asking.

• Israel is sucking up all the oxygen in the White House
  • Thomson Rutherford March 13, 2012 at 12:58 am

    Keith, I don't discuss economics or political economy here because I don't consider MW to be an appropriate forum for that. Sorry you don't agree. (I can recommend at least a dozen good economists' blogs, if you are interested.) Also, we obviously don't have the same opinion about the nature of economic science. We do agree, however, that Michael Hudson is a good guy worth paying attention to.

    Have you ever explained how your focus on "political economy" pertains to the problems of the Palestinians? Maybe you did and I just missed it.

    No matter about the misspelling; happens all the time.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 12, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    Keith, I hope I didn't hurt your feelings by calling you names. And I'm sure you didn't really mean it when you said I have an extremely narrow ideological focus.

    How many times must I assure you: You are not more anti-capitalist than I. Nor more anti-imperialist or anti-globalist or anti-corporatist or anti-Oil or anti-fascist or anti-war or anti-neoliberal "American consensus" or anti-PHARMA, etc.

    FYI, I know about "political economy" from every which way, for crying out loud. Economics is (was) my trade, and politics is my game. I'm not dumb about it. And yes, I've read Paul Craig Roberts, as well as a great deal more of many academic and historical luminaries in the field of political economy. I'm sure there are wide areas in which you and I would find agreement, as well as disagreement.

    My advice to you again is: If you want your thinking to be relevant about I/P and America's misadventures in the Middle East, you need to take the Israel lobby more seriously. You had a chance to learn more about it by watching AIPAC's operations last week. You aren't going to do much to ease the plight of the Palestinians (if you are interested in that), or to prevent an unnecessary war with Iran, by opposing the Oil Lobby. (Suggestion: Read more M&W, Blankfort, and Petras - and less Chomsky and Finkelstein.)

    Another suggestion: If you want to learn a lot about international economics and development, start with Krugman, Stiglitz, and Olivier Blanchard. If you want good modern takes on political economy, go to Brad DeLong, Barry Eichengreen, and the Two Romers at UC Berkeley. If you start from a more mainstream grounding, then you will be on firmer terrain when you consider more radical theories and solutions.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 12, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    Keith, let's be clear: Are you denying that America's problems are adversely effected by overemphasis on pursuing Israel’s agenda? This goes beyond your apparent role as defender of the Israel lobby. You now seem to make the blatant claim that pursuing Israel's agenda is, if not good for America, at least not bad for us. Please do expand on why you think this is so.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 12, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    Opaleye, clearly the phrase "enemy of the people" represented 'truth' for me or I wouldn't have said it. But in this contentious world one person's truth is another's garbage. The question in my mind is whether my speaking my truth so forthrightly (set aside for the moment the obvious accompanying exaggeration about appointments, etc.) helps advance the noble causes of the blog. Phil said that, in this case at least, it does not. That's useful information for me because, though I may be inclined to disagree from my own perspective, I am not privy to all the relevant information he has as mastermind of this blog.

    That leaves unanswered your question, What if my truth, or your truth, really is The Truth? Surely, one must fight for the 'truth' as one understands it. But do it wisely.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 12, 2012 at 11:47 am

    Agreed, Phil. Point taken - especially wrt careless imprecision and, in my own self-criticism above, "hyperbole" (induced by outrage).

    It's your and Adam's blog - a very valuable and highly-valued one - and a cautionary word of specific guidance on occasion can be helpful, as in this case, in clarifying limits for tone and content. I want Mondoweiss to thrive in the public mind.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 11, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    I apologize that the above posting was not more rigorously written.

    Bruce, this is an excellent explanation and defense of your excellent post. Some, commenters, I think, managed to misconstrue your meanings.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 11, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    To say that a “cost” is too big for USA inseparably includes the idea that it is PERCEIVED as “too big” by one or more BIGs.

    Huh? Quite apart from the questions of who runs the country, and in which BIGs' benefit, have you never heard of the ideal of "government of the people, by the people, for the people"? E pluribus unum? Do you not recognize that the American people themselves, collectively, have an interest that might be called 'the national interest' and that this is independent of the special interest of any of your BIGs? When Bruce speaks of the "cost" for USA, I imagine that this is what he means, however he might wish to define the interests of "the people."

  • Thomson Rutherford March 11, 2012 at 6:34 pm with 3 replies

    Dan, you are being cryptic again. I, among others, am not good at interpreting the Oracle.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 11, 2012 at 6:28 pm with 9 replies

    Keith, you can always be relied on to jump in as Apologist for the Israel Lobby. In your other role as Imperialist-Globalist Slayer, try to remember what you have said here before: It's all connected, man.

    Most people who comment (or post) here seem to be much more concerned than you about the aggressions and transgressions of the Israel Lobby. You might as well accept that and try your best to explain why you wish to excuse it.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 11, 2012 at 2:24 pm with 4 replies

    Thanks for the thanks, Phil. And most of all, thanks for your tolerance of various and often opposing views on topics relevant to your own key issues. As to the "falsity" of anything Bruce or I wrote, I think that if there is any it would lie in hyperbole - in taking basic truths and, for sake of emphasis, stretching them too far into the realm of exaggeration. That is what I (not Bruce) did above, in my ueber-polemical style. It's a style I normally try to avoid here out of respect for the interests of this blog.

    As time permits, I do like to supply evidence supporting my views, and urge others to do the same.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 11, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    Just why would such a little country have so much power and influence ....

    atimeforpeace, you misunderstand, or obfuscate. It is not the pitiful little country itself that has such power, it is its powerful organizations of supporters in America and Europe.

    But, of course, as everyone knows by now, the little mad-dog country has nuclear bombs and its 'Samson option.' Do you think it doesn't use that bit of diplomacy?

  • Thomson Rutherford March 11, 2012 at 12:23 pm with 8 replies

    Excellent summary of our foreign policy dilemma, Bruce. It's something I and some others have been saying here for years: The U,S, special relationship with Israel is the controlling factor in determining American foreign policy - wherever. It chooses our political leaders and top government officials. It works to blanket our government in secrecy and misinformation. It promotes public ignorance and manipulates public passions for its own foul ends. "It" is the special relationship pressed on America by 'friends of Israel.'

    Such is the power of the Israel Lobby and its neocon and 'liberal' supporters, along with its pathetic Christian 'Zionist' groupees. All governments and their representatives fear the ruthless power of the Lobby. In the U.S., it is a principal threat to the survival of democracy and Constitutional freedoms. It is an enemy of the people.

• Al Jazeera asks, 'What role does the pro-Israel lobby play?'
  • Thomson Rutherford March 8, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    The Newt's speech was bought and paid for by Sheldon Adelson, a big backer of AIPAC. For such Israel Firsters, Israel is indeed the center of the universe. F$$$ck the rest.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 8, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    The group [AIPAC] has strong ties to the religious right and evangelical voters.

    No. it does not. AIPAC has loose, perfunctory ties to some fringe organizations representing an ill-defined minority of "religious right and evangelical voters." AIPAC is a Jewish lobbying group representing dozens of American Jewish organizations motivated by political Zionism. It has no interest in the Christian 'religious right' - which, by the way, has no significant Washington lobbying organization in behalf of Israel.

• Israel Firster
  • Thomson Rutherford March 9, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    On the subject of Israel Firsters, allow me to mention that at WaPo's website today there is an op-ed entitled "Obama vs. Israel," by that arch-neocon, WaPo's champion Israel Firster, Dr. Charles Krauthammer.

    Here are excerpts that capture the gist. The link is below.

    After ostensibly tough talk about preventing Iran from going nuclear, the Obama administration acquiesced this week to yet another round of talks with the mullahs.
    ...
    These negotiations don’t just gain time for a nuclear program about whose military intent the International Atomic Energy Agency is issuing alarming warnings [???].... If the administration were serious about achievement rather than appearance, it would have warned that this was the last chance for Iran to come clean and would have demanded a short timeline....
    ...
    This re-engagement comes immediately after Obama’s campaign-year posturing about Iran’s nukes. Speaking Sunday in front of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), he warned that “Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States.” ... Obama garnered much AIPAC applause by saying that his is not a containment policy but a prevention policy. But what has he prevented? ... Prevention is halting and reversing the program. Yet Iran is tripling its uranium output ....

    So what is Obama’s real objective? “We’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel,” an administration official told The Post in the most revealing White House admission since “leading from behind.”

    Revealing and shocking. The world’s greatest exporter of terror ... is approaching nuclear capability — and the focus of U.S. policy is to prevent a democratic ally threatened with annihilation from preempting the threat?

    Indeed it is. The new open-ended negotiations with Iran fit well with this strategy of tying Israel down. As does Obama’s “I have Israel’s back” reassurance, designed to persuade Israel and its supporters to pull back and outsource to Obama what for Israel are life-and-death decisions.... -- contradicting the intended impression he’d given AIPAC that he was offering special protection to an ally under threat of physical annihilation.

    To AIPAC he declares that “no Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction” and affirms “Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions . . . to meet its security needs.”

    And then he pursues policies — open-ended negotiations, deceptive promises of tough U.S. backing for Israel, boasts about the efficacy of sanctions, grave warnings about “war talk” — meant, as his own official admitted, to stop Israel from exercising precisely that sovereign right to self-protection.

    Yet beyond these obvious contradictions and walk-backs lies a transcendent logic: ... Obama wants to get past Nov. 6 without any untoward action that might threaten his reelection.

    For Israel, however, the stakes are somewhat higher: the very existence of a vibrant nation and its 6 million Jews. The asymmetry is stark. A fair-minded observer might judge that Israel’s desire to not go gently into the darkness carries higher moral urgency than the political future of one man, even if he is president of the United States.

    [my emphasis added]

    link to washingtonpost.com

    For Dr. Krauthammer, Israel's inherently "higher moral urgency" trumps any other considerations, moral or otherwise, that citizens of the world might have. When he sees 'daylight' between them, Krauthammer will always side with Israel over the U.S.

    P,S. - Since, for his own Zionist reasons, Dr, Krauthammer is always so sour on Obama, may I in future be excused if I refer to him as Dr. Sauerkraut-Hammer? Also, I hope that Dr. Krauthammer, being a psychiatrist, might somehow help me understand why I have acquired lately a worrisome tendency to avoid foods marked 'kosher.'

  • Thomson Rutherford March 8, 2012 at 5:51 pm with 2 replies

    Robert and Kathleen, I think you are both right, and your opposing views express the crux of the matter for U.S. policy and diplomacy going forward. Which view wins out will depend on which Administration faction dominates Obama's political receptors: the neocons or the realists. Unfortunately, the liberal left has little influence in this arena.

• Walt and Mearsheimer don't think Israel will attack Iran, and neither will we
  • Thomson Rutherford March 9, 2012 at 11:01 am

    CitizenC is correct: 9/11 was indeed an attack on U.S. patronage of Israel. Whether it was no. 1 or no. 2 on Al Qaeda's list of grievances is not relevant.

• Israel's lobby (updated)
  • Thomson Rutherford March 8, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Accordingly, is it any wonder that a large part of the 'American community' gets the idea that a large part of the 'Jewish community' acts as de facto agents for a foreign country, not very friendly to the U.S.? As Netanyahu said so wittily the other day, "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, why then it must be ...."

• 'Forward' joins 'New Yorker' in embracing MJ Rosenberg
  • Thomson Rutherford March 8, 2012 at 9:00 pm

    "I don’t want to be too harsh ...."

    Thanks for being so honest, Krauss. That was like a breath of fresh air. You may not want to be harsh, but I do. And I shall.

• Friedman warns war could hurt American Jews
  • Thomson Rutherford March 8, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    "The cult rises to warn of political apocalypse."

    Calamitas, ipso facto!

  • Thomson Rutherford March 8, 2012 at 12:04 am

    Id est, post modum ceteris paribus impossibilis!

  • Thomson Rutherford March 7, 2012 at 5:53 pm with 2 replies

    "Most Americans support US military action if Iran gets a nuke. Get over it."

    Ad hoc, veni vidi vici. Post hoc, caveat emptor. A priori versus a posteriori.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 7, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    "... and the Israel lobby — both its Jewish and evangelical Christian wings — has never been more influential, because of its ability to direct campaign contributions to supportive candidates." (emphasis added)

    In this regard - that is, the ability or inclination of the Christian evangelicals, as such, to direct campaign contributions to candidates specifically for support of Israel - is quite insignificant in comparison to that of Jewish organizations making up the beating heart and body of the Lobby. Think AIPAC and CPMJAO and affiliates.

• Netanyahu gives genocidal bible story to Obama
  • Thomson Rutherford March 8, 2012 at 11:27 pm

    Yes and why do we ... let it go when religious tribalists are leading a Marcus Garvey movement for Jews (Zionism)?

    The reason is quite simple: because Zionist Jews control the American establishment and info channels. Surely you don't think such things would be so common otherwise?

  • Thomson Rutherford March 8, 2012 at 11:04 pm with 1 replies

    Hagee and other evangelical leaders plan to activate hundreds of congregations across the country — many of which boast tens of thousands of members — to flood congressional inboxes with e-mails at the touch of a button.

    This is pure fantasy, promulgated mainly by Jews. John Hagee - whose church is an easy drive from my home - has very little influence in Christian congregations across the country, whether Protestant or Catholic. The guy is a philosemitic nutcase, fixated on ancient Hebrew texts.

• Responding to commenters on recent bannings
  • Thomson Rutherford March 3, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    hi thomson, you can hypothesize all you want about what i said, but i know what i meant.

    Annie, dear, I was sore about feeling obliged to plod into this 'Christian Zionist' bog once again. There was a lot of thought behind your comments, I know. When I have a little more time I shall study them more fully. It's clear that you and I come at the subject and context from different perspectives, but perhaps (?) we don't disagree all that much about the facts. I'm feeling cautiously optimistic that we would share the same objectives wrt disposal of American Zionism. Anyhow, I have to go out of town for a few days. As soon as I can I shall attempt some sort of reconciliation of views and place it here at this spot. Carry on!

  • Thomson Rutherford March 3, 2012 at 7:42 am

    "hi thomson, i think you misunderstood me.... i meant the support for the zionists lobby (zionist support) is not primarily ethnic (jews).

    No, you were pretty clear. And you are wrong in your understanding of the American political scene as pertaining to Zionism and the Israel Lobby.

    First, be assured that I'm all in favor of persuading 'the other 98%' to become anti-Zionists. See my comment below, addressed to teta mother me. And don't associate me with Jerome Slater. You should know better! Also, be advised that the term Christian 'Zionist' is an oxymoron; if you want to be accurate (and most people don't) you should say 'Christian 'millennialist' or 'Christian 'dispensationalist.' (These benighted souls are far less numerous than you imagine, as their beliefs are a nineteenth-century contortion of usual Christian doctrine, either Protestant or Catholic.) If you mean Christians who, for one reason or another, appear to support Israel, you should simply say something like "Christian supporters of Israel" or "Christian supporters of Zionism."

    I really hate to spend time on this again; in recent years I've been over it ad nauseum with the likes of patm, Donald, and Citizen. But the mystical powers of the Christian 'Zionists' are a favorite fig leaf employed by Apologists for the Israel Lobby, and even by Jewish anti-Zionists who want to shield Jews in general from association with the Israel Lobby. If you were just an ordinary commenter here at MW, I would ignore your error, but as a prolific representative of the management you are bound (inadvertently) to keep promulgating the same hasbara.

    Let's start with the most complete and scholarly study ever performed on the Israel Lobby and political Zionism in America: Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby (2007). I refer particularly to Chap. 4, "What is the 'Israel Lobby?'" pp. 111-150. Here are excerpts:

    The Role of American Jewry: The bulk of the lobby is composed of Jewish Americans who are deeply committed to making sure that U.S. foreign policy advances what they believe to be Israel's interests. According to the historian Melvin I. Urofsky, "No other ethnic group in American history has so extensive an involvement with a foreign nation." Stephen T. Rosenthal agrees, writing that "since 1967 ... there has been no other country whose citizens have been as committed to the success of another country as American Jews have been to Israel." In 1981, the political scientist Robert H. Trice described the pro-Israel lobby as "comprised of at least 75 separate organizations - mostly Jewish - that actively support most of the actions and policy positions of the Israeli government." The activities of these individuals and groups go beyond merely voting for pro-Israel candidates to include writing letters to politicians and news organizations, making financial contributions to pro-Israel political candidates, and giving active support to one or more pro-Israel organizations, whose leaders often contact them directly to convey their agenda.
    ...
    Finally, some of the individuals and groups that are especially vocal on Israel's behalf, such as the Christian Zionists, are not Jewish. So while American Jews are the lobby's predominant constituency, it is more accurate to refer to this loose coalition as the Israel lobby. It is the specific political agenda that defines the lobby, not the religious or ethnic identity of those pushing it. [p. 115]
    ---
    American Jews have formed an impressive array of civic organizations whose agendas include working to benefit Israel, in many cases by influencing U.S. foreign policy. Key organizations include AIPAC, the American Jewish Congress, ZOA, the Israel Policy Forum, the ADL, ..., Hadassah, and many others. Indeed, the sociologist
    Chaim I. Waxman reported in 1992 that the "American Jewish Yearbook" listed more than than 80 national Jewish organizations "specifically devoted to Zionist and pro-Israel activities ..." Fifty-one of the largest and most important organizations come together in the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations ....

    The lobby also includes think tanks such as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Middle East Forum (MEF), and WINEP, as well as individuals who work in universities and other research organizations. There are also dozens of pro-Israel PACs ready to funnel money to pro-Israel political candidates or to candidates whose opponents are deemed either insufficiently supportive of or hostile to Israel. The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks campaign contributions, has identified roughly three dozen such "pro-Israel" PACs (many of them "stealth PACs" whose names do not reveal a pro-Israel orientation) and reports that these organizations contributed approximately $3 million to congressional candidates in the 2006 midterm election.

    Of the various Jewish organizations that include foreign policy as a central part of their agenda, AIPAC is clearly the most important and best known. In 1997, when Fortune Magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington, AIPAC came in second behind AARP but ahead of heavyweight lobbies like the AFL-CIO and the NRA [and the National Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute, Pharma, etc.].... Lee Hamilton, who served in Congress for 34 years, said in 1991, "There's no lobby group that matches it.... They're in a class by themselves." [pp. 116-17]
    ...
    According to J.J. Goldberg, the editor of the Jewish newspaper "Forward," Zionist influence "increased exponentially during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, because the affluence and influence of Jews in America had increased...."

    The lobby's size, wealth, and influence grew substantially after the Six-Day War in June 1967. According to [Stuart] Eizenstat, that conflict "galvanized the American Jewish public like no event since Israel's War of Independence.... Albert Chernin, the executive director of [the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, JCPA] expressed this perspective in 1978 when he said that our "first priority is Israel, of course, reflecting the complete identity of the American Jewish leadership with the concerns of the rank and file." The historian Jack Wertheimer terms this comment a "stunning admission that political efforts to shore up Israel superseded all other concerns of Jewish community relations organizations in the United States." ... According to Wertheimer, the overall responsibility for lobbying for Israel was assumed by the Conference of Presidents and AIPAC ...." ... Flush with cash and well positioned in the Cold War political landscape, AIPAC found its political muscle enhanced by new federal rules on campaign financing which triggered the creation of independent PACs and made it easier to channel money toward pro-Israel candidates. AIPAC ... by the 1980s, notes Warren Bass, was a "Washington powerhouse." [pp. 118-20]

    The Role of the Neoconservatives: Very importantly, neoconservatives believe that military force is an extremely useful tool for shaping the world in ways that will benefit America.... Neoconservatism, in short, is a very hawkish political philosophy.... Virtually all neoconservatisms are strongly committed to Israel, a point they emphasize openly and unapologetically.... According to Max Boot, a leading neoconservative pundit, supporting Israel is "a key tenet of neoconservatism" ....
    ...
    Many neoconservatives are connected to an overlapping set of Washington-based think tanks, committees, and publications whose agenda includes promoting the special relationship between the United States and Israel [i.e., the Israel Lobby - a long list of Jewish lobby organizations is given].... For example, Russell Kirk, the well-known conservative political theorist, maintained that "what really animates the neoconservatives is the preservation of Israel. That lies in back of everything." ...

    A number of commentators have emphasized the Jewish roots of neoconservatism .... In The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy, Murray Friedman goes so far as to describe neoconservatism as "American Jewish conservatism." But not all neoconservatives are Jewish .... [pp. 128-32]

    The Christian Zionists: The lobby includes another important group of gentiles - the Christian Zionists, a subset of the broader politically oriented Christian Right. Prominent members of this constituency include religious figures such as .... Although support for Israel is not their only concern, a number of Christian evangelicals [and Pentecostals] have become increasingly visible and vocal in their support for the Jewish state, and they have recently formed an array of organizations to advance that commitment within the political system. In a sense, the Christian Zionists can be thought of as an important "junior partner" to the various pro-Israel groups in the American Jewish community.... Christian Zionists have formed a number of organizations whose avowed purpose is to encourage support for Israel. [Short list follows.][pp. 132-34]
    ...
    How important is the Christian Zionist branch of the Israel lobby? By providing financial support to the settler movement and by publicly inveighing against territorial concessions, the Christian Zionists have reinforced hard-line attitudes in Israel and the United States and have made it more difficult for American leaders to put pressure on Israel.... The presence of a vocal but non-Jewish voice in support of Israel also makes U.S. backing more than just a response to special pleading by American Jewry and probably exerts some effect on the political calculations of politicians who do not have large Jewish constituencies....

    Yet the influence of the Christian Zionists should not be overstated.... There are several reasons why Christian Zionists exert less impact on U.S. Middle East policy than the other parts of the Israel lobby do. ... the alliance goes well beyond the issue of Israel to include a broad array of social issues. Supporting Israel is only one of the many issues that evangelicals like Robertson and Falwell have been concerned with, and it may not even be the most important.... the number of followers who care deeply about Israel is undoubtedly smaller. In addition, and in sharp contrast to groups like AIPAC, Christian Zionists lack the organizational capacity to analyze national security topics or to offer specific legislative guidance on concrete foreign policy issues. Surveys of congressional aides by Ruth Mouly in the 1980s and Irvine Anderson in 1999 found "little evidence of direct lobbying of Congress by ... members of the Religious Right on the subject of Israel." Similarly, Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein ... told the Israeli writer Zev Chafets that a delegation of evangelicals he had taken to visit then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in 2003 "was the only Christian group ever to lobby the White House specifically on behalf of Israel." ... it is clear that Israel is only one of the items on the evangelicals' list of concerns. By contrast, groups like AIPAC, ADL, ZOA, and the Conference of the Presidents put U.S. support for Israel at the top of their agenda, and their efforts to influence foreign policy are reinforced by think tanks like JINSA and WINEP.

    Furthermore, Christianity contains a complex set of moral and religious teachings, and many of its most important precepts neither justify nor encourage support for Israel. ...

    Christian Zionists also lack the financial power of the major pro-Israel Jewish groups, and they do not have the same media presence when it comes to Middle East issues.... For all these reasons, the Christian Zionists are best seen as a significant adjunct to the Jewish elements of the lobby, but not its most important part. [pp. 138-39]

    [my emphasis added]

    There you have it, Annie. I have done my own informal study of the Israel Lobby over the years, and if you would like more information let me know. But I hope this will lay to rest for now those ridiculous claims that the Christian 'Zionist' portion is more significant than, or as significant as, the Jewish elements of the Israel Lobby.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 2, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    Christian dispensationalist theology is the root of Christian Zionism ....

    Eh, Exiled? For expertise on Christian Protestant fundamentalist beliefs and political activities, you send me to a news article by a British Jewish reporter? Please! By direct training, personal experience, and knowledge of the subject and people involved, I know more about the matter than your source ever will. I don't want to put a lot of details about my past life on this blog. Re-read my comment above and see my reply to Annie, pending below.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 2, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    ... the power of the christian zionists here is much stronger politically ....

    Annie, thanks for your words of wisdom about unity of purpose but the above statement is simply untrue. One often sees it here at MW and I have to laugh each time I see it. If you have any evidence to support the idea, you might want to bring it out.

    Watch the AIPAC convention coming up. Watch the ubiquitous panel discussions and conferences held by influential neocon/Ziocon think tanks. Count the number of Christian Zionists. You may see one - Michael Gerson, whose family used to be Jewish.

    Once in a while you may see some event that includes the notorious Pastor John Hagee, whose mega-church in San Antonio is a little distance across-state from my home. I grew up and have lived among the Evangelicals/Pentecostals of whom you speak (was born one) and I know them well. Some of them are mildly 'Zionist' for peculiar religious reasons (most aren't). But with rare exceptions they don't vote in elections on the basis of 'Zionist' positions. Not only is Israel not their single issue, it doesn't even make their list of top ten issues. Leave out a few nutcases like Hagee (whom I can watch on TV) and you must recognize that what transpires in American churches and synagogues wrt Israel are vastly different matters - there's no basis, really, for comparison.

    Political Zionist lobbying power in the U.S. comes from dozens of Jewish organizations led by AIPAC, CPMJAO, and JCPA. There are no comparable Christian 'Zionist' lobbying organizations directly influencing the foreign policy of our government. If you know much about Democratic Party organization, you know that the bulk of Party campaign contributions comes from these Jewish organizations and their individual members (a trend accelerated by the decline of labor unions).

    Christian 'Zionists' don't turn national elections in America on the basis of their preferences regarding Israel. A good example of this is Rep. Ron Paul, who was my congressman until a recent redistricting. Paul, with his usual unflinching consistency, has for decades opposed, with fiery speeches on the floor of the House, all military aid and support for Israel. His district in Texas is chock full of Christian fundamentalists, some of whom have 'Zionist' preferences toward Israel. There are in addition large amounts of Jewish Zionist political funds available in Houston, part of which lies in his district. The Zionists and pseudo-'Zionists' have never been able to mount an effective opposition to Paul's longevity in the House. He has always been highly popular among the real and nominal Christians in spite of, or because of, his functional anti-Zionism. I know that, nationwide, polls show that around half of Americans express approval for continuing support for Israel. But that has little to do with who gets elected to Congress and how they vote once in office.

    Sorry, Annie, Zionism is a political movement based on Jewish ethnic nationalism, not Christian religious fundamentalism. It is one highly significant aspect of modern Jewish identity that drives large portions of American foreign policy. You can't dance around that. When I see people try it, it splits my stitches.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 2, 2012 at 2:54 am

    teta mother me,

    I used to push the 'unsustainability' argument several years ago here at Mondoweiss. I had few takers; my comments along that line were generally ignored, although allowed. The site then seemed predominantly non-Zionist - now I would say it is strongly anti-Zionist. Back then, when I would try to explain why I thought the U.S. political system was inherently unstable wrt Zionism and too much visibility of Jews, I was accused of anti-Semitism a couple of times and more frequently was told that I was imagining or exaggerating things. After a while, I stopped trying to make that argument because I felt I wasn't getting anywhere. I've never believed that the eventual collapse of support for Israel will result in significant violence in America against Jews, but I do think things can and probably will get pretty ugly without remedial action.

    Since that time, I've tended to stay away from the 'instability' argument. I seem to sense that most of the people who frequent this site understand the logic anyway (I think Phil does), but it appears that it does help to be non-Jewish. A great many Jews (I don't know if it's most) seem to be in denial, to be wearing blinders. What are their lenses going to reveal to them when AIPAC and Israel invade Washington next month? Amazingly enough, I often find myself wondering if they can't see the dangers that are always there when a small minority has achieved great concentration of politico-economic power and the system crashes.

    So more recently I come in on discussions of Jewish identity - because IMO that is the key to our present conundrum. American Jews have become political Zionists because a sickness, actually a malignancy, has arisen in modern-day Jewish identity. Jews must be cured of Zionism. Unfortunately, we can't just have the rabbis exorcise the Demon - won't work and they won't try anyway. Somewhere up above, Phil seemed to agree that about 5% of Jewish Americans are not afflicted with political Zionism. That's not a lot but it's a start back to normalcy, and thank Golly for small favors. They - like Phil and Adam and Jeffrey - are extremely important in doing their work within the tribe. And their voices are heard by the goyim.

    Here's where the going gets tricky. Justice for the Palestinians (and an end to American involvement in Israel's wars) cannot be achieved without defeating political Zionism in America, which cannot happen without turning a strong majority of American Jews into non-Zionists or, better, anti-Zionists - which will not happen unless they feel strong pressure from the vast majority of Americans who are not Jewish.

    To 'turn' the American Jewish community away from Zionism, they - the members of the tribe - must feel significant psychological pain. A part of that pain must come from the exertions of non-Jews. Once that is done, Israelis will listen to America again. But not before.

• ADL enlists city of Oakland to block Atzmon event
  • Thomson Rutherford March 1, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    David and Shmuel, I think both the Sand and Atzmon books are valuable (maybe because I'm not Jewish?), but I see little basis for meaningful comparison. The Gilad book is a personal story intertwined with powerful, contemporary social forces. The fact that his consciousness may have been "warped" by his experiences does not destroy the significance of his thinking.

    I recognize your (and Hasbara Buster's) concerns about real or potential damage to the PSM, but I don't think I agree. That's probably because, fundamentally, I see the effort to diminish the political power of Zionism occurring on a broader battleground than you do. However, I still have an open mind about the net resultant value of Gilad toward the objective of bringing down Zionism.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 1, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    As time went on there was no diminishment of my sense of being betrayed.

    Miriam, I found your testimony very moving. I think this sense of betrayal is what also animates Gilad and commenter Danaa, as deeply-wounded former Israelis.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 1, 2012 at 7:34 am

    THB,

    I really don't know if you are anti-Semitic, as you ask, nor if Gilad Atzmon is anti-Semitic, as you claim above. But this I do strongly believe: Discussions about Jewish identity and 'Jewish culture,' which are so common on this blog, are not irrelevant to Israel/Palestine issues.

    On the contrary, questions about Jewish identity are central to the phenomenon of Zionism, and the problem of Zionism is central to the cause for Palestinian rights. Unless political Zionism can be thwarted in the United States, good luck with any meaningful efforts to obtain justice for the Palestinians.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 1, 2012 at 7:08 am with 4 replies

    Hi, Shmuel. This comment is directed to both you and David Samel.

    I suspect from reading the above thread that most of the people condemning Gilad as 'beyond the pale' have read little or nothing of what the man himself has written. I am holding in my hand a copy of his book, The Wandering Who?: A Study of Jewish Identity Politics. (Perhaps the title itself is verboten territory, Shmuel?) It's not great literature, but such as that is rare these days.

    To help the discussion along, perhaps, I shall quote the beginning paragraphs of the book. (I see nothing terribly objectionable there, if one is willing to make allowances for occasional over-generalization, so I hope the management will not object.)

    In London, in what I often define as my 'self-imposed exile,' I grasped that Israel and Zionism were just parts of the wider Jewish problem.

    Israel is the Jewish state, at least that is what it claims to be. Israel is largely supported by world Jewry institutionally, financially, and spiritually. Zionism and Israel have become the symbolic identifiers of the contemporary Jew. And yet, in spite of Israel being the Jewish State, in spite of its vast support by Jewish lobbies around the world, hardly any commentator is courageous enough to wonder what the word Jew stands for. This question, it seems, is still taboo within Western discourse.

    In this book, I will try to untangle the knot. I will present a harsh criticism of Jewish politics and identity. Yet, it is crucial to mention at this early stage that there will be not a single reference to Jews as ethnicity or race. In my writing, I differentiate between Jews (the people), Judaism (the religion), and Jewish-ness (the ideology). This book doesn't deal with Jews as a people or ethnicity. If anything, my studies of the issue suggest that Jews do not form any kind of racial continuum. In short, those who are searching for blood or race-related interpretation of Zionism will have to look for it in someone else's work.

    In my work, I also refrain from criticizing Judaism, the religion. Instead I confront different interpretations of the Judaic code. I deal with Jewish Ideology, Jewish identity politics, and the Jewish political discourse. I ask what being a Jew entails. I am searching for the metaphysical, spiritual, and socio-political connotations.

    I launch my journey raising a relatively simple question. Who are the Jews? Or alternately what do people mean when they call themselves Jews?

    As you and Danaa have noted, Atzmon writes from the unique viewpoint of one particular Israeli expatriot. Are these not interesting questions he raises?

    I have read many controversial works by Jewish writers, and this one does not strike me as being more inadmissible than many that seem to have received far less calumny. As Keith said above, there seems to be something going on under the surface here. IMO, the book is worth a read, if for no other reason so one will know more accurately the person he is condemning.

    I didn't realize that discussion, by a Jew, of Jewish identity, Jewish identity politics, and Jewish political discourse was verboten. Is it?

    P.S. - The quotation before the Foreword should be noted:

    "The Nazis made me afraid to be a Jew, and the Israelis made me ashamed to be a Jew." - Israel Shahak

  • Thomson Rutherford March 1, 2012 at 5:06 am

    I think in America and Canada the danger posed by Jew hatred is not dangerous in the short range.

    wj, how about the long range? If you suspect that genuine anti-Semitism will be dangerous in the long run, I would be very interested to know why you think so. Just asking.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 1, 2012 at 3:18 am

    I think that he clearly made a figure of speech that IF Israeli Jews identify themselves with historical/mythical characters from 2000 years ago, then they are all suicidal Zealots and they are all Judases who betrayed Christ. This is called reductio ad absurdum. You are what you are today, not what mythical “you” were 2000 years ago.

    wj, would you please indicate whether you wish to dispute this quite reasonable interpretation of what Gilad meant, rather than simply asserting without supporting quotes or links your belief that he seriously called Jews "Christ-killers"?

    Your response about smells in the subway was repulsive, and seemed out of 'persona' for you.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 1, 2012 at 2:47 am

    ... to claim or ask the world to believe that there exist a “people” who have been hated since time began for absolutely no reason by all other peoples of the world because all other peoples are evil haters except them, who have always been totally innocent of creating any animus toward themselves.

    This point is a matter of curiosity for me, too. All my reading in and around that question suggests that the standard "reason" put forth by Jews themselves is the allegedly common belief of Christians that Jews are/were 'Christ-killers.' But then there's also that 'inherent' business, isn't there? And one shouldn't forget the 'jealousy' thing.

    I should add that I question the premise of the question. [Apply fog here.]

  • Thomson Rutherford March 1, 2012 at 2:10 am

    Most importantly he speaks THE TRUTH.

    I think Gilad speaks part of the truth. But THE TRUTH in matters of opinion is mostly subjective. Gilad speaks HIS truth, for what it's worth. The truth is quite elusive, and no writer, with the possible exception of Shakespeare, has ever succeeded in corralling the whole truth and no critter but the truth. Man, he was some cowboy!

  • Thomson Rutherford March 1, 2012 at 12:28 am

    Was it good for her? Hell, it wasn’t good for anybody! I hope Gilad had better luck.

    WTF!!! You didn't care for the issue? Might there not be another self-interested point of view here?

  • Thomson Rutherford February 29, 2012 at 11:41 pm

    That’s a hell of a system, Swami, if you ask me. Have you personally tried it?
    Hey, don’t get me wrong! How I love ya, how I love ya, my dear old…

    Mooser, on a good day you are great! You should be in Vaudeville. Know any other song and dance? Maybe we can get you a spot in the next show, perhaps as a warm-up for Durante.

  • Thomson Rutherford February 29, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    Danaa, yours was an outstanding defense of the authenticity of Gilad's ideas, if not their validity. No one could have said it better, or is better qualified to do so.

    If one wants to understand Gilad's views of 'Jewish culture,' one must start with a consideration of his own experiences as a Jew, both within Israel and outside it. Having done so without prejudice, one need not agree with his viewpoints and feelings to recognize their authenticity from his real perspective.

    Gilad Atzmon is hardly the first intelligent Jew to become a severe critic of 'Jewish culture.' From my standpoint as an inquisitive person, I want to see broad discussion of this and all other important social phenomena. I loath censorship.

  • Thomson Rutherford February 28, 2012 at 9:24 pm

    hophmi, I haven't listened to the radio broadcast you provided excerpts from, but I'm wondering why you are so upset by what you presented above. They are not things I, as a non-Jew, would want to say on the radio (not so well informed), but I certainly think Gilad Atzmon should be able to express his opinions on these subjects without receiving such ad hominem attacks from people like you. The guy is a former Israeli who served in the IDF. He has been deeply scarred by his fellow Jews for expressing what I think are his honest opinions and feelings. I understand that you don't share those feelings, so no need to explain that.

    Is it your position that Jews should not engage in criticism of (some or most) other Jews or Jewish culture/values in public forums? Why? If I were a Catholic, do you think it would be evil of me to bitterly criticize Catholics and long-held dogmas of the Catholic Church on the radio - even if I had suffered great emotional pain at the hands of the Church?

    I think your perspective lacks maturity.

  • Thomson Rutherford February 28, 2012 at 8:47 pm

    hophmi, you have again revealed your ignorance. No guest speaks on the radio unless he is invited. Like everyone else, Gilad has a First Amendment right to speak on the radio if he is invited.

  • Thomson Rutherford February 28, 2012 at 4:42 pm with 1 replies

    All the Atzmon-haters have been summoned out in force, here and immediately below. Gilad is not a "Holocaust-denier." How many times do you have to be told that? If you don't like Gilad's ideas, describe the ideas and state what you object to. Otherwise, would you please just go suck your thumb elsewhere?

  • Thomson Rutherford February 28, 2012 at 4:35 pm with 3 replies

    hophmi, explain why you think Gilad would not have the right to speak on Pacifica. Where are you from and where do you live?

• Dershowitz wants MJ Rosenberg fired for daring to stop Iran war push
  • Thomson Rutherford February 28, 2012 at 3:57 pm with 1 replies

    NYT - Amid heightened tensions with the West over its nuclear program, Iran on Tuesday called for negotiations on a treaty banning nuclear weapons and condemned their production or possession as “a great sin.”

    Under extreme pressure from AIPAC, Congress is passing laws forbidding any American official from even talking to any Iranian official, much less thinking about negotiations.

  • Thomson Rutherford February 28, 2012 at 3:48 pm with 1 replies

    teta mother me,

    Your link to quercus is not working for me.

  • Thomson Rutherford February 28, 2012 at 3:42 pm with 1 replies

    M.J., you are an inspiration to all of us in the pro-Palestinian, antiwar effort. Thanks so much for your steadfast dedication to the cause of peace and justice. For persons of conscience, you are a testament to the potential for moral growth over time.

  • Thomson Rutherford February 28, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    Yes, Annie, that's a gem.

  • Thomson Rutherford February 28, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    Yes, I do think that the effect of people who are single-issue Israel is often the same as if they were consciously putting Israel’s interests ahead of America’s. But I don’t think they are consciously doing that. In probably almost all cases, there’s no intentionality.

    HRK, I don't want you to interpret this as an ad hominem. So let me say simply that you seem hopelessly naive.

• Neocons and AIPAC both want war-- but AIPAC has the Dems
  • Thomson Rutherford February 26, 2012 at 9:14 pm with 1 replies

    AIPAC, CPMAJA, WINEP, and other elements of the Jewish-American Israel Lobby did not sit on the sidelines in the run-up to the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. They were major players, both publicly and behind the scenes, in the stampede to war. This should have been clear to anyone paying attention during the whole year of 2002.

    If you really doubt this, reread Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby (2007). With unbiased eyes, pay attention to the text and the cited references (many more could have been included and weren't).

    I have no idea why Jim Lobe wants to draw a sharp distinction between neocons and the Israel Lobby. The neoconservative movement was initiated and has always been dominated by right-leaning Jews whose primary focus has been Israel. The movement's leaders have always been associated with the Israel Lobby, in one way or another. For many decades now, the Lobby has politically dominated foreign policy positions of both parties - Democrats and Republicans. The implementation of those policies has been achieved in the Republican Party by neoconservative Zionists (not all Jewish) and in the Democratic Party by "liberal Zionists" (an oxymoron).

    I do think that in his career Jim Lobe has tended to devote more attention to the neoconservative movement than to the broader Israel Lobby. Neoconservatism is one arm of the Israel Lobby, but not separate from it.

    Neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby are all part of Zionism in America - a great ill that has befallen our country. They consistently favor and seek to advance any military intervention that they think will work to Israel's advantage - including the ill-fated war on Iraq and its people.

    But I certainly agree that the Israel Lobby, led by AIPAC, has been much more open this time in publicly pushing for war with Iran. As the years have passed in the post-9/11 era, the Lobby has become ever more brazenly emboldened. One dreadful anti-Zionist hope, held by many, is that the Lobby's hubris will result in such overreach that its house will crumble down upon it.

• NJ Star-Ledger runs 'dual loyalty' charge against Rep. Rothman supporters
  • Thomson Rutherford February 26, 2012 at 4:38 am

    ... leaders of Orthodox Jewish synagogues in the city "are urging their congregants to switch parties from Republican to Democrat so they can vote for Rep. Steve Rothman ....

    Under U.S. law, religious organizations are not permitted to advocate in elections for specific candidates or parties and retain their tax-exempt status. Someone should report these Orthodox synagogues to the IRS so their tax-exempt status can be removed. We, the taxpayers, need their money.

  • Thomson Rutherford February 26, 2012 at 4:21 am

    Tacky? How about disgusting, despicable, abhorrent? That's how I see it, and I'm sure that's how many of his New Jersey non-Jewish constituents see it also. But what do they matter in Zionist country?

• Hoenlein says irresponsible 'J Street' threatens Jewish unity (and survival)
  • Thomson Rutherford March 1, 2012 at 10:25 pm

    Leander, sorry, but there was no ignorance in my response. You apparently missed the point of my comparison of counter-factual tribal fates. The point was to dismiss the modern relevance of all such counter-factuals, including the 'possible' solidarity among the Judean 'Jews' - which didn't exist. What if the Jews had been indivisible? What if they were all twelve feet tall? They weren't, and that's all that matters.

    What if, at the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields, the Visigoths, instead of fighting with Aetius the Roman, had hung together with their brethren the Ostrogoths fighting with Attila the Hun? The Huns would have won and perhaps dominated for centuries what had been the Western Empire. So what? The great nation of the Gothic tribes didn't hold together, and ultimately they became Spaniards and Italians and Georgians. Like the Judean 'Jews,' they were a losing tribe in a vanished past. It couldn't be helped - the only things that were possible were the things that happened.

    Your theory about my ignorance doesn't hold water. I learned my Sunday School lessons well.

  • Thomson Rutherford March 1, 2012 at 8:04 am

    From Shmuel: My understanding and vision of Jewish collective identity is not what you would call “tribalist” or “political” ....

    Thanks, Shmuel, for the explanation. Sorry for my delay in seeing it; I forgot where this old thread was.

  • Thomson Rutherford February 28, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    Gosh, what a nice way of saying ‘he regularly manged to skip out just one step ahead of the bill collectors, warrants, subpoenas, angry husbands and enraged wives ....

    Mooser, you served as a convenient, lovable strawman to represent defiant, rugged American individualism in the face of demands for conformity said to exist in 'Jewish culture.' I'm sure there must be an appropriate medal or some sort of badge for such unselfish (and involuntary) service.

  • Thomson Rutherford February 28, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Shmuel, thank you for your reply. Excerpt follows:

    There is one point on which my understanding of Judaism seems to diverge from his [Mooser's], and that is the role of the collective. I don’t see this as antithetical to the “American ethos” ....

    The context of the discussion was concern about the identity of others. I explained my perspective as having to do with the identity of the group, which necessarily involves concern with the identity of individuals .... – related to content and focus rather than “counting Jews” ....

    Leaving the perverse distortion of political Zionism aside for now, I would greatly appreciate your expanding on the "role of the collective" in modern Jewish culture and 'Jewish identity'. As one who was once religious, I have no problem with unobtrusive Judaism, just as with the unobtrusive forms of Christianity and Islam. I used to live 'next door' to the Amish in Lancaster County, PA, and found their collectivist culture intriguing, but I can't say I ever understood their sense of personal identity. Obviously, kinship (literally) and endogamy played a huge role in anchoring their personal identities in binding communal relationships - to a degree way beyond what most Americans experience, or want to experience. Therein, custom is the law.

    It seems to me that Jewish culture - whether still based on the Book and the Law, or not - shares some of the characteristics of Amish culture. Experience of it lies somewhere between Amish experience and the typical non-communal American experience. There are, of course, important differences, such as (1) Jewish culture is inherently political, Amish cultural is inherently apolitical; (2) Jewish culture (as revealed by an enormous amount of authoritative writings) posits an innate broad-based superiority of Jews over non-Jews, while the Amish merely think that they are better at avoiding the Devil; and (3) although Jews before the Emancipation tended to live secluded from the world at large, like the Amish of more recent times, Jews now largely prefer to live in the wide world and to maximize their influence over it. Jews and Amish have chosen two distinctly different ways to protect their collective identities.

    Jews are the most political of all American 'religious' groupings. Jewish success in the national political arena in recent decades has served, in part, to inspire (or provoke) Protestant and Catholic groups in America to become more overtly involved in political activity, also. Nevertheless, it has been my observation over the years that members of Protestant and Catholic congregations/associations do not seem to derive their primary sense of personal identification from their religious affiliations, per se, nor from any political activism induced by religious affiliations, nor from the 'culture' derived from those religious associations. Modes of mobility, transience, and experimentation are commonly observed in such affiliations in modern America. For the typical cultural Protestant, and even cultural Catholics, personal identity is not generally anchored in the collective identity of religious groups.

    If you accept the above as part of a general cultural background, help me to understand, in the context of modern Judaism, what you mean by phrases like "role of the collective," "identity of the group," "identity of individuals," and, especially, "concern about the identity of others."

    What do you mean when you say that your perspective is about identity of the group, and the role of the collective? Is the collective of individuals calling themselves 'Jews' not well-enough identified? Are the principles/laws/customs/beliefs of the collective not well-enough identified? Are membership requirements for the group not well-enough defined? I understand that you are more concerned with "content and focus" of Jewish culture rather than "counting Jews."

    Why does the identity of the group "necessarily" involve concern for the identity of individuals? When you speak of "concern about the identity of individuals" and "concern about the identity of others," is that the same thing? Who are the "others" - are they in-group or out?

    Is a Jew defined and totally described by the fact of his/her Jewishness - by the 'identity' of the collective? In the modern world, obviously not. At what point does a Jew cross over a line to freedom of expression of personally-defined identity, and complete freedom of association as a citizen of a non-Jewish nation and of the world? Can a true Jew ever see human society, not as usvs.them, but as usplusthem, or as we-all?

    Shmuel, I have ended this long-winded inquiry a bit provocatively, but I want you to understand that I respect your views and opinion as a thinking person. I am earnestly trying, with an open mind, to attain a better understanding of the role of Judaism, Jewish culture, and Jewish identity in the modern world. How do you see that role?

  • Thomson Rutherford February 27, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Shmuel, here are some notable excerpts from your comments above:

    ... there is no such thing as a culture or civilisation of one .... I’m sure you can understand that some of us do find it [Jewish culture] worthwhile and would rather it didn’t disappear just yet. That entails concern about this particular aspect of other people’s identities.

    ... he [Mooser] seems to have little interest in other aspects of present and future collective Jewish identity.

    It’s ... about group versus individual identity.

    I have no fear that Jewish culture or identity may disappear any time in the foreseeable future ....

    (emphasis added)

    Shmuel, it seems to me likely from the above that you have apprehensions about the continuance of Jewish culture/identity that you are not acknowledging. Since our friend Mooser seems to have absented himself from the discussion, allow me to use his image as an exemplar for my point.

    From its founding through the frontier days right up to the present time, America has had one dominant social characteristic: individualism. Arguably, it sports this quality more than any other major nation, present or past. I maintain that Mooser is an American through and through in culture and identity. His identity was forged from within, with helpful influences from the vast forests and snow-packed mountains to the north and west - and, believe it or not, his motorcycle.

    Is Mooser Jewish? Why, yes, he acknowledges as much and reveals pride in that heritage. But is his identity rooted primarily in Jewish culture? I think not. That's the beauty of individualism: His identity is rooted in himself and what he makes of himself. Endogamy, nepotism, communality, tribalism - they are not for the rugged individualist in the American mold. Mooser has risen above religio-ethnic constraints to represent the best in the American frontier spirit. (My apologies to Mooser for using him as an exemplar without his permission.)

    In the last half-century or so, identity politics have come to dominate the progressive movement in America. The rise of the Jewish culture to prominence has tended to accentuate the prevalence of identity politics. This trend often runs counter to long-standing legal (read: Constitutional) emphasis on individual, as opposed to group, rights and liberties. There is an undeniable tension between the individualistic ideal of traditional American culture and the communality of Jewish collective culture. This tension is doubtlessly felt by many American Jews, and especially the young, adventurous, and impressionable among them.

    So you would be right to feel apprehensive about the future direction of Jewish culture and identity in America. All the more so since an ugly form of Zionism has largely captured that culture. If traditional Jewish culture is not antithetical to basic American values, it certainly becomes so when dominated by political Zionism.

    I think there are many unique, Mooser-like Jews out there - and more to come.

Showing comments 549 - 501
Page: 6 5 4 3 2 1