-
-
- Informant’s text messages shed new light on NYPD spy program … 0
- Why did ‘NYT’ serve as platform for ‘military propaganda’? 0
- Reluctantly taking down monstrous orientalist video, college union in Israel … 6
- George Orwell would hate Israel 27
- First photographs of ‘Arabs with Altitude’ and Palestinian flag … 0
- Exile and the Prophetic: Freeing the president 0
- Why Palestine is different 7
- PLO: Israel has built 16,000 settlement units over the past … 1
-
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 1709
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 1362
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on … 952
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 810
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 438
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says … 401
- There’s been a sea change in US opinion on the … 314
- Video: Soldiers aim guns at fallen boy’s head outside West … 302
-
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 106
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 94
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 93
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 73
- Biden says Jewish ‘influence’ behind American cultural politics is ‘immense… … 57
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 54
- Israel cracks down on American travel to West Bank by … 50
- Both Massad, and ‘Open Zion’, ignore the experience of Middle … 49
-
- Informant’s text messages shed new light on NYPD spy program targeting Muslims http://t.co/J7dbBLZZXl, 5 hours ago
- Exile and the Prophetic: Freeing the president http://t.co/FXU8YRToQS, 6 hours ago
- First photographs of ‘Arabs with Altitude’ and Palestinian flag atop Everest http://t.co/jQQ6xcFAWw, 6 hours ago
- George Orwell would hate Israel http://t.co/pXjc9SBxNL, 6 hours ago
- Reluctantly taking down orientalist video, college union in Israel protests that it got '1000s of positive reactions' http://t.co/uCZ0r5CDey, 6 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Glenn Greenwald on the Woolwich attack and blowback from the ‘war on terror’ (49)
- Annie Robbins: ckg, that’s very interesting.
- SF officials describe ‘apartheid’ label as ‘intolerance alienating the Jewish community’ (33)
- Annie Robbins: I wonder if there will be an internal jewish coup in the US led by the younger generation or it will...
- George Orwell would hate Israel (27)
- eljay: >> Every country has the right to control its borders. But no country has a right to be an oppressive,...
- Sumud: Jeepers Norman, you’re still peddling entry-level hasbara? At least entertain us with some more...
- Stephen Shenfield: I just read the article you refer to (originally from Ha-Aretz) and “an admitted...
- Reluctantly taking down monstrous orientalist video, college union in Israel protests that it got ’1000s of positive reactions’ (6)
- DICKERSON3870: RE: “They ["The Union" - J.L.D.] honestly don’t know what they did wrong. They’re genuinely...
- DICKERSON3870: RE: “The clip is meant for comedic purposes only . . . In less than one day, the video received...
- Kerry goes for the Hail Mary, but Obama is punting (48)
- Both Massad, and ‘Open Zion’, ignore the experience of Middle Eastern Jews (50)
- Hostage: Actually Joseph Massad recognizes this and points this out in his piece Zionism’s Internal Others, where he...
- Glenn Greenwald on the Woolwich attack and blowback from the ‘war on terror’ (49)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
All good things must end - even Mondoweiss. So fill to me the parting glass;
goodbye and joy be with you all.
Hey, the book should be read as an allegorical treatment of the inherent conflict between Yiddish and English. That's a timeless theme and just the kind of story Mooser likes, isn't it? You know, Hero rebels against staid convention, Hero sticks by guns and wins applause and approval in the end, etc.
Klaus writes: Colin, what Mooser says is that Atzmon redefined Zionism/Israel as being inseparable, identical with Judaism. Therefore, rejection of Zionism/Israel is equivalent to rejection of Judaism.
This is a misreading of Atzmon, though perhaps not of Mooser. A correct reading would be: "Atzmon has written that present-day Zionists/Israel have redefined Judaism and political Zionism, for their own purposes, so that they are inseparable and practically identical." Atzmon, being of an essentially conservative bent, has vehemently criticized these redefinitions and as far as I know has never indicated a willingness to accept them.
Mooser, in the article you cited (SocialistUnity.com, Jan 2008), Tony Greenstein, an Atzmon-hater, wrote a polemic attempting a total smear job on Atzmon. One of his statements jumped out at me, as being particularly relevant to much of the vociferous opposition to Atzmon's ideas. Greenstein paraphrases Atzmon as follows:
Atzmon "reverses the [true] relationship"! Greenstein, evidently a disciple of Chomsky, regards Israel, the Jewish state, as merely an "outpost of US imperialism." In Atzmon's view (and mine), Zionist lobbies control American foreign policies and the U.S. has effectively become a colony of a politically more powerful Zionist state and its agents in America.
This difference of opinion lies at the heart of many exchanges that I (and Jeffrey Blankfort, for example) have had here at MW with Keith, Max Ajl, VR (v..), and many other acolytes of Chomsky. The basic agreement between me and Atzmon in this specific argument is the main reason why I defend him so strenuously.
No, Gilad Atzmon pays what we might call “Zionised Judaism” (for lack of a better term?) the highest compliment he can, that of being a true representation of Judaism. He also gives it the very thing it demands, the idea that Judaism is inseparable from Zionism.
Damn it, Mooser! You and your sixth-grade education. This whole comment is wrong. You interrupt my Saturday afternoon lounging in my easy chair listening to Don Giovanni and pursuing my study of the Punic Wars (what traditionally-bred Anglos do in retirement) to correct your misunderstandings about current affairs.
Atzmon does not say that modern political Zionism is a representation of true Judaism. He says that Zionism (Israel) has corrupted and hijacked Judaism and the Jewish people. He attacks the ethnocentric tribalism of Diaspora Jewry, which he says has resulted in a widely-accepted, default political philosophy that he calls "Jewish-ness", with the hyphen inserted to distinguish his term from conventional "Jewishness" - the mere state of being a Jew. He specifically says that he is not attacking Judaism, the actual religion. Rather, he is attacking the pseudo-religion, political Zionism, which after the Shoah gradually replaced Judaism as the organizing principle of Jewish identity among most (not all) Jews in the Western world, and which he suggests has catalyzed a specifically Jewish form of poisonous tribal identification - one bound inexorably to Israel. But IMO you are wrong to think that Atzmon believes that all this derives from some innate, egregious flaw in the nature of Jews and Jewish society. There are other explanations for his strong objections. (Here I'm sort of expecting Evildoer to jump to your aid.)
I like your term "Zionized Judaism" because it appears to be the same concept Atzmon had in mind in coining his clumsy and unfortunate term "Jewish-ness". Maybe you should suggest to Atzmon that he replace his term with yours.
mhuizenga says: Sorry, but that’s not my main concern as an American. I still have a civic right/duty to discuss my country’s foreign policy.
You've come to the right place.
... I really wish that people on both three sides of the issue would get it through their head: MONDOWEISS IS NOT, NOT, NOT AN ‘ANTI-ZIONIST’ WEBSITE!!
Pardon, Mooser, but what outrage induced this charge? Certainly, the clear fact that a majority of regular commenters here are self-proclaimed anti-Zionists does not define the site itself as being anti-Zionist. That is the role, as you say, of the About Page, and it clearly refrains from that. So what is the solution? Should we allocate a certain portion of our comments to praise for Zionism? Should we receive the Zionists and Hasbaraists more cordially.
I await your guidance. Does all this have something to do with Atzmon and those of us who regard him as a prophet* or seer of sorts? Edify me.
*There is obviously a bit of jest here because I regard myself as the only true prophet. I just don't have the guts for it and I'm lazy.
Thanks, Mooser, for the link to the English-language guide to Yiddish phrases. I do concede also that, had I had this at my fingertips at strategic moments in my life, it might have helped me make better sense of the modern, and even post-modern, world. But I'm still having trouble connecting, probably because there is a disconnect. I think what I really need is a German-language guide to Yiddish phrases, which would have fewer and smoother seams, and from which I can translate into my poor English as needed. English is such an impoverished language, anyhow, and we are so fortunate to have Yiddish with which we now may express our deeper thoughts. I don't know why I resisted becoming thus improved back when it might have helped me advance in life.
Hey, I actually wanted to scratch the comment just above because it sounds pompous and my crystal ball is clouding up. But the system didn't let me. Time to move on.
no, i do not think you are exceptional. give others more credit thomson.
I never said I was exceptional. That is a disparaging word you chose to apply to me. I differ from most Americans in a number of ways, but that does not make me 'exceptional' in any way that I know of. You asked if I think I myself will be subject in the future to anti-Semitism and I answered, No, and gave some reasons why. If you think that many Americans are not, and will not be, subject to anti-Semitism, then you live in a bubble of your own making.
The increased anti-Semitism I am predicting does not involve "the mob" (your words) perpetrating pogroms. As I pointed out to Mooser below, I expect 'softer' forms of anti-Semitism to become commonly expressed in political arenas throughout the country. Palestine will not be the central issue. Rather, it will be overt non-Jewish resistance to excessive and disproportionate Jewish influence over political institutions and the media. The expression of this resistance will find venues among many diverse issues of concern to Americans - the foreign policy area being just one set of these.
This is one of the elements of the changing American social environment in which the fight for justice for Palestinians, Lebanese, and other Middle Eastern peoples must be continued. It simply must be dealt with by good people in the best way possible.
For God’s sake, stop kvetching Rutherford!
Well, I hardly know what to say, Mooser, because rather perversely I refused to learn Yiddish (and Hebrew and Greek). But not Latin and German, which together account for my multisyllabic disorder.
Nevertheless, you have inadvertently brought up a relevant point. America is still a nation of laws (cough, cough), and the Government (men in black suits and black helicopters) still has a monopoly on organized violence. I am not suggesting that we shall see pogroms against Jews in America. What I am predicting is that 'softer' forms of open anti-Semitism (as conventionally defined by Jews) will become commonplace in public political spheres.
More than once have I seen you express similar thoughts here at MW. So I'm not hanging out there like the Lone Ranger.
I think you must be right about this, Mooser (sad to say). But there is also another sizable group that appears to be growing by the day: those who overtly wish simply to rid the Levant of Palestinians altogether, and no longer even bother to perpetuate the fraud of the 2SS. Witness the presidential 'candidate', Newt Grinch.
Annie writes: ... if ... you think other americans will come to see the way you do ... would you also posit what you see and know will determine that anti-Semitism must increase substantially with time…wrt yourself? and if not what separates you from everyone else who you are predicting will become anti semites.
(1) If I were going to become anti-Semitic, I would have done so long ago. In this context, mainly what separates me from most Americans is a broader and less fragmented historical perspective, together with a phlegmatic disposition.
(2) To be more specific, a large fraction of Americans will come to perceive Israel and the Israel Lobby much as I do now (i.e., as a pernicious and subversive influence in American politics and media). A substantial fraction of these anti-Israel Americans (not all, by any means) will become anti-Semitic or more intensely anti-Semitic than they are now. A fault line in American politics will crack wide open where none now is clearly visible, and it will not be pretty. Free expression in this area is not presently possible for most Americans, but it will become so once the taboos are massively broken. There will be much public political expression that most non-Jewish Americans would not consider to be intrinsically anti-Semitic, but most Jewish Americans will indeed judge to be anti-Semitic. IMHO, this is, in part, what lies ahead.
Annie writes: have faith in mankind. the tradjectory, the wind is on our backs. believe it.
Annie, I know it's important for activists to remain optimistic about their cause, and for years I tried here at MW to give some scope for the "faith" and "belief" that you advocate. But I think I can see clearly enough the unmitigated catastrophe that awaits the Palestinians. And the Iranians and Syrians and Lebanese at the hands of the Israelis and Americans. And I think I can see who is behind all this. I think that in the long run most of the now-ill-informed Americans will see it as I do, and they are going to be outraged in a way that philosophical me is not capable of.
Concerning the distinction between Zionists and Jews that we so scrupulously maintain here: Would there be Zionism without Jews? Could it survive today outside of Israel without massive and broad political and financial support from Diaspora Jewish communities, especially those in America? Of course not. The idea that it could is another of those wild fantasies entertained by liberal American Jews who imagine that Jews, generically speaking, could not possibly be responsible for Zionism and its iniquities in America.
I can remember in the 1950's when the Zionist virus first began infecting liberal American Jews en masse. In rather short order, Zionism became the new Judaism for most American Jews, liberal and conservative alike. Despite the acute embarrassment that many liberal Jews now feel about the monstrosity that Israel undeniably is, it still remains true that Zionism is the glue that binds the in-grown American Jewish community together in what it largely continues to see as an alien environment around it. It's going to take more than a few free-thinking college students and MW posters/commenters to change that very soon.
Klaus writes: Aren’t these the people who on face value are American or German and say they are concerned with world peace in general but have an ‘Israel first’ agenda?
You are sooo... right, Klaus. When push comes to shove, the clandestine Israel Firsters come out of the shadows pushing for Israel. And they get a free pass for their duplicity. What? An Israel Firster? Not me! I'm an American/German/Englishman/Canadian ....
ColinWright writes: I hate to break it to you, but if I had to choose someone to be marooned on a desert island with, and ethnicity was the only criteria I could employ, I’d probably pick a Jew.
I hate to break it to you, but your ethnic preferences have nothing to do with my point. Many non-Jews who visit here, including me, have personal ties to Jews and generally admire much about modern Jewish 'civilization'. (I also would pick a Jew - my wife.) But my long observations lead me to believe that most Americans are not by any measure philo-Semitic, just as they are not innately anti-Semitic.
As I said, my own careful analysis, considering both Jewish and non-Jewish sources and contacts, convinces me that a sharp increase in anti-Semitism in America is now inevitable. Jews will blame the 'evil' inherent in Gentiles for this transformation in attitudes, but I think that it would be more fruitful for Jews to look closely at their own behavior - especially in the realms of politics and mass communications - in relation to the interests of other people in the broader society around them.
Sumud writes: It never ceases to amaze me that people will come to a blog such as Mondoweiss and propose (to a large jewish audience) anti-semitism as a rational or logical course of action.
It never ceases to amaze me how reading-challenged most people are. There were a lot of things wrapped up in my little assertion, but "proposing" anti-Semitism as a "solution" was not among them.
You could benefit from reading the comments of Taxi and American nearby. The overwhelming majority of Americans don't make distinctions between Israel (the 'Jewish State') and Jews. Their eyes glaze over when you mention Zionism or Zionists.
A careful analysis of American society today, and the exalted place of American Jews within it, leads inexorably to the conclusion that anti-Semitism must increase substantially with time. Preventing that outcome would require radical changes in trajectories that seem increasingly unlikely. In this context, please read Sin Nombre's penetrating comments and questions above to MJR about the apparent attitude of most American Jews toward the rest of us.
So in the end it boils down to this: What defense do Gentiles in America have against political and economic domination by Jews except anti-Semitism? Where else can logic lead but to that sordid conclusion?
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.
... 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?
What's wrong with the messenger? I don't see it.
... 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.
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
... 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?
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. :-)
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?
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.
Toivo, oops! Sorry, strike my first sentence above. I momentarily got you confused with another commenter.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
This is a test to see if I am still able to comment here. Mysterious failures have occurred.
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:
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:
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?
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
From pabelmont, this actionable phrase: ... this AIPAC-dominated world ....
Thanks for that, Peter. Makes me feel less lonesome.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Don't forget Sen. J. William Fulbright of Arkansas.
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! 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?
P.S. - That is, to the lengthy chapter entitled, "Upon Having My Failings Plainly Exposed and Finding Bluster to Be No Longer Persuasive."
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.
American, here is Goldberg speaking at the start of the Beinart 'interview' you cited:
(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.
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?
RoHa, think of them as 'three peas in a pod'.
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.
This is an excellent comment, Krauss. That's the Krauss I like to see.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.