Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2485 (since 2009-08-12 22:27:08)

wondering jew

i am a zionist who believes in a two state solution

Showing comments 2485 - 2401
Page:

  • Philip Roth on the Israel lobby
  • Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism
    • wondering jew May 25, 2012 at 5:08 pm

      sardelpasti- I am implying the possibility that Larry Derfner offers in his reference to the "nakba". He asserts that it is possible to regret/mourn/decry the nakba, while at the same time celebrating the birth of Israel. I realize that this is a difficult dichotomy, both for those who celebrate the birth as well as for those like you who decry the nakba.

      But my main point was that in the aftermath of the Nazi genocide of the Jews 1939-1945, the need for a rebirth is to me self evident. The fact that this rebirth took place in Jerusalem and thereabouts was no arbitrary fact, although the residents of Jerusalem and thereabouts suffered in an arbitrary way (as a result of the sins of others). You are not about to suggest some other possible location for this rebirth. Nor do I assume you are about to deny the need for a rebirth. But you decry the suffering "accomplished" by this rebirth.

      The inability to differentiate between the rebirth and the suffering (especially while the suffering persists) is human, acceptable and probably necessary if there is to be change. But if the change that you proffer is that of a single state, you will have to learn to accept the rebirth attitudes of the other. But it may be that the single state is so far away and the suffering that will take place between now and then is so far away, that right now your apathy towards the other or disdain for the other is perfectly appropriate to the political realities.

    • wondering jew May 25, 2012 at 5:00 pm

      Klaus B. - I was not referring to 2002, I was referring to 1948. Do you think it was possible for a Jew in 1948 to seek some sort of affirmation of Jewish continuity, because of the Holocaust?

    • wondering jew May 24, 2012 at 7:04 pm with 3 replies

      Shmuel- Regarding the peripheral- I think Rabbi Walt has a responsibility for all of his words and should not use stupid rhetoric.

      On to the essence. Judaism has its moral side and its amoral side. I prefer the dictum of Hillel as the essence of Judaism, but although Hillel was great, he certainly made quite a leap with his assertion. Is most of Israel's history since Plan Dalet counter to Hillel's dictum? Yes. Is its essence counter to Hillel's dictum? I would agree that its essence is Ben Gurion Zionism rather than Buber Zionism and as such its essence is contrary to Hillel's dictum. This fact bugs me. Does it bug me "enough" to join with the left? No.

      Because my next question is how to undo the situation and where Israel is headed. I have no idea how to undo the situation. Do I stand in solidarity with those who wish to undo the situation when they do not specify what steps and where we are headed. I do not. I write no blank check to the revolution. You (used as the impersonal "you") need to specify where you are headed before I come on board.

      And there is a further problem: the prevailing vibe of those who wish to undo the situation alienates me. I do not feel comfortable with settlers, I do not feel comfortable with the left. I feel comfortable with the liberal Zionists. I assume that I do not need to specify (to you, second person singular) what makes me uncomfortable with the left. So even though the liberal Zionist proposals are weak, my alienation from the nonZionist left is very strong and at this point in my life, I do not see myself joining hands literally or figuratively with the nonZionist left. Thus my politics is limited to the comments section on Mondoweiss and arguments with friends and relatives.

      I think Israel is the major Jewish issue of the day. Do you disagree? That this fact becomes translated in blind support or unthinking support for very wrong policies and a somewhat wrong essence, is a serious problem, but I don't think that Israel being uppermost on the minds of Jews is wrong.

    • wondering jew May 23, 2012 at 8:21 pm with 4 replies

      Klaus B. - I assume you would admit that Jews who did not live in Europe during the war still experienced a tremendous trauma when they digested the extent of that genocide. Some of them reacted by seeing the necessity of countering the trauma with an affirmation of Jewish continuity, specifically by moving to Israel. Is this idea so contrary to your knowledge of human nature?

    • wondering jew May 23, 2012 at 8:18 pm

      Another rhetorical flourish- Jews are no longer victims in this world.

      Although I agree that the overwhelming thrust of the current Jewish situation is not one of victimhood, there are Jews who are victims in this world- the kids killed in Toulouse a few months ago are an example of the fact that there are still Jewish victims in this world.

    • wondering jew May 23, 2012 at 6:59 pm with 5 replies

      Haven't finished reading it all yet.
      Many spelling, grammar and historical mistakes. (Ben Gurion's visit to South Africa was in 1969 and not 1979. Netanyahu was not Prime Minister in 2004.)

      A tendency to rhetorical flourish, appropriate to a eulogy maybe, but not appropriate to a serious historical subject. The occupation is "the longest military occupation in history". Well, what about Czarist Russia's occupation of Poland from 1795 until 1918. That was an annexation and not an occupation? Then this assertion is based on accepting Russia's annexation of Poland. No, this is a silly assertion, which has no place in serious discourse.

  • Passive-aggressive George Bush namechecks neocons for getting us into that mess
    • wondering jew May 22, 2012 at 9:12 pm with 12 replies

      Phil- One can question why Cheney took the step from realism to neo conservatism. (under Bush pere, Cheney was part of the realist team. By 1998 when he signed the PNAC, plan for a new american century, he became a front man or an insider man for the major neoconservative proclamation of the day). Blame Wolfowitz and Perle and Krauthammer all you want. But the vice president was the inside man. I don't have the time to read Bush's book, but certainly he mentions Cheney, doesn't he? But you sure don't.

  • Aharon Appelfeld's rage at the German language (and Arendt's need for it)
    • wondering jew May 23, 2012 at 6:27 pm

      Woody- Sorry I didn't mention you by name. I hardly think the avoidance of mentioning your name is cowardice. I think a thorough discussion of the German language and the oppression it represents in Jewish minds of the mid to late 20th century might be helpful. But I doubt that your voice will add anything but over the top rhetoric like "pathetic" and now "cowardice" to the discussion.

    • wondering jew May 22, 2012 at 9:36 pm with 2 replies

      There are a number of possible reactions to the German Nazi genocide of the Jews between 1939 and 1945: 1. Convert to Christianity and don't tell your children that they were Jewish. (Madeline Albright's parents). 2. Marry a nonJewish woman that you fall in love with and claim that by doing so you are asserting that universalism (or Americanism) is the cure, antidote or answer to the genocidal nationalism of the Nazis. (Arthur Miller). Those reactions are acceptable to this web site.

      Along comes Aharon Appelfeld and says that there is another possible reaction- assertion of one's Jewish heritage. But on this web site this is labeled as nihilistic by the contributors and as pathetic by the commentators. Only universalism or hiding the past are acceptable answers to the Mondoweiss crew.

      If one is discussing languages and the German language, one should refer to Primo Levi's "Periodic Table" in which he asserts his advantage in the battle to survive because his science background required a study of German and the lack of a language barrier (or a reduced language barrier) when hearing the commands of the Nazis helped him to survive.

      As far as the harshness of the German language, that has to do with how it is enunciated. Yiddish is probably more than 80% German and the singsong, plaintive, shrugging, rounded shoulders of Yiddish are plainly detectable in its rendition. German is harsh because it is enunciated harshly. If the German speaking people want lessons in how to make their language sound less harsh, I'm sure that the surviving Yiddish speakers of the world would be willing to set them onto that path.

      I agree that Appelfeld's reaction to the language of his childhood was emotional. It's a funny thing when they murder your people (sorry, sorry, sorry, I know, "people" is a verboten word in reference to the Jews on this web site, I meant coreligionists), some tend to react emotionally, especially when you were a child when the war started and barely 13 when the war ended and your mother was killed in the genocide. Appelfeld is an artist, and he reacted emotionally. Arendt was a political theorist and a philosopher who was 37 when she heard of Auschwitz or 39 when the war was over, not 13. Her relationship to the genocide was of a completely different nature than that of a child's.

  • Kristol: 'I don't see it as a huge problem'
    • wondering jew May 19, 2012 at 7:01 pm

      I haven't watched the video yet.
      I believe the status quo is not sustainable over the long run. To a political apparatchik (which is essentially what Kristol fils is) the long run has to be less than 12 years to even register on his radar screen. Anything more than that is strictly for think tanks and not for serious political discourse.

  • WaPo's Walter Pincus says US is 'going above and beyond for Israel'
    • wondering jew May 18, 2012 at 4:22 pm

      Woody- I agree that Aipac money and Israel support money has distorted the American government's decision making regarding Israel.

      There are two possible solutions: 1. General rules to limit campaign contributions. or 2. Specific rules targeting campaign contributions by those who favor Zionism.

      both seem to be long shots.

  • 'Death of a Salesman' came out of an intermarriage
    • wondering jew May 13, 2012 at 8:01 pm

      Phil- My attitudes about assimilation (and intermarriage) are primarily emotional.

      An image comes to mind: An emaciated Jew with his dying breath charges out of the gas chamber, stumbles and falls, but before dying, hands me a football stamped "Judaism" or "Jewishness". And I don't know what to do with this football, where to run with it, how to get it forward, (or even which way is forward).

      But your answer is to call the football tribalism, to label it as the opposite (and enemy?) of universalism and humanism, to drop the football- it is worse than a hot potato, it is poison. Your answer is nowhere near the answer that would fit my emotions, biography and personality.

      My more logical (or less hyper emotional) response is to argue the value of cultural diversity.

      In the second Star Trek series (New Generation about the Starship Enterprise with Picard) we have the embodiment of the deracinated future world in the Earthlings that are crew members. They are all boringly similar. If one wants variety in this future one must look to the representatives of other planets, for Earth has been thoroughly homogenized.

      Biological diversity is a proven value. I posit the value of cultural diversity. Let a thousand flowers bloom, with a thousand accents and a thousand cultural eccentricities. Who knows where the cultural cures for our spiritual woes might be conjured and/or mixed?

      Biological diversity advocates would never demand that a species justify itself in advance. Similarly advocates of cultural diversity would parallel that demurral. Some people have set themselves up as Commissars of the future, where cultures that seek to survive must submit their mission statements in order to receive permission. This attitude is offensive and if my analogy between biological and cultural diversity has any validity, their attitude is wrongheaded as well.

      (The issue of individual versus group deserves mention. Individuals should choose their ideologies based upon their inner compasses. The dynamic of group versus individuality is found in a multiplicity of choices that thinking humans encounter. Thus if the cultural diversity I am advocating implies an acceptance of coercive anti individual vectors of power, I must hedge my assertions. Beware of this aspect of cultural diversity. But let us not pretend that "our" modern situation of media inundation does not consist of another form of coercion and one must expect close knit societies to resist this form of coercion to assimilate. Coercion is all around the individual and it is not always easy to sense our inner compasses.)

      A secondary emotional element in my attitude towards assimilation has to do with the nostalgic streak in my personality. In a historical sense it is Warsaw of 1929 to 1939 that I yearn for, when Jews of varying ideologies came to the big city from their shtetls and mixed the Talmudic singsong logic of their rejected upbringing with the politics and art, individualism and utopian or group aspirations of the time. That era cannot be recreated, but I still yearn to go back to that time. Phil, you seek to go forward to a time when Jews will drown their particularism in the Nile of globalism, I wish to go back to a time when their/our particularism was still fresh and authentic and new to the world of ideas.)

  • Obama nutmegs Romney with Netanyahu condolence call referencing 'the Jewish people'
    • wondering jew May 2, 2012 at 7:49 pm

      Besides being a racist and besides being a Zionist, Netanyahu's father was a first class historian whose subject matter was Jews, whether you call them a people or a religious grouping or whatever, that was his subject matter.

      (I never read any of his books, but I have heard others refer to him as a first class historian.)

  • Beinart's Blindspot: Israel has always been a non-democratic apartheid state
    • wondering jew May 1, 2012 at 5:48 pm with 1 replies

      woody tanaka- Your imagination is "fine". But 1. How do we reach there from here? and 2. How do we ensure that this vision is not overtaken by some other vision (as in Muslim brotherhood takeover or Lebanese civil war situation). (another version of how do we reach there from here without ending up elsewhere instead.)

    • wondering jew May 1, 2012 at 4:05 pm with 3 replies

      The nakba casts a shadow on Israel's claims on democracy. Granted. But Beinart's instinct is reformist rather than revolutionary and thus dealing with the nakba is not on his front burner. Beinart asserts that Israel is moving in the wrong direction and he wants it to move in the right direction.

      It is the duty of one staters to imagine the future of undoing the nakba. The clearer the picture of the un nakba'ed future, the easier it will be to reach that future.

      Beinart is imagining undoing the occupation. Since israel existed from 48 to 67 in precisely that state, it is an easier imagination. (A bit easier to reach certainly and a lot easier to imagine.)

  • Beinart's romance, and the coming tragedy
    • wondering jew April 28, 2012 at 4:22 pm

      "There is no more Jewish community." American and Mooser.

      Maybe. But there are Jewish communities, Jews who gather in order to Jew ( a verb- meaning to do Jewish things- Like say the Shma, read the Torah and pray to God. To say kiddush on wine and light candles and celebrate the Jewish holidays.) The numbers are decreasing but there are Jewish communities.

  • Shmully and guilt
    • wondering jew May 1, 2012 at 3:46 pm

      Seems like I was depending on I.J. Singer's town's Yiddish as the prime exemplar of Yiddish. In his town they called the "Momme Lashon", Ivri-Teitch, elsewhere in the Yiddish speaking world of the time, its use may have been limited to translating Hebrew into Yiddish.

    • wondering jew April 28, 2012 at 5:05 pm with 3 replies

      Reading Grade's "Der Shtumer Minyan" and I.J. Singer's "Der Velt..." and I.B. Singer's "Satan in Goray", they referred to people who spoke Yiddish, but not German, Polish or Russian and used the term "Ivri-Teitch" for the language that they spoke. But the next time I come across it I will see if it is used in context of translating Hebrew texts.

    • wondering jew April 28, 2012 at 4:19 pm with 2 replies

      Ari Fleischer is a member of Chabad. Where does this info come from? What does that mean, he pays dues?

    • wondering jew April 28, 2012 at 4:14 pm with 5 replies

      Phil- Job well done on going into the lions' den with the Lubavitch lion and lioness.
      (Yasher koach. Google it. It means job well done in this case, but with ethnic, particularistic, tribalistic echoes because of its Hebrew and Yiddish pronunciation. Btw- reading Yiddish literature gropingly recently I came across the term, Ivri-Teitch instead of Yiddish for the language the people spoke. Literally Hebrew/German. Yiddish is a more recent term for the language, viewing it as an outsider- the language of the Jews. Ivri/Teitch seems to be what insiders called it.)

      Aside from the I/P issue my ideal for the Jewish people is for secular Jews to talk to Torah Jews so that some oxygen reaches the brain of the Torah Jews and for Torah Jews to talk Torah to secular Jews so that some particles of Jewish nutrition reach the secular Jewish brain. Your visit to the lions' den was a good act in those terms.

      Oh, yeah, and regarding the dream. It reminded me of the Dick Van Dyke episode where Buddy Sorel (Morey Amsterdam) is getting secret late in life lessons to celebrate the bar mitzvah he never had and when he sees a 12 year old arrive after him (at the rabbi's house for the next lesson) carrying a football he tells the kid, "leave the pigskin at home."

    • wondering jew April 27, 2012 at 4:38 pm with 3 replies

      Shmuel- Here I am defending Chabad:

      As a rule when I see Chabad people, I react coldly, not because of their attitude towards nonJews or towards the West Bank, but because they believe their dead Rebbe is the Moshiach (Messiah) and belief in a dead Messiah rubs me the wrong way. (Guess why.) (It might be of some use for me to study the evolving attitude of the followers of Rabbi Nachman of Bratzlav, who also left an empty chair after his death and how his followers see the coming of the Messiah. Since Rabbi Nachman died in 1810 and the Lubavitcher Rebbe died in 1994, Bratzlavers have had more time to adapt to a prolonged death and maybe they will show us how the Lubavitchers might develop over time.)

      Chabad, Lubavs, are known for outreach, putting tefilin on Jews in the streets of various cities including New York. It is understandable that when they approach people and ask, "Are you Jewish?" they offend nonJews. It could be that their public outreach will eventually convince some nonOrthodox branch of Judaism to reach out to nonJews (for purposes other than making intermarried partners feel welcome). But even if the Lubavitch themselves might give a theological explanation on why they reach out to Jews and not to nonJews, their explanation should not be accepted at face value. The real reason Lubavs don't reach out to nonJews is because traditional Judaism gave up proselytizing about the same time Jews became an oppressed and dispersed minority.)

      (I actually like Lubavs on Sukkot when they give me a chance to shake the palm branch and the citron, and I also like the candles they hand out on Chanuka.)

      It is unfortunate (although somewhat predictable because of their: "the end is here" attitude) that they take such a belligerent attitude towards the West Bank. But to treat them with disdain because of their politics would seem nearly impossible because they are everywhere and to take Ben Karp to task because Lubav and Shmuel Hecht plays a large role in their Friday night dinners is asking too much from Ben Karp and treating reality as if it did not exist.

  • Netanyahu goes looney tunes on Israeli Independence Day
  • Sequestering young people in religious/ethnic schools breeds alienation and hatred (Magid takes on Beinart)
    • wondering jew April 22, 2012 at 4:56 pm with 4 replies

      Tribalism is a derogatory term for what Beinart is proposing. When we see photos of Native Americans (Indians) forced to don white shirt and tie, and white men's apparel and to forget their language, we see it as coercive assimilation. And correctly so. When we see Arab masses turning to their Islamic roots we consider it a natural (and therefore a positive) reaction to the pressures of Western coercive globalism and the lingering effects of Western colonialism. But when Jews react to the assimilation of the West then you label it tribalism and see nothing positive in it.

      Maybe when the vast numbers of Jews came to America between 1880 and 1920 they made a wise and natural decision to throw off the yoke of the rabbis and the religion that held them back from a natural life. Then again, maybe when the black and Latino portions of America stood up for their ethnic pride in the 1960's and 1970's there was something to learn there as well.

      The urge to assimilate and the urge to identify are both natural (from my perspective). Sometimes people ignore one and pay attention to the other and there really is no such thing as a perfect medium.

      Reaction to the abyss that the Nazis brought upon the Jewish body in the first half of the 20th century, combined with other abysses (including Stalinist and post Stalinist Russian coercive assimilation) can lead conscientious Jews to bemoan the lost opportunities of Jews who might have added to the Jewish conversation, but instead choose the wide world instead of our small pond. We each make choices and the choices of our parents and our grandparents shape our choices as well.

      Beinart's primary argument is regarding an American Jewish constituency that cares about Israel as a democratic and Jewish state. Those Jews who care about democracy are not being educated to care about "Jewish" and thus the natural constituency for this cause is not being nurtured. That is his argument.

  • Assange's first guest on RT world premier: Nasrallah says US & Israel seek civil war in Syria
    • wondering jew April 22, 2012 at 5:02 pm with 5 replies

      The position of this web site vis a vis the Egyptian nonviolent protests of 15 months ago was- the people want their freedom and they should have their freedom no matter where it leads. Now the position of the web site vis a vis the Syrian uprising is- not so fast, we don't know where this will lead. This seems to be inconsistent.

  • Dave Eggers won't accept Grass Foundation prize lest he have to-- horrors-- say anything about Israel and Iran
  • Denial
    • wondering jew April 20, 2012 at 2:00 pm

      annie robbins- If someone identifies as a Jew, I accept them as a Jew. When someone never before identified as a Jew, suddenly when the topic of Israel comes up they suddenly say, oh, I'm a Jew, I take a pause.

      When someone advocates the dismantling of Zionist Israel, I wonder what they think about the survival of the Jewish people/culture.

      That is the angle and perspective that I come from. If this is pretzel logic, I'll take my pretzel without salt.

    • wondering jew April 19, 2012 at 9:01 pm

      Elliot- You are less obnoxious than most of the commentators who interact with me, but that does not mean that you are trying to be civil.

      I asserted the importance of continuity. Zionism is one path of continuity which this website rejects. I asserted that there is a need for a proposal of some alternate strategy of continuity in order to replace Zionism. That those who assert Zionism will probably still not be satisfied, but if one is proposing one's anti Zionism not merely as something which is good for America but somehow good for the Jews, one also has to replace Zionism with some other strategy of continuity.

      Now you assert that just because one has a strategy of continuity, that does not mean that the strategy will succeed.

      Of course. Just because you aim to shoot someone in the head, doesn't mean that you will succeed. You may miss and instead hit a pinata containing millions of dollars making the person a millionaire instead of dead. Certainly something as iffy as continuity is not a sure thing and no known strategy is foolproof.

      But the essence here is that you have set your mind on being obnoxious towards me.

      But I assert the follows. Today there are two (not foolproof, yet still proven) strategies of continuity: Zionism and observance. If one lights candles Friday night, even if one is married to a nonJew, this is both a way of expressing one's Jewish identity or one's belonging to a Jewish home and it is also a strategy of continuity.

      Phil rejects Zionism because it is bad for America. Fine. Nothing left to prove other than it is bad for America. But if he wishes to present his rejection as a rejection because Zionism is bad for the Jews, he has two choices. He can assert that Jewish continuity matters to him and Zionism is a bad choice for continuity because the continuity implied by Zionism involves too much militarism and chauvinism to be a worthwhile continuity and an alternate continuity is preferable.

      Or he can say he really doesn't give a damn about continuity. The replacement of Israel with the theoretical Palestine might eventually cause millions of Jews to move away from Israel to the Diaspora, where they will assimilate and that's no skin off his back because who cares if the Jews assimilate. (I don't see a third possibility. Either one is pro continuity or one is indifferent or anti continuity. I asserted that Phil is not pro continuity. Do you disagree?)

      An analogy. Herzl built the golem by writing "emet" ("truth") on its forehead. Phil wishes to undo the golem by erasing the aleph and turning it into "met" ("dead"). Fine. But that is not enough for him. He wishes to assert that he is aspiring to something equal to Herzl's accomplishment. Thus the destroyer of the golem is as important as the creator of the golem. Fine. Many people thought the golem got carried away and that it was better off dead than alive.

      But those who care about Jewish continuity will not be satisfied with you merely killing Zionism and proposing that the Jewish people disappear. Which is what Phil and you, his defender, are in fact proposing. Unless your obnoxiousness is merely to attack me, but doesn't represent your true position.

    • wondering jew April 17, 2012 at 10:47 pm

      Elliot- First to mention another outstanding nonJewish Jew- Wallace Shawn, who has been quite vocal in recent times in his opposition to US foreign policy and Israel's policy as well. When he introduces the fact that he was Jewish he included the fact that he was born into a family that had a Christmas tree and never ever stepped into a synagogue. (If I have exaggerated, I hope Wallace will forgive me.) But he does not present himself as a Jew criticizing Israel, he presents himself as an American and a human criticizing Israel.

      On the subject of intermarriage- I am too lazy at the moment to look up the numbers but most kids raised in mixed marriages are not raised as Jewish, most are raised with no religion. Citing exceptions is really besides the point. I'm not saying that most people who marry Jews are hyper conscious of their Judaism, but their children are less confused regarding their identity than children of mixed marriages.

      But it could be that I am not understanding your point when you write, there is no clear distinction between Jewishness and Americanness. Maybe in regards to Israel, but in regards to Passover, Christmas, Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, Zohar, burial laws, circumcision and frying bacon, I cannot seem to see that the Jewish point of view and the American point of view are not distinct. I realize there are many Jews who view their primary religion as liberalism and all those silly holidays and forgoing a Christmas tree and snipping their sons' dicks are just silliness and then for them indeed there is no distinction between Jewishness and Americanness. That's because the only part of their Jewishness that matters to them is Abbie Hoffman and the Jewish lawyers of the NAACP. (I shep nachas from Abbie and the Jewish lawyers also, but the holidays are Jewish and Christmas is not Jewish and Easter is not Jewish and too many verses to mention of the New Testament are not Jewish and I don't see how you can say there is no distinction. It doesn't make sense to me.)

      Intermarrieds who raise their kids as Jews are great. Let a thousand flowers blossom. But Phil is not an intermarried who is raising his kids as Jews. So I see how my narrow (Israel and/or Orthodoxy) view does not incorporate all possibilities. But Phil is a dedicated assimilationist, so I don't see how intermarrieds who emphasize Torah and Torah consciousness is relevant to a discussion of those who have zero (or near zero) commitment to any form of continuity of Torah.

    • wondering jew April 17, 2012 at 5:48 pm

      a time for peace- Just because Dostoyevsky was one of the greatest writers of all time, doesn't mean he wasn't a Jew hater. And just because you are quoting a great writer, doesn't mean that you are not spouting Jew hatred.

    • wondering jew April 17, 2012 at 5:45 pm

      Phil- I was thinking about my Jewish heroes, not the Jew-y Jew heroes, but people like Dylan, Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, the Marx Brothers. The only really Jewish things that Groucho ever said were the cracks about never joining a club that would have him as a member and whether his daughter who was only half Jewish might not wade in the pool in the exclusive club if only up to her waist.

      Dylan obviously is a bad example because of his contradictions, his appreciation and songs in salute of Jesus on the one hand and his "Neighborhood Bully" on the other. But when he speaks of himself in his early career he says, "i never looked back." and further he said that he felt such a kinship with the country music he listened to as a kid that he felt like he was adopted. if that's not a poetic rejection of one's Jewish roots, I don't know what is.

      Almost 25 years ago when this current stage of the conflict began with the first intifada in 1987, woody published an op ed in reaction to yitz rabin's "we will break their arms and legs". He wrote about the JNF boxes of his childhood and his reaction was "C'mon guys, can't you do better than we'll break their arms and legs."

      Mel Brooks of course was even less political than Groucho. But he deserves mention for when Mel brought Anne Bancroft home to meet his mother, his mother said, "I'll just be a minute, I have to put my head in the oven."

    • wondering jew April 16, 2012 at 10:39 pm

      Phil- Whether a person is a good Jew or a bad Jew is to put it succinctly, between a person and the Creator. Nonetheless the category can be of some use to us creations as well.

      I don't think Herzl was a good Jew before he came to the Zionist idea. He dabbled in the idea of mass conversion to Christianity. (Herzl himself imagined himself at the head of the line of converts.) He at one time considered himself a German nationalist and it was only the reaction of the German fraternities ("You ain't no German, get lost, Jew!") which made him reconsider. So I really don't think divorcing Herzl from his Zionism and then citing him as your prototype does you much good as an argument.

      Will the Jews survive as a group? As individuals, Jews will survive.

      As individuals, as long as they didn't mind limitations on their culture, Jews could survive the Soviet Union. If they didn't mind the line on their (internal) passports telling them they were Jews and then when they asked for Jewish things (matzos, synagogues, books, opportunities to study) they were told to go to Hell (Siberia). So would one say that the Soviet Union was good for the Jews (as Jeffrey Blankfort once asserted) because they got into good universities? (leaving aside the fact that Jews were in fact limited in their options because of the line on their passports that labeled them as Jews.) I would say, definitely not. Jews who are deprived of their books (and I don't mean Kafka and I.B. Singer, although Isaac Babel and Vasily Grossman would be more appropriate to the Soviet Jews. I do mean Tanach, Talmud, Midrash, even Zohar, but especially Hagada and siddur as Jewish books.) If Jews are deprived of their books and deprived of the right to congregate to pray or assert their Jewishness without the presence of KGB, then they are not free as Jews.

      Jewish continuity is an iffy thing. I think the attraction that you feel for I.B. Singer and Franz Kafka is a nice thing, but I think that this is to put it simply, not enough to keep the Jewish people going.

      Granted, all humans should have the freedom to choose their mates. This does not make Jewish continuity any easier, but harder.

      But let's face it, when you wrote, I don't remember what my bar mitzvah portion was and when you guys were studying Hebrew I was studying Emily Dickinson, you were saying, I chose something other than Jewishness. Does that make you a bad Jew? No. But it certainly makes you an indifferent Jew. And indifference does not suffice to keep the Jewish people alive.

      To clarify: I believe that the major contribution of Judaism at this point in time, including the last 100 or so years in history and for the foreseeable future (unless Jews plan to get into the God game again, as they were in Jesus's time, looking for converts) is to promote ethical behavior and as such, since you are promoting ethical behavior (or at the very least that is your intention), you are contributing to the good of the world and partaking of the Jewish contribution to the world. But that is not Jewish continuity. Jewish continuity is an iffy thing, that requires study, and practices that differ quite often from the urges of the individual.

      Mearsheimer has already separated between righteous Jews and Apartheid Jews. If one instead wishes to leave the issue of I/P out of the equation, is there then no way to measure those who contribute to the continuity and those who do not. Yes, I grant you, calling someone a bad Jew is bad form. (As the subway ad says, New yorkers will tolerate all religions, but not ugly shoes) But isn't it too p.c. to say that everyone is a good Jew and no one is a bad Jew? Yep, to me that's too p.c. Those who wish to imagine some Jewish future 100 years from now usually demand some kind of imagination or action that will have the Jews survive as a group (and not as individuals playing instruments in churches). You are busy imagining the cessation of the oppression of Palestinians by Jews and if you (or even may I say "we") are successful in eliminating oppression, you will have done a damn big mitzvah. But you have no credentials in caring about the survival of the Jews as a group and that is what Jewish continuity means.

    • wondering jew April 16, 2012 at 5:58 pm with 13 replies

      Phil, you're not just intermarried, you have revealed that in your heart of hearts you feel that intermarriage is the best path. You chose the big pond of America and left the fetid shtetl behind. You waved goodbye to Jewishness and Judaism in your rear view mirror and while you were yelling "So long, sucker!" up pops Judaism/Jewishness like a monster in a movie (Terminator II), up ahead in the road, not a bridge to the future but a wall that you crash against. (That is the neoconservatives and their war in Iraq). They forced you to deal with Jewishness. You didn't come to this issue as a Jew, but as an American first and foremost and as a world citizen second. Fine. All Americans and all world citizens should come and speak their minds. But don't pretend you come to this issue from your Jewishness. It rings phony to me. Maybe those who agree that hatred of Israel is the result of compassion and genius, feel that your Jewishness is relevant. But it rings phony to me.

  • Anti-Zionism will reemerge in American Jewish life -- Beinart
    • wondering jew April 14, 2012 at 5:13 pm

      annie robbins- Detached to the point of psychosis. Thanks for adding your voice to Mondoweiss.

    • wondering jew April 14, 2012 at 4:53 pm

      Clarify for me M Hughes- 1. What is your proposal for the I/P conflict? How will it be reached?
      2. What is the current state of Your Own, are they in a war zone? What has been the situation of Your Own over the last century?

    • wondering jew April 14, 2012 at 4:30 pm

      shmuel- My starting position is regarding 1948 and previous: the urge for a state was an urge to self protect and therefore basic to survival and therefore good. All the sins of Israel get added to the debit column as a result of all the history that's come since. But the urge to self protect is natural and therefore good.

      Regarding 1948 until today, nothing can undo the past. Regarding 2012 to the future, neither my thoughts nor my emotions have informed me of the path to a better future. You apparently have seen the truth and know the better future. The fact is that I personally would experiment regarding modes of governance for the land of Israel and the territory of the West Bank. (Which might include open borders regarding Gaza and a more open attitude towards refugees, but already I calibrate my experiments to my brother Jews living in Israel.) But the fact remains that 90% of Jewish Israelis are to the right of me, probably closer to 95 or even 98% and my thought experiments are irrelevant.

      The path to a better future is unknown. Your better future is unpainted. Just citing Mandela and democratic precepts is a first step, but certainly a work that has barely started the first step of at least 10 steps of explanation and it does not suffice. So instead of knocking me, who involves my emotions and the feelings of the people who are going to be making decisions, try painting the better future. And then you can paint the path. And then you can condemn me for the ethnocratric features of the current tense, a present tense that I do not know how to change.

    • wondering jew April 13, 2012 at 5:36 pm

      No culture survives without change. Granted. I do not favor a culture that doesn't change. But survival of the Jewish group in some form that carries on the past into the future, that is pretty basic, unless you're deracinated from an early age. You who don't belong to any group, let me ask you about your grandparents and your siblings, nieces and nephews. Are you that individualistic that those questions are irrelevant? Well, that is the way of the atomized west and with it the greatness of science and the progress (halting with backsliding) of the human conception of humanity. But is your individualism conscious of the fact that other people don't ascribe to your individualism. How much of the human species alive today ascribes to your individualism? 50%? I doubt it. probably closer to 20%. But even if it were 86% there would still be more than a billion people who are group conscious to an extent that you are condemning.

    • wondering jew April 13, 2012 at 5:31 pm

      Shmuel- Jews are more important to me than Palestinians. I am sure to most Palestinians, Palestinians are more important to them than Jews. I belong to a group and protecting them comes before protecting others. The possibility of protecting both must be explored, but don't pile on with those who deny me the right of favoring the survival of my peeps.

    • wondering jew April 12, 2012 at 8:20 pm with 24 replies

      Jews need a state for self protection. They do not need a state for cultural expression. Meaning: the need for self protection is enough to justify a state (despite the pain it causes to the Palestinians), but the need for cultural expression is not enough to justify the pain.

      But Israel does afford the possibility for cultural expression that is not in fact available in the US or elsewhere: 1.Hebrew language. Although the Orthodox at times refer to secular Israelis as Hebrew speaking goyim, the fact of a language and its vitality is an important feature for a culture. And in Israel Hebrew is spoken. (I favor far greater emphasis on Arabic among the Jews of Israel and even opening up opportunities for Yiddish. But Hebrew is the current Jewish language and it is spoken in Israel.)

      2. The little things. Instead of "have a nice weekend" in Israel it is "Shabbat Shalom". Christmas is celebrated by some, Passover is celebrated by most.

      3. Assimilation- I favor civil marriages in Israel, so that intermarriage will be officially sanctioned by the judges who will be required to perform those marriages. But in fact the culture allows and encourages Jews hanging out with Jews. In some ways this is over done, when vigilantes discourage Arab male Jewish female amity, but the survival of the Jewish people is not something to be scoffed at and Israel promotes the survival of Jewish people's continuity. Although the choice of assimilation available in America is a great thing, but there are features of assimilation that are not positive- the amnesia regarding the minority's culture bred by the desire to belong to the majority culture is natural, but not necessarily a positive. It may be that the majority culture of Israel is not very Jewish, but the pressures of America's Christmas (to pick the most blatant time of year for pressures to assimilate) should not be scoffed at by someone who has succumbed and adopted the majority culture.

  • 'What do you want from a 5 year old girl? She threatens your state?': Israel raids a house in Nabi Saleh
  • CLM: Jeffrey Goldberg snits where he eats
    • wondering jew April 10, 2012 at 12:12 am with 2 replies

      my impression of shavit is far more positive than that expressed by mister rechavia berman although from the sound of it, mister berman has read more columns of shavit's than i have.

      I certainly depend more upon shavit's opinion than i do on goldberg's opinion, although i find phil weiss's harping on goldberg's career kind of annoying, but it doesn't interest me. goldberg has a better than average sense of humor (i confess that senses of humor differ from person to person) and goldberg got the interview from castro broadcasting castro's attitude towards the jews. that anointed goldberg as the messenger to the jews. hitchens talked to goldberg with amis in the room and though goldberg was clearly uncomfortable near the brains of hitchens and amis, that too was an anointment of sorts.

      these guys goldberg and shavit are "promising" an israel attack if US and iran don't reach an agreement this summer. if the attack comes, everything will be different, there will be before attack and after attack. if the attack doesn't come this fall, are they going to predict for the next summer and then the next fall? Sounds like a fatiguing process.

      i can't wrap my imagination around an attack on iran, it kind of does not compute and my machine turns off. it's come to the point of fatalism. if something is going to happen so sui generis I can't compute it.

  • Iran has 'promised' 'another Holocaust' -- CBS commentator
    • wondering jew April 10, 2012 at 1:41 am

      The truth is somewhere between what Stein writes and the comments here in Mondoweiss. I believe that Yehuda Bauer has debunked the bomb the tracks to Auschwitz idea, although emotions hold onto the idea that with their knowledge the allies could have done more to help the Jews in various ways to escape the deaths that the Nazis had prepared for them. Certain comments by certain state department officials, certainly help one to think that it was callousness towards the Jews that led to various military decisions, but a cool calm detached eye of the historian is needed to truly detect what might have been possible and what wasn't. Jan Karski felt that the cold shoulder he received when he brought his news was related to the powerlessness of the Jews. Certainly before the war and before the killing machine began, the callousness of the world to the idea of taking in refugees did nothing to deprive Hitler of the propaganda victory, "nobody wants the Jews."

      So, though Stein is in the red zone away from the truth (6 out of 18 million is one third, why does he need to say almost one half) there are facts that are glossed over in the false impression given that the allies have nothing to answer for.

  • If you deduct the Israelites, Pharaoh's Egypt was actually a marvelous country
    • wondering jew April 9, 2012 at 3:38 am

      Bibi does not need me to come to his defense, because I believe his policy regarding the "shtachim", regarding the West Bank specifically is fatally flawed and disingenuous.
      The charedi's have removed themselves from society and separating them from other statistics makes sense in a certain way.(although any economist could probably reveal the impossibility of using scissors in this way on any graph of any meaning in economics).

      Obviously, the Palestinians, regarding Arabs on either side of the green line who prefer that name, represent a purposefully neglected part of the population and thus a betrayal of political decency and certainly a vital part of the economic picture even moreso than the charedis, I would presume.

  • Episcopalian twit (a review of JFK's former mistress's memoir)
    • wondering jew April 9, 2012 at 4:01 am

      John F Kennedy's treatment of women was cruel. Kennedy worship has been proven to be idle idol worship, and yet...
      RFK of 1968 has a special poignance for me and even if it's only as a type of exercise- what would MLK Jr. say or do, what would RFK say or do this idol worship of my childhood/youth provides me with a face and a voice in possibly worthwhile exercises in imagining a better present and a better future.

      But JFK's treatment of women was callous, borderline criminal.

  • Hot off the presses -- Jewish Voice for Peace's 2012 Haggadah
    • wondering jew April 9, 2012 at 4:12 am

      I found a mistake in their description of Korech as a sandwich of maror and charoset, in fact, it is marror charoset and matza. Unless they feel that sandwich implies bread and matza is therefore implied, but it was careless of those who came up with this Haggada.

      the other interesting thing is the blessing, for pursuing justice. It is pretty and cute, but I never heard of a blessing for fulfilling commandments between humans and other humans, only for commandments of ritual. Although I am not familiar with the innovations of the reform movement regarding liturgy and so maybe it is not so new.

      972 had an article regarding freedom and passover and the lack of freedom of the Palestinians and that is the focus of this JVP Haggada. It is not trite, yet it is not really as fresh as we pretend. Although I must concede: justice is never old and anger and rebellion against the lack of justice is never old and so the idea is also fresh, but the inversion of sorts of the liturgy is almost predictable.

  • Finkelstein 'not going to be an Israel-basher anymore' but remains 'appalled and disgusted'
    • wondering jew April 7, 2012 at 7:54 am

      lysias- I disagree. After the attack on the World Trade Center, the US president would have been granted the right to attack any Muslim country he decided to attack. Certainly one which we had fought a war with less than 13 years previously and left an identifiable villain dictator still standing in a war that Americans saw as unfinished. Although the case of WMD's was no slam dunk, getting congress to rubber stamp a war against Saddam was a slam dunk.

    • wondering jew April 7, 2012 at 5:33 am

      Israel has internationally recognized borders on at least two fronts and possibly three: Jordan, Egypt, with Lebanon a third possibility. Israel's status vis a vis its borders with the West Bank and Gaza are certainly not as clear, but there was a cease fire line that was recognized as such and the definition given to various terms by the parties who drafted UN Security Council Resolution 242 would certainly be relevant if not determinitive, if we are attempting to reach common conclusions, rather than attempting to obfuscate.

    • wondering jew April 7, 2012 at 3:46 am

      66,000 have been killed, many of them by American settlers.

      Where does this number come from? Maybe it's a misprint.

      and "many of them by American settlers". One is too many, so this can mean anything Lee Whitnum wants it to mean. And does she mean, American settlers acting as members of the IDF or settlers acting on their own. Such vagaries are a demagogue's tools.

      But mostly where did she get the number 66,000? (Even if the number is one quarter the number, which seems more accurate, it is horrifying, so as a demagogue's tool it is useful to use a false number and then say, So are you saying that killing 16,000 is okay?!)

  • Beinart awaits Netanyau's 'epiphany'
    • wondering jew April 7, 2012 at 5:56 am

      I do not foresee a Netanyahu epiphany. I believe he lives from election to election and does not see more than six to ten months into the future. I don't believe he is interested in signing a map specifying Israel's borders on Israel's east without first getting assurances on other issues from Jerusalem, refugees and security arrangements.

      Such a complete agreement is way out of reach. The only possible agreement would be a border agreement and that would be a bit farfetched as well given the fact that Hamas is not interested presently at reaching any agreement because they feel that time is on their side given the democratic "Muslim Brotherhood" revolution in Egypt and Syria and other Arabic speaking locales (Farsi speaking locale too, anyone?) And Netanyahu could not tell the settlers, I have told the enemy that the land is theirs and we are occupiers until a full peace and we have gotten just a map of giveaways to show for it.

  • With 'last ink,' Gunter Grass breaks silence on Israeli nuclear program threatening world peace
    • wondering jew April 7, 2012 at 4:38 am

      I will try to clarify.

      I think the ayatollahs of Iran want a nuke. Despite this, I oppose an Israeli attack on Tehran. I don't believe Obama will attack Iran unless he has the full backing of the Joint Chiefs. I would prefer Obama to Romney partially because Obama is not eager to go to war against Iran and Romney portrays himself in a somewhat eager fashion. I assume the Joint Chiefs are not pleased by the prospect of an Iranian bomb, based on what Mullen has said in front of the Senate. I doubt anyone without extensive study can really claim to know how close or far Iran is from a nuke.

      I think Iran's leadership is shitty: nondemocratic, retrograde, supplies weapons to Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Even many of those who are in the Middle East and hate Israel have learned to hate Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. This is due to the killing done in the last year by Assad. Hamas moved out of Damascus, but Nasrallah is too slow to react and Iran is Assad's second favorite enabler, after Mother Russia. But some of you think uttering a negative word about Iran is equivalent to uttering a positive word about Israel oppressing the Palestinians, which clearly it is not. (Clearly anyone can use any word to distract from another word. But also clearly Israel's bad acts are not exonerated by labeling Iran or Syria as villains.)

      I have read here (elsewhere in the comments) that the jury is still out on Assad. It may be that what comes after Assad will be worse than Assad, that does not mean to me that the jury is still out on Assad, just that Assad is a killer and maybe the next act is even worse. The jury is not out on Assad. Nor should it be. The jury might have to be bribed to consider something other than Assad's evil, but the jury is solidly in on Assad.

      Rabin, no saint, but a clear eyed pragmatist, was willing to go along with the Oslo accords because of his fear of a nuclear Iran (and his vision that Israel should compromise on the Palestinian issue in order to solidify support against Iran and the danger it and its potential nukes would pose.) So at least since 1993 all leaders of Israel have feared Iranian nukes. It is not merely a Netanyahu scarecrow. It is a real fear.

      I do not worry about Iran giving a nuke to Hezbollah, Syria or Hamas. The weapons I was referring to were conventional weapons, not nukes. Iran is a player in the war against Israel. If you favor warring against Israel you can consider this a good thing. But to paint Iran as a bystander regarding Israel is untrue. And its rhetoric is certainly not innocent.

      I oppose an Israeli attack on Iran, certainly at this time and until Meir Dagan says that he favors an attack. At that time I will have to reconsider. As far as an American attack, I would consult with the Joint Chiefs and if they all favored an attack, I would favor an American attack on Iran.

      As far as Grass's poem I think Derfner's critique in 972 is on target: It is not a small fear (although Netanyahu is drumming up the fear beyond proportion) and Israel does not seek to annihilate the Iranians. Derfner is on the front lines fighting against Netanyahu and Barak's "desire" to attack Iran and therefore he considers these two criticisms as minor, considering the battle that Derfner is fighting. I don't know if these criticisms are minor or major.

    • wondering jew April 5, 2012 at 5:45 pm with 7 replies

      Granting my amateur status as a military analyst:
      My impression is that German submarines enable Israel to have a strike back capacity in case of attack by nukes and this capacity would serve as a deterrent against a first strike by Iran and thus make an Iranian nuclear capacity more acceptable so that the mutually assured destruction aspect is enhanced.

      Israel's nukes are sometimes reassuring, often scary, even to an Israel supporter like myself. Iran's nukes, when they come, or when they are only a few turns of a wrench away, should be scary to everyone, unless you're of the school that all countries should have nukes, even North Korea. Mutually Assured Destruction is hardly reassuring and containment might work better if Iran were located half a world away next door to North Korea, rather than right near the Straits of Hormuz and close enough to send weapons to Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. An Iranian nuke is not just a fear born of paranoia, but a very real fear. I assume the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US has measured the dangers of an Iranian nuke and found them to be quite real. Whether it would be better for the US to go to war in order to obstruct that danger or not is a real question, but an Iranian nuclear capacity is not "just a fear" nor something minimal.

  • Leading sociologist says 'the enemy' includes 'disloyal' individualistic young Jews who push human rights
    • wondering jew April 7, 2012 at 8:31 am

      I agree. In Yiddish it is meshuggeners.

      But in Modern Hebrew it is Meshuga'im. And in fact it is a word with a Biblical Hebrew origin. Samuel 21:16. When David fled Saul who wished to kill him, he hid out among the Phillistines and because he had been a warrior who had killed many Phillistines, some of them thought him worthy of death and they brought him to their king. David feigned madness (Hamlet feigned madness too). And the king of the Phillistines said to those who brought David to him, "Am I lacking crazy men that you brought this one to be crazy in my house?" (inexact translation). And the Biblical word for crazy men is meshuga'im, and such is the modern Hebrew word as well.

  • The liberal Zionist predicament
    • wondering jew April 9, 2012 at 3:49 am

      tree- I don't know how this thread got on Gilad Atzmon, but apparently it did.

      Gut check- Atzmon hates Jews and exudes it in the sound of his "instrument" on this topic. His hatred is as obvious to me as frozen air is on my skin after being indoors.

      You should continue discussing him, despite my visceral reactions to him, but sometimes it is just too tiresome to try to explain that hatred is visible in the eyes and detectible in the tone of voice. I realize that Jew hater , although not that term, the a.s. term, is used carelessly and my assertions carry no weight without word by word dissection and so the freedom of asserting, "the guy hates Jews" must be abridged and followed by questions and evidence.

      But frankly his hatred turns my stomach and I felt like asserting the fact of my own personal reaction.

  • Beinart gets a Jewish conversation going in the media (just don't call us a cabal)
    • wondering jew April 7, 2012 at 5:46 am

      Americans must have this conversation, granted. But American Jews must have this conversation as well. You object because the American Jewish conversation is taking place on the American airwaves and the American conversation is not taking place and conversation of the A.J. is taking the time and airwaves that should be devoted to the American conversation. Okay, granted.
      I would not label that racism. But you do. You are too free with the term, in my opinion, but political correctness and terminologies are given to semantics and definitions.

  • My spirit is American (a religious manifesto)
    • wondering jew April 9, 2012 at 11:57 pm

      annie robbins- Brotherhood in the literal sense is overrated. as woody allen said about the alan alda character in "crimes and misdemeanors", "I love him, like a brother, david greenglass."

      Do you have to look that up? Are you less of my sister if you don't know who david greenglass is?

      Teens turning their back on the religion of their fathers, the history of their fathers, was/is pretty common around these parts. But those who still imply at 55, "so long sucker," as they look into the rear view mirror are less common. it's cool to throw off the burden of the torah and the burden of jewish history and jewish jewishness/separateness.

      one brother goes to auschwitz and the other lives in california and writes stories.

      my philosophy is one part ray walston my favorite martian and two parts richard kimble the fugitive, one part huckleberry hound one part time travelling mister peabody. my blood brother charedi learns only Talmud and listens to rabbis. Ideas and ideals trump blood.

      But blood is an idea or is it only a burden?

    • wondering jew April 7, 2012 at 7:36 am with 1 replies

      Woody Tanaka- "almost wholly a reaction to the actions taken by the self proclaimed "jewish state".

      Is it your hypothesis that there would be almost zero Jew hatred in the world today if not for the actions of Israel? Is there no hatred in Islam for the Jews? Is there no hatred in Christianity for the Jews? Is there no hatred in white supremacy towards the Jews? Is there no hatred amongst universalists for the particularism of Jewishness and Judaism? Is there no hatred amongst nationalists against the Jewish nation or the so called Jewish nation? In fact, in 1947 before the UN resolution to create Israel, Jew hatred existed in the world and it would exist today in some form. It is impossible to know what form it would have taken if the history of the Jews had not included Zionism.

    • wondering jew April 7, 2012 at 7:24 am with 2 replies

      Very interesting, Phil.

      Probably in 1967 there were more Jews similar to you, oblivious to the 6 day war rather than Jews who at the time wore yarmulkas on a daily basis and studied Torah three hours a day, which was my world.

      I think the urge to assimilate, especially into a great and improving country like the US was in the 1960's (in a way it really hasn't quite been as great since) is perfectly natural. There is also an urge to identify that exists in many people, but having grown up in an intensely identifying small segment of the American Jewish population it is difficult to assess how strong the urge to identify really is amongst Jews who were raised secular. (David Mamet comes to mind. Secular friends from Long Island who did identify with Israel in 67 also come to mind.)

      I can't resist some snide remarks.

      Taking the tour of the stations of the cross and seeing it as a lesson in heresy and excommunication, I think that's how you termed it. Spinoza was a case of heresy and excommunication. Jesus was the case of an occupation and a rabble rouser being handed over by Quislings, or being handed over by Sicarii zealots because of a preference for war over pacifism, but the New Testament story of the Sanhedrin and the blaming of Jesus's death on the Jews, to me that's a story as thorny as his crown of thorns and I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

      A Jew who seeks to assimilate is still a Jew. (in the good old days back in the old country, Jews would convert to Christianity in order to get a better job at the office. These days Jews convert to Christianity and still claim to be Jews, whereas in the old day they would be baptised in an attempt to rinse the stink of Jewishness off their resumes.) A Jew who seeks to assimilate should not use the term, "my brethren," (your question to Gurvitz at the tel aviv restaurant) unless he is referring to his brethren in the Dickinson, Melville, Morrison, Dylan, Kafka religion, rather than to his brethren in the religion he left behind in the rear view mirror so long ago.

      And finally, Hitler would consider you Jewish, and the state of Israel, (if you would decide to make aliya) might be forced to consider you Jewish, and any Orthodox rabbi would consider you Jewish, but I think Lenny Bruce would call you a goy.

    • wondering jew April 7, 2012 at 7:05 am

      Hostage- You say that Zionism was the invention of a few Jews and then you state that the basis of their invention was the belief that Jew hatred by the nonJew was eternal.
      I would assert that Zionism was not an invention but a natural development whose source was two fold, actual present hatred in a variety of locales in Europe, but specifically in Czarist Russia and in fin de siecle Vienna, and the result of secularisms attack on traditional Judaism, which created the search for new modes of Jewish expression.
      The first father of Zionism was Pinsker who wrote auto emancipation. In reaction to the anti Jewish fervent in 1881 following the assassination of the Czar, Pinsker who had previously sought to consider himself a Russian and sought assimilation for his personal path was awakened to the need of the Jews to depend upon themselves to defend themselves through governing some territory, rather than depending on human progress to defend the rights of the Jews to survive.

      Herzl's first inclinations were to seek acceptance into German fraternities and it was only when he was told, you are not of our nation, that he realized that his dream of assimilation was "easier said than done".

      If Herzl and Pinsker felt that the hatred for Jews was eternal in some way, I would blame their perspective: they couldn't see the forest for the trees. Herzl came from the city that produced Freud and Hitler and the trees in that part of the world in fact contained some rather virulent Jew hatred. I suppose the view that Vienna in 1895 already contained the seed of Hitler of 1919 or 1923 or 1933 or 1941, would be considered overly emotional and not rational history, but I consider Herzl not to be deluded about the eternity of the hatred towards the Jews, but very discerning regarding the environment in which he lived.

      The Czars were no friends of the Jews. I suppose the revolution of 1917 might be viewed as the more logical salvation for the Jews rather than any other particularist impulse, but in fact, Stalin inherited the Czardom eventually and he was no friend to the Jews either, so for Pinsker to view the future that he saw in his world as inimical to Jews was also discerning rather than paranoid.

      Who can see eternity? Both Pinsker and Herzl discerned their environments and gave their prescription. You dispute the prescription. Granted. Understood. Much suffering has occurred as a result of their prescription. But they discerned something very real about their environments and you living in the US in 2012 have no right to mock their perspective on eternity, when in fact their perspective on their immediate world was "dead on".

    • wondering jew April 4, 2012 at 9:25 pm

      annie robbins- The Jews were exiled from Jerusalem, if not from the rest of the Holy Land, for a period of seven hundred years? (real historians may correct me.) This contributed to their dispersal to other locales. Theory: Those who moved into the Holy Land at various times were not pilgrims or at least were not only pilgrims, but moreso were people who lived nearby. The Talmudic prohibition of reentering the land en masse, is cited to excoriate Zionism for its religious hypocrisy, but now it is entirely forgotten and the only possible explanation is not religious quietism (or humility)but one must conclude that for Jews Jerusalem was not a physical destination.

      The survival of the Jewish people is a wonder of sorts and the fact that a dispersed and small people did not find their way thousands of miles to the land does not indicate that it was of no physical importance. I think a true historian would not make conclusions so glibly and an amateur historian ought to incorporate humility into her statements.

  • 'J Street' review-- mixed, but positive
    • wondering jew March 29, 2012 at 5:46 pm

      On the main stage, a rabbi named Donniel Hartman, says that Israel lives in a “difficult, crappy neighborhood” (sorry rabbi, that's racist).

      Critiquing Rabbi Hartman's statement on the basis of Israel's contributions to the difficulty or the crappiness of the neighborhood (or on the necessity of Israel adjusting to the neighborhood) seems to me more apt rather than the application of the "racist" label.

      Analogy time. Would calling the South Bronx a crappy difficult neighborhood similarly fit this accusation of racism. How would one judge a crappy neighborhood? Can you park your car there and have a reasonable expectation that it will not be broken into? If the answer is no, then it's a crappy neighborhood. Is it therefore racist? Does one have to cite the history of blacks in America and New York City and call it a high crime neighborhood rather than a low tech phrase like crappy neighborhood in order to avoid being called racist? There are other measures of neighborhoods other than crime rates. One would be: how are the public schools? If the answer is that all the schools score below the average of the rest of the city on statewide examinations, can one say that the schools are crappy without being called racist? What about median income? Can one call a neighborhood crappy if the percentage of citizens living on food stamps is above a certain level? Or is that also racist? Must one say instead, it is a poor neighborhood with little industry and with a teenage unemployment rate of 40% rather than calling it a crappy difficult neighborhood in order to avoid the label of racist?

      Regarding Israel's neighborhood, here are the measurements that would label it as crappy and difficult: 1. poverty. Egypt is one of the poorest countries in the world. Poverty is not a moral lacking but it certainly affects a neighborhood. Refugees from subSaharan Africa would far prefer to find their way to Israel rather than stop their journeys in Egypt for the very fact that Israel is far richer than Egypt. Egypt's poverty and sub Saharan Africa's wars and poverty make Israel a destination for poor non indigenous peoples. That certainly makes life difficult if you allow a free flow of refugees. Is it racist to mention that fact?

      2. Education. What is the level of education in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt? How many people go to those countries to attend all of those top level universities in those countries? Except for those who wish to study Koran, the answer is probably very low.

      3. Democracy. Because Israel is on the wrong side on the democracy question, preferring dictators (who cooperate) to democracies that won't, this becomes a thorny suggestion. But as of today, how do the international organizations measure the democracy levels of the neighborhood. Lebanon, where the Christians until recently had to kiss Assad's ring (euphemism), is a democratic country? Syria is spoken on, although one could not tell that reading Mondoweiss. And Egypt- How do the Copts feel regarding the zeitgeist in Egypt?

      Building up the economies, the education systems and the democracies of countries is no simple thing. Israel's economy can be attacked because of massive infusions of money from the US government and Diaspora Jews. Israel's democracy, we know, deserves criticism for its treatment of nonJews and its worsening treatment of "disagreeable" Jews. Thus criticizing the neighborhood is an inappropriate indulgence, for Israel should look in the mirror and aim its criticisms in that direction. These are appropriate criticisms. But though the term crappy neighborhood is far less sophisticated than underdeveloped and undemocratic neighborhood, its essence is not racist but factual.

  • One crazed murderer sparks Zionist calls for European migration to Israel
    • wondering jew March 22, 2012 at 8:19 pm with 34 replies

      The call by Yakov Katz is predictable and objectively silly. On the other hand to call this murderer, "one crazed murderer" is bad journalism and also predictable. Did you call the Norway killer, one crazed murderer? Is French Muslim hatred of Jews so negligible that this man can be called "one crazed murderer". The commentators here are surprised that Muslims in Europe don't kill more Jews in France, if they are aware of what is going on in Gaza and elsewhere. They don't think it's crazed, they think it's incredible how few times it happens. Does that add up to one crazed murderer. Your headline is bad journalism.

    • wondering jew March 22, 2012 at 8:07 pm with 1 replies

      Before 1880 the vast majority of the world's Jews- 80% lived in Europe. Today less than 30% live in Europe. (If my approximations are off by more than 10% please forgive me.) Isn't it accurate rather than ideological to refer to today's European Jewish population as a remnant?

  • Two cheers for Beinart
    • wondering jew March 22, 2012 at 5:53 pm

      basimz- There is little history of anti Jewish violence in the Arab Muslim world, which is different from saying that such acts never took place. As for Maimonides, Moshe ben Maimon, he fled the Almohads, a Berber dynasty which was Muslim in their faith and they threatened the Jewish community with a choice of conversion, death or exile. His family along with most other Jews chose exile from Cordoba and went to southern Spain which was ruled by tolerant Muslims.

    • wondering jew March 21, 2012 at 7:58 pm

      Zionist Jews who oppose the occupation are in a tough spot. It is not "how can we end the occupation without ending Israel". It is "how can I defend Israel without defending the occupation". Beinart's solution- a boycott of the territories ("undemocratic Israel") answers this problem. Jeffrey Goldberg and other Zionists who oppose the occupation are forced to answer, "we will continue the hard slog of political persuasion" and knock on doors and hand out leaflets and argue convincingly to change the policy. But in fact I doubt whether Beinart believes that his stance will suffice to change the policy, but it gives him a basis for defending Israel, by making explicit his distinction between support for Israel and boycott of the territories.

      Although apparently this boycott of the territories has been Gush Shalom's position for a while, Beinart, as a famous Jewish American political journalist, has taken a bold step in this declaration. He is worth watching as a type of new American Jewish leader.

  • Advice to Zionists from a fellow loser
    • wondering jew March 10, 2012 at 5:16 pm with 1 replies

      The problem with Phil's analogy is that he considers New York City to be the capital of the world or of its future. Even if I were to admit that New York City is the capital of the US and reflects the reality in the West, in fact there are seven billion people on the globe and the vast majority of them are not changing their gender conceptions so quickly.

      Zionism is an anachronism vis a vis its place of birth Europe or at least vis a vis Tony Judt's place of birth and Phil's place of birth (and mine). Whether it is an anachronism for its current location (the eastern end of the Mediterranean) is an entirely different question. If burkas are the coming thing in that neighborhood then Zionism might be seen by the neighborhood as a foreign implant, but not because it lacks modernity or the ethic of equality, but because it belongs to the 19th century and the rest of the neighborhood belongs to the 8th century.

      In fact given the post Islamic attitude of the Iranian people (based upon the hypothesis that the 2009 election was stolen in Iran and the demonstrations of the Iranian public represented a majority) the evolution of the middle east will probably follow a path of Islamism, the failure of Islamism, the overthrow of Islamism, a process which will take somewhere between 40 to 100 years, based upon the 33 years of the Iranian revolution and the predicted period of time it will take to throw off the yoke of the imams. It is possible that the dictatorship of the imams can be side stepped if the Muslim Brotherhood have indeed learned humility during their time in prison, but if not, that is the trajectory of the evolution of the region.

      If Zionism is no more progressive than Iran's imams it is no less progressive than them either, and if a burka is to be tolerated on the upper west side and in Tehran, there is no reason that the desire of the Jews on the Eastern end of the Med. Sea to protect themselves from the burka is to be tolerated as well.

      Best to let Israel's Jewish majority rest up from the second intifada like Gurvitz suggested and to let them come up with some ideas rather than to draw analogies from sexually ambiguous New Yorkers.

  • The radicalization of Yossi Gurvitz
    • wondering jew March 10, 2012 at 4:51 pm

      Richard Congress knows what is the core basic element of Judaism. There were great rabbis who demurred from describing the basic core element of Judaism, but Richard Congress knows. We are so lucky to have him here to enlighten us.

    • wondering jew March 10, 2012 at 4:48 pm with 2 replies

      1. Gurvitz cites the second intifada as a major trauma from which Israel needs to recover in order to get the majority of the society rested enough to deal with the situation rationally. This idea is never mentioned by Phil and it is good to hear it from Gurvitz.

      2. Even though Yeshaya Leibowitz turned out to be right with his basic contention vis a vis the moral dangers of the occupation, his usage of the "Judeo Nazi" rhetoric was one of the keys to his marginalization by Israeli society. I don't see this rhetoric as helpful and Gurvitz's citation of this rhetoric alienates me from him and pushes me in the direction of seeing him as "out of touch".

      3. James Baker, the secretary of state under Bush pere, was the one who said, here's our phone number, call us when you are serious.

  • 'New Republic' says Obama 'detests' Netanyahu and treats him shabbily
    • wondering jew March 7, 2012 at 8:01 pm with 1 replies

      How many times has this web site "read in" that Obama detests Netanyahu? Do I have to go back and count? Is Mondoweiss so small potatoes that it is allowed to "read in" that Obama detests Netanyahu, but the TNR is such a big league magazine such that Yossi Klein Halevi is not allowed to "read in" the same thing?

  • Netanyahu gives genocidal bible story to Obama
    • wondering jew March 8, 2012 at 9:36 pm

      Just a note about Jewish holidays. Most contain elements of seasonal holidays plus elements of history (or if you prefer myth).

      The three main holidays: Passover, Shavuot (Pentecost) and Sukkot (Tabernacles) all have elements of the seasons: spring, early summer and fall but also incorporate history: passover- the exodus from Egypt, Shavuot- the giving of the Ten Commandments at Sinai, and Sukkot- the circumstance of the 40 years of wandering in the desert.

      I call those the main holidays even though most Jews would think of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashana before Shavuot and Sukkot, because those first 3 holidays are mentioned in the book of Exodus and the holidays of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashana are first mentioned in the book of Leviticus. In fact Y.K. and R.H. have only seasonal references and no references to history.

      The two main holidays decreed by the rabbis (rather than by the Torah)- Chanuka and Purim contain elements of history- Macabee rebellion and Persian threat, plus seasonal elements. Chanuka's lights are prominent at the darkest time of the year and coincide with other festivals of lights of the darkest time of the year (northern hemisphere) and Purim with its bacchanalian elements in March is similar to the Mardi Gras at the same time of the year.

      Although Halloween occurs at a different time of the year the customs of mask wearing and giving of treats occurs both on Purim and Halloween.

      I do not know whether Purim was based on history or myth. but if it was history, the following points should be made.

      Haman paid a hefty sum to the royal treasury for the right to kill the Jews.

      If a plot to kill the Jews had been hatched, there may have been a specific class or race in society that was involved with this desire to wipe out the Jews and so this was a danger that was not easily dispatched and required a massacre to set things aright. Obviously there are better ways to handle dangers, but until a time machine puts you in their shoes, how do you know how much danger the Jews of the time were in.

  • Barghouthi and Erakat can reach young Americans
    • wondering jew March 1, 2012 at 8:49 pm

      annie-

      If Barghouthi were discussing the issue in depth then many issues- the occupation of Bethlehem, the idea of the cartoon and the Israeli attempts to drive a wedge between Christians and Muslims would all be appropriate, particularly if it was a discussion with give and take with people from both sides participating. But in a one man speech, which was essentially a superficial slide show (for a good purpose, freedom, but still a superficial slide show), I think the inclusion of the cartoon was/is a rather cheap decision by Barghouti, which is not meant to encourage thought but to discourage thought.

    • wondering jew March 1, 2012 at 8:36 pm

      annie- Years ago there was a documentary about twin Israeli boys who were brought to the occupied West Bank in an attempt to "dialogue" or find humanity in the other with a young Palestinian living there. (Google informs me the name of the documentary was "promises" made by b.z. goldberg in 2001) In that documentary the Palestinian youth visited the destroyed village of his grandmother and near the ruins was a large rock with a star of David drawn upon it and the youth kicked at the star of david with his foot in anger for the destruction that those who drew the symbol had wrought upon his grandmother and upon himself.

      When I saw this it was my first realization of the "validity" of anger at the star of David.

      First a comment on your general tone. It is mostly: Israel is just as bad as Barghouthi, so why do you criticize Barghouthi when Israel is more culpable of the same complaints. This is from the school of "you suck worse than we do" and I realize why you react in such a fashion, but it is not really an answer to my objections to Barghouthi. You seem to say, that if I only objected to Barghouthi for his methods, then I must also equally or moreso object to Israel for the same methods and therefore since I object to Barghouthi and not Israel I am a hypocrite.

      Fair enough, but besides the point. If you wish to discuss these issues without regards to Barghouthi, I am prepared to do so, although I am too tired at present. But I am not up to digging to the core of the issue and right now I am dealing with one evening and specifically one person and his presentation at NYU for Israel Apartheid week.

      I went to hear Barghouthi and I was struck by his abuse of religious symbolism which will only perpetuate the hatreds that underlie the conflict. You have said nothing to deny this, only that I have not dealt with the issue in its entirety and I feel that is an unfair criticism of me. Did Barghouthi make a decent fair non hateful presentation of the cause of the Palestinians. I believe his presentation was tainted by his use of the cartoon and other aspects as well. His purpose was not to build peace but to energize those who already support him and maybe a cartoon of Jesus kicking an Israeli soldier is useful for that purpose. My purpose was to see what kind of a presentation he makes and whether he emits a peace vibe or a war vibe and his presentation was slick, glib, superficial and offensive and he gave off a war vibe and not a peace vibe.

    • wondering jew March 1, 2012 at 8:15 pm

      seafoid- I was referring to the Farhud- the anti Jewish riots in Baghdad at the beginning of June of 1941. If you are serious in asserting that the killing in those riots were in anticipation of Zionism, then you are clearly someone who I do not wish to communicate with in the future.

      Mr. Barghouthi favors a one man one vote future in I/P, which is not going to happen soon, but if and ever it does happen will require an attitude of unity. The Israeli war machine is not an attempt to achieve unity nor does it require an attitude of unity. To compare Israeli warmaking with Mr. Barghouthi's method of peacemaking is only appropriate if indeed Mr. Barghouthi is intent upon war making as well. He claims to be an advocate of equality and not an advocate of war. For an advocate of war the usage of offensive symbols is natural, for an advocate of peace the usage of offensive symbols is strange.

    • wondering jew March 1, 2012 at 4:52 pm with 6 replies

      annie- Just a quick response to part of what you wrote.

      "Palestinian Christians had nothing to do with what Christians did in Europe."
      I grant that.

      The question I raise is whether Christianity had anything to do with what Christians did in Europe. If you feel that it was totally foreign to the spirit of Christianity, something imposed on the pristine pure loving New Testament, I disagree. I think there are plenty great things, wise words contained in the new testament. I feel that there are sufficient wise words in the New Testament that there is a future to Christianity in its relationship with Judaism and the Jewish people if loving people wish to come to the Jewish people with regret about certain verses and a commitment to emphasize the loving part of the New Testament rather than the not so loving part of the New Testament.

      But if you do not regret the hateful words of parts of the New Testament, then are you any different from those who accept the Hebrew Bible as pristine or the Talmud as pristine the Quran as pristine or the Hadiths as pristine. I am quite sure that those who accept the pristine nature of any of those books are a handicap if we wish to find peace in the future.

      Do you disagree?

    • wondering jew March 1, 2012 at 3:50 pm

      seafoid- It is an interesting question what cognizance of the history of Christian antiSemitism should be "required/requested/expected" from non European Christians. But even if one answers that question in the negative- that nonEuropean Christians need have zero cognizance of the effects of Christian antiSemitism in Europe, you must realize that Jew hatred in Christianity did not begin in Europe. It began in the new testament and with the Church fathers.

      In any case the usage of religious imagery when attempting to achieve an act of unity wherein all the religions join as one and pretend that we all get along, is antithetical to the herein stated cause. So even if one were to say that Palestinian Christians should not be cognizant of the history of their religious civilization that includes recent "problems" in Europe, the stated goal of unity negates the use of religious imagery when other images would suffice.

      The "complications" of Zionism notwithstanding, the Zionist project was necessitated by a coming storm. The location in Zion rather than elsewhere was necessitated by the nature of Jewish history, which would have made a mockery out of any other piece of land other than Zion.

      As far as Iraqis and the 1940's in one sentence. I have no reason to doubt that they warned the US about this, if you say so. But note, my first reaction to seeing the words Iraqis and 1940's in one sentence is to recall the most notable anti Jewish riots in the Arab world prior to November 1947, the anti Jewish riots in Baghdad in 1941.

    • wondering jew March 1, 2012 at 3:33 pm with 4 replies

      Walid- I have two different goals for I/P, a short range goal and a long range goal. The short range goal is to end the occupation of the west bank. The long range goal is a real peace between Arabs, Palestinians and Jews and Israeli Jews.

      I do not have a strategy to accomplish the short range goal, let alone the long range goal. Since the occupation is oppressing humans on the west bank and they have expressed their strategy or tactic as the means to end their oppression and I do not possess an alternative strategy, tactic or move, I cannot argue against the gist of the statement: "We the oppressed seek to end our oppression by BDS." My gut opposes the move against Israel and I have to say that my gut reacts when I see signs, "Boycott Israel". It moves me to anger and opposition. But I cannot argue against the West Bank residents and their statement distilled to the above.

      The presentation by Ms. Erekat was flawless. It was marred by a computer glitch and her time constraint, but she came across as attractive, reasonable and courageous.

      Mister Barghouthi came across as arrogant. Uninterested in hearing other alternatives. I am right. I have won the argument. The other side is evil and stupid. I am good and smart.

      Citing Walt and Mearsheimer that the Israel lobby was crucial to the effort to go to war against Iraq, the skull festooned picture of Bush and his cronies, a quote from Tutu decrying the accusation of antiSemitism with "the Palestinians are semites as well." All this added up to a polemic, that caused me to wish to stand up and yell, "Am Yisroel Chai!"
      I resisted.

      I am not his target audience, although at some point if a "one man one vote" conclusion is to be achieved, people like me might have to be cajoled rather than forced to join his effort and his attitude is not attuned to "cajole". I believe that "one man one vote" is a long way off, beyond my predictable life span and so he is probably correct that he will have no need to cajole me, because he and I will not be on the scene at that time.

    • wondering jew February 29, 2012 at 5:06 pm with 25 replies

      Barghouthi, the tone deaf.

      Almost 48 hours after hearing Barghouthi speak at the kimmel center Monday night, the most "offensive" slide (from his slideshow for freedom) came to mind. A cartoon of the crucified Jesus kicking an Israeli soldier out of Bethlehem (?) The fact that I had blocked the image out of my mind I take as significant. When recounting the performance to a friend and to myself the most offensive slide that came to mind was of Bush Jr. and his closest advisers with a photoshop of skulls decorating the frame.

      But 42 hours later at home listening to music led to dancing led to outstretched Jesus nailed hands and Barghouthi's slide came back.

      To a Jew who winces at "Christkiller" any unessential use of Jesus to comment on the I/P conflict is stepping on my toes. I realize that I sound censorious and unreasonable and I will discuss this aspect with my therapist next Monday. But leaving me aside- How tone deaf is Barghouthi? How is a Jew supposed to react to this image? Isn't he inviting the antiZionism = antisemitism equation? He certainly is not shying away from it.

      So before I compose myself and possibly compose a fuller response to the gestalt of the issue and of Barghouthi's presentation, I'd like to send a shout-out to Mr. Barghouthi. In the shape of one raised finger. Even the deaf know sign language and certainly the tone deaf Barghouthi understands this sign as well.

  • Gorenberg on why one state is a non-starter: Jews would have to pay higher taxes or receive fewer services
    • wondering jew February 28, 2012 at 9:34 pm with 1 replies

      Clearly, objecting to a one state proposal based upon higher taxes and fewer services, sounds trivial. I assume that violence will be the main problem. In order to convince me that violence will not be the main problem, proposers of this are hereby requested to provide a hypothetical scenario of how this all comes about.

      Science fiction would only require a nighttime change of mind of all Israeli supporters of Jewish statehood, from their current state of mind into the minds of one staters.

      The prime minister (let's leave him unnamed so as to avoid putting one stater words in Bibi's mouth) would announce to the Israeli people, "I have decided (and I happen to know you agree), that our attempt at having a sovereign Jewish state has failed, therefore I will take the following steps: I will propose that Israel will annex the occupied territories."

      (Time out: which would include Gaza, but not the Golan Heights.)

      Time in:

      "Israel will annex the occupied territories granting full citizenship to all people who reside in those territories. Further Israel agrees to accept any and all people who can prove that they are Palestinians (have one grandparent or two great grandparents or four great great grandparents who were residing in Palestine from the period of 1945 until 1947, into the new country. The number of Palestinian returnees will not exceed 250,000 per year, but over 20 years that means that we will accept 5 million Palestinians to be citizens of Israel."

      From my perspective this is unlikely and you probably agree that this is unlikely. Therefore my request for some kind of a scenario is reasonable.

  • ADL enlists city of Oakland to block Atzmon event
    • wondering jew March 1, 2012 at 4:18 pm

      Thomson- on June 23, 2011 I had a discussion with Atzmon on this web site. Did you read that discussion? When you have read it then you can come back to me and discuss his usage of the term Christkiller. I don't have the energy or the desire to go back to Atzmon's original words and statement regarding Christkiller. In June Atzmon asserted, my wife and children and I never get called Christkiller, so anyone who was called Christkiller at some other point in history must be less innocent than my wife and I.

      Let me clarify about Atzmon- as far as I know he has never murdered anyone and in fact Israel is in the business of fighting wars and killing people. Maybe when Israel dehumanizes its soldiers in order to kill it also dehumanized Atzmon and it is that dehumanized aspect of his personality that he brings to discussions of Jews.

      I admire Michael Lerner for his equanimity and love in facing off against Atzmon.

      I consider Atzmon a stinker. if my imagery describing his stink was too strong, maybe next time I will avoid the next discussion of that dehumanized hater who avows to speak in the name of love the next time he is featured on this site.

    • wondering jew March 1, 2012 at 4:08 pm

      American- If I was not clear, I will clarify: "antisemitism is a dangerous and hardy disease amongst some nonJews."

      If i write "Cancer is a dangerous and hardy disease amongst the human race" that would not mean that all humans get cancer, but rather that it is common enough and deadly enough to be worrisome.

      Me thinks you understood that and are merely being obtuse.

    • wondering jew March 1, 2012 at 4:04 pm

      Thomson Rutherford- I use the term short range because I can only see the short range. In the long range I have worries about America because of polarization of communities and declining wages. I think America has the wherewithal to meet its challenges without dipping into chaos and violence, the situation in which any hatred including Jew hatred would find adherents.

    • wondering jew February 29, 2012 at 7:13 pm

      American- If I could reinterpret Zionism it would be not
      "all goys are anti semitic at heart and cannot be trusted", it would be "anti semitism is a dangerous and hardy disease amongst nonJews and although attempts might be made to defeat it, such attempts ultimately will not succeed and thus the danger must be reckoned with."

      I think the Zionists were proved right (in the short time frame of half a century) by the Holocaust- that antisemitism in the short range could not be defeated and it indeed proved extremely dangerous. Whether hatred of Jews can be defeated is a question worth asking. Not that all nonJews hate Jews but whether a sufficient hatred will persist to prove dangerous. I think in America and Canada the danger posed by Jew hatred is not dangerous in the short range. Neither is it a danger in Western Europe. I cannot accurately gauge how dangerous it is in the Arab world because of the confusing factor of Israel's existence and also because I never lived in an Arab country (unless you count Palestine) and have no way of gauging what role it might play in the future in those societies.

    • wondering jew February 29, 2012 at 5:32 pm with 4 replies

      piotr- I have noted your assertion that speakers other than Atzmon are more offensive.

      Atzmon emits hatred for Jews. I will let the intellectuals dissect his words and figure out their value and how many grains of hatred he has per thousand words. If I sit next to someone on the subway and it smells I move. Atzmon stinks of Jew hatred. I don't need to identify how much is body odor and how much is excrement or wine or vomit or urine. It stinks and I move.

      I focus on the Christ killer comments of his in order to bring my full emotions to bear. In Atzmon and Jewish identity on this website on June 23, 2011 I began to explain to Mister Atzmon how the Christkiller epithet might bother other Jews, his response was basically: I am a musician, I emit certain notes. I apologize for none of them. That is fine for a musician. But he is a Jew hating political character who emits a stink of Jew hatred like a smelly man on the subway who normal people avoid.

    • wondering jew February 28, 2012 at 9:41 pm with 6 replies

      It was a mistake for Gilad Atzmon to be invited to speak from a stage that is paid for by taxpayer funds. The usage of power to rectify that mistake was clumsy.

      Atzmon is a snake. He calls Jews "Christkillers". Any time any where, any time any Jew was called a Christ killer is okay in Atzmon's book, because of Zionism's crimes.

      Atzmon is a snake.

  • Hoenlein says irresponsible 'J Street' threatens Jewish unity (and survival)
    • wondering jew February 25, 2012 at 5:26 pm with 5 replies

      I think Hoenlein is referring to the gratuitous hatred and divisions amongst Jews living in Judea around the time of the destruction of the second temple. Theologians attribute the destroyed temple and the nationalistic setbacks that accompanied it to "gratuitous hatred". Historians point out the divisions between Pharisees, Saducees and Zealots as the cause of the inability to defeat (or more accurately figure out how to deal with) the Roman Empire.

      I agree that the current situation does not require unity, as much as it requires common sense which is missing in the Likud government particularly on the issue of settlements. But the historical allusion was not nonsensical, although not necessarily appropriate.

Showing comments 2485 - 2401
Page:

Comments are closed.