Trending Topics:

Yoffie rallies American Jews to determine ‘character of the Jewish state’ without a word about our obligations as American citizens

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 41 Comments

Eric Yoffie has a piece up at Huffington Post on the importance of the existence of Israel to the survival of the Jewish people. The piece states that Jewish sovereignty and power in Israel–which entail a Jewish majority and the privileging of Jewish citizens over Palestinians– are essential to insure the survival of Jews as a people.

Leave aside whether he is right or wrong (he could be right that the survival of the Jewish people depends on having a nation state with an army).

Leave aside whether the second-class-citizenship of Palestinians in a Jewish majority state is offensive (it offends me as a civil-rights-bred American) and whether there is anything liberal about this liberal Zionism (No).

Let us go to the simple issue: What are my obligations as an American citizen? I am commanded by Yoffie to support Israel.

Zionism bestows upon Jews everywhere a role in determining the character of the Jewish state.

But the word America does not appear in this piece, until you get to the bio box. Executive Director of the Association of Reform Zionists of America.

Eric Yoffie has led a fine career in America. My challenge to Yoffie: What are the obligations of Jewish citizens of the United States to their country?

As Herzl discovered when English Jews shut the door on him, the central political question about Zionism from a western standpoint is a loyalty issue. Zionism has always depended on American support, and therefore on the fervent support of American Jews. He has nothing to say about my American citizenship.

Excerpts:

Zionism is the belief that the establishment of a Jewish and democratic state in the Land of Israel is essential for the creative survival of the Jewish people.

Being a Zionist does not require that I live in the Jewish state, but it does require serious and thoughtful advocacy for the proposition noted above…

Zionism calls for a state that is Jewish. While I have my own strong views on the subject, I know that the precise nature of Israel’s Jewish character has yet to be defined and will evolve over time. The task of Zionism now is to assure that the Jewish state has a secure Jewish majority so that her Jewish citizens can determine by democratic methods what it means for Israel to be Jewish. Still, it is important to emphasize that Zionism does not see the Jewish state as “a state of all its citizens,”…

Zionists do not apologize for the fact that the Jewish state was created to promote the religion, civilization and culture of the Jewish people and its dominant Jewish majority. The Jewish state is to be the one place in the world where the national anthem is Jewish, where Jewish holidays provide the rhythm of the calendar, and where Jews openly apply Jewish values and the Jewish spirit to every aspect of life; it is the one place where others must struggle with the problems of being a minority — even as they are assured democratic rights. Zionism calls for the Jewish people, operating through the democratic institutions of their state, to master the gun and to exercise power, both against their enemies and — when required — against their own citizens who refuse to accept the verdict of democratic decision-making. By bestowing sovereignty on the Jewish people and returning them to history, Zionism gives the Jewish people control over their own destiny….

Zionism bestows upon Jews everywhere a role in determining the character of the Jewish state. Final authority rests with Israel’s citizens, whether Jewish or not. But Israel is not primarily the state of Israelis; it is the state of the Jewish people.

P.S. Leonard Fein is the editor of this series. I would like for him to explain what is liberal in Eric Yoffie’s vision.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

41 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    April 27, 2012, 12:40 pm

    Phil: “Leave aside whether he is right or wrong (he could be right that the survival of the Jewish people depends on having a nation state with an army). ”

    Ask instead this question: “Assuming, arguendo, that a Jewish State of Israel is necessary [for Jewish safety], how does that justify 45 years of illegally-conducted occupation and 66 years of refusal, contrary to I/L and agreements and conventiuons Israel has signed, to allow return of the refugees/exiles of 1948?”

    UNGA-181 (1947) is commonly taken for the “birth certificate” for Israel. It did not promise a rose garden. It also did not promise them a vastly-majoritarian Jewish state. It was explicit that the non-Jews had to have their rights respected. Being exiled (or having readmission refused) is not a respecting of rights, nosireebob.

    The mistake is to take the claim of a need for a state as justification for every act, no matter how horrible or illegal, of that state. Even if the state is legitimate, its acts need to be judged for what they are, not “magic’d” into acceptability by the alleged legitimacy of the state.

    Germany was (and is) a state, and a legitimate state. That did not make the excesses of the Nazi regime — the invasion of most of Europe and the USSR and the Holocaust — “legitimate”.

    • Rusty Pipes
      Rusty Pipes
      April 27, 2012, 3:27 pm

      A state that is constructed for rule by a majority (not to mention, an artificially created majority) without providing protection for the rights of minorities is not a Democracy, but a mob-ocracy. Another reason Zionists are so afraid of “demographics.”

    • Blake
      Blake
      April 27, 2012, 4:39 pm

      Well stated pabelmont and said UNGA (181) Resolution was UTTERLY ILLEGAL and a violation of the UN Charter, because the UN had NO RIGHT OR POWER to take land from one people and give it to another. ALSO, it was never ratified by the Security Council, and so does not exist in law, which means the UN played no role in the creation of Israel.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        April 28, 2012, 10:04 am

        Blake: It’s amazing these legal points are never brought up in all the blustery claims re Israel’s “delegitimization.” Recognition of Israel as a nation among nations was dependent on Israel fulfilling the condition subsequent that it allow fled Palestinians to return, and ASAP. We here all know Israel never did. Most Americans don’t know that, nor do they know that even UNGA R 191 was never ratified by UNSC. Israel’s birth certificate is actually subject to cancellation and could be cancelled at any time for “violating its parol.” No wonder Israel now pressures the US to belittle UN and be its antagonist with superpower.

      • April 28, 2012, 9:41 pm

        Wrong: a GA resolution is no such thing as a birth certificate, as per the Zionist entity government itself.

        GA stands for General Assembly. As far as I understand, the only legal reason invoked by the Zionist entity government for ignoring the hundred(s) of resolutions enjoining it to stop aggression is that they are GA resolutions and not SC resolutions, not worth as such the paper they are written on.

      • Blake
        Blake
        April 29, 2012, 5:19 am

        @ sardelapasti: Heard of American veto at the UN Security Council? Israel have violated over 60 UN Security Council resolutions (and over 200 UN General Assembly Resolutions). Without the USA using its veto power to shield Israel from International law at the UN SC, the number would have been doubled.
        @ Citizen: Amen.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 29, 2012, 12:55 pm

        @Blake: Some aspects of UN resolution 181(II) would certainly not be legal today, but it was not illegal under the (now) senescent provisions of Article 85 and 87 of the UN Charter when it was originally adopted. The General Assembly could adopt its own legally binding decisions with regard to non-self-governing territories under the terms of Article 18 of the UN Charter or through the Trustee Council that operated under the General Assembly’s auspices.

        Resolution 181(II) did not require any Security Council endorsement. The Assembly requested that the Council consider any attempt to overthrow the plan by force a threat to international peace and security requiring the Council’s action. But the Security Council simply reconvened another special session of the General Assembly to find a political solution and dealt with the threat to peace as a separate matter. The Council ordered the Mediator to implement cease fires and armistice agreements as a provisional measure in accordance with its powers under Article 39 and 40 of the Charter.

        Japan’s mandates in the Pacific were supervised by the Security Council under the terms of Article 83 of the Charter. The General Assembly had responsibility for all of the other non-self-governing territories under the terms of Article 85.

        The General Assembly actually had more explicit powers and functions with regard to non-self-governing territories than the League of Nations ever had in its own day. For example, the General Assembly could conclude agreements on its own behalf with non-member states, like the one with Italy that placed Somaliland under foreign tutelage. The League of Nations didn’t have the requisite legal personality, so it relied on the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers to confer its mandates. The League also relied upon the Principal Allied Powers to partition the Ottoman territory and lay down the boundaries of the new states, while the General Assembly handled those tasks itself.

        For example, on 20 June, 1962 the UN General Assembly adopted a decision to accept a UN commission’s proposal to partition Ruanda-Urundi into two independent states, Rwanda and Burundi. Those actions paralleled the steps taken earlier by the UNSCOP commission and the General Assembly in the case of Palestine.

        When enough former trusteeships gained UN membership the General Assembly adopted the “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. When the majority of states signed the ICCPR, the principle of self-determination became a norm of international law.

      • Blake
        Blake
        April 29, 2012, 1:33 pm

        Thanks for that but Palestinians were not consulted and preferred to solve the conflict through dialogue, not partition up their country. Those wishes were not taken into consideration.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        April 29, 2012, 4:14 pm

        So, Hostage, you are saying Israel’s internationally recognized UNGA birth certificate is valid as it was valid as of the time it was made?

        If so, this does not account for the fact the natives of the land subject, the Palestinian people, the people most directly impacted, were not consulted or represented in the UNGA decision. Since this happened after the Nuremberg Trials, this is not good enough to hang a hat on.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 29, 2012, 6:58 pm

        So, Hostage, you are saying Israel’s internationally recognized UNGA birth certificate is valid as it was valid as of the time it was made?

        Of course not. I’ve commented at length elsewhere that the 2nd special session of the General Assembly stopped the work of its Palestine Commission on the implementation of the plan of partition and created another subsidiary organ, the Office of the UN Mediator, to pursue a peaceful settlement. In the meantime, Israel was created by its own Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI), which was an act of secession. The General Assembly created yet another organ, the Palestine Conciliation Commission to negotiate repatriation and compensation for the Palestine refugees.

        During the hearings on its membership application, Israel made declarations acknowledging its acceptance of the chapter on minority rights in resolution 181(II) and the obligation to either repatriate or pay compensation to the refugees in accordance with resolution 194(III). In 1950 the government of Israel denied it had accepted those undertakings.

        Years later when the PLO was invited to participate in the business of the UN as an observer, the General Assembly created yet another subsidiary organ, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. It concluded, based upon the record, that Israel had a binding legal obligation as a result of its acceptance of resolutions 181(II) and 194(III).

        It was actually the 1988 PLO UDI which cited resolution 181(II) as the source of legitimacy for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in Palestine. The government of Israel quickly declared the resolution null and void. Nonetheless, UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/48/158D, 20 December 1993. para. 5(c) stipulated that the permanent status negotiations must guarantee “arrangements for peace and security of all States in the region, including those named in resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, within secure and internationally recognized boundaries”. The General Assembly resolution that requested an advisory opinion from the ICJ in 2003 asked about the legal consequences flowing from international law and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations. It specifically recalled that resolution 181(II) had called for the partition of Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. Judge Higgins wrote a separate concurring opinion which said that Israel had the right to peace and security, while the Palestinians had the right to their territory and their own state.

        Both governments will have to fulfill the minority rights undertakings in-line with resolution 181(II) in order to claim international legitimacy.

      • Blake
        Blake
        May 1, 2012, 12:24 am

        I don’t see why Palestinians have to buy their way back in when it is their land. This must be unique scenario they find themselves in simply because of who the occupiers of their land are. Clearly.

  2. jonrich111
    jonrich111
    April 27, 2012, 12:54 pm

    I don’t think pitting Israeli nationalism against American nationalism is the best way to frame this argument. It is all too easy for Zionists to simply say they have the best interests of America and Israel at heart. As one person I heard describe it said: “You can love your children and your husband at the same time.”

    I think a better argument would be framing this issue as Jewish cosmopolitanism versus Jewish nationalism. Cosmopolitanism does not pit Israel vs. U.S. nationalist claims. Rather, it celebrates the kind of diasporic Jewish identity that emphasizes being world citizens, caring about the future of the planet and the human race, not just particular countries.

    • annie
      annie
      April 27, 2012, 1:23 pm

      jon, could you please point out specifically where phil pitted israeli nationalism against american nationalism. i think all he did was mention america doesn’t appear in the piece and ask what obligations american jews had towards their country. is that too much for you?

      “You can love your children and your husband at the same time.”

      exactly, iow you approve of the concept of dual loyalties and reject the accusations of anti semitism when this is brought up?

      • annie
        annie
        April 27, 2012, 1:39 pm

        Zionism does not see the Jewish state as “a state of all its citizens”…Final authority rests with Israel’s citizens…..Israel is not primarily the state of Israelis

        this is a hard sell. what compels someone, say a person brought up in a civic national state (like america), to buy into these concepts? civil nationalism is diametrically in opposition to the concept of an ethnic nationalist state. they do not share the same values in the least. what would compel a citizen of a state, with whom final authority rests, to support a political position dispossessing themselves of the value of their own citizenship? it makes no sense.

        if final authority rested with all it’s citizens then it would be primarily a state of israelis. you can’t have it both ways.

      • DICKERSON3870
        DICKERSON3870
        April 27, 2012, 3:28 pm

        RE: “Zionism does not see the Jewish state as ‘a state of all its citizens’… Israel is not primarily the state of Israelis” ~ Eric Yoffie
        AND RE: “this is a hard sell. what compels someone, say a person brought up in a civil national state (like america), to buy into these concepts?” ~ Annie Robbins

        MY REPLY/COMMENT: There is a precedent.

        • WATCH: Rudolf Hess opening speech (English Subtitles)
        In this four minute clip from the film Triumph Of The Will, Hess is speaking at the 1934 Nuremberg Rally and introduces the Heimatland (Homeland) concept that he and Hitler had devised during the writing of Mein Kampf while they were in prison together at Landsberg as a consequence of their convictions for involvement in the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923.
        As Hess explains it (at about 3:05), Hitler is creating a homeland for all the ethnic Germans of the world wherever they might happen to live (not just those residing within the borders of Germany).
        As translated by the subtitles, Hess says (speaking to Hitler): “Thanks to your leadership, Germany will be attainable as the homeland. Homeland for all Germans of the world.”
        And be certain not to miss Hess’ “eroticized passion” for der Fuhrer at the conclusion of the clip.

        • AND LISTEN TO: “HOMELAND” IS A NAZI TERM (AUDIO, 37:44)
        The origins of this term are discussed at length in this Paul Craig Roberts interview on the Thom Hartmann show.
        Program contains an audio clip [at about 13:30], taken from a Nazi rally, that is an example of how the term was used (in German).
        LINK – http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/PORTLAND-OR/KPOJ-AM/Nat%20Show%20hr%201%207-19-07.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=PORTLAND-OR&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=674&STATION_ID=KPOJ-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=AM620_KPOJ&PCAST_CAT=News_%26_Politics&PCAST_TITLE=Thom_Hartmann_Nationwide

      • DICKERSON3870
        DICKERSON3870
        April 29, 2012, 5:17 pm

        P.S. Rudolf Hess opening speech (English Subtitles) [VIDEO, 04:00] – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxDYVFmsgPw

  3. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    April 27, 2012, 3:16 pm

    RE: “the precise nature of Israel’s Jewish character has yet to be defined and will evolve over time. The task of Zionism now is to assure that the Jewish state has a secure Jewish majority so that her Jewish citizens can determine by democratic methods what it means for Israel to be Jewish.” ~ Eric Yoffie

    MY COMMENT: Lots of luck with that!

    FROM URI AVNERY, Feb. 2010:

    (excerpts). . . why do the words “Jewish state” appear in our Declaration of Independence? There was a simple reason for that: the UN had adopted a resolution to partition the country between an “Arab state” and a “Jewish state.” That was the legal basis of the new state. The declaration, which was drafted in haste, said therefore that we were establishing “the Jewish state (according to the UN resolution), namely the State of Israel.”…
    …LIKE MOST of us at the time [of the founding of Israel in 1948], David Ben-Gurion believed that Zionism had supplanted religion and that religion had become redundant. He was quite sure that it would shrivel and disappear by itself in the new secular state. He decided that we could afford to dispense with the military service of Yeshiva bochers (Talmud school students), believing that their number would dwindle from a few hundred to almost none. The same thought caused him to allow religious schools to continue in existence. Like Herzl, who promised to “keep our Rabbis in the synagogues and our army officers in the barracks,” Ben-Gurion was certain that the state would be entirely secular. . .
    . . . BUT THE white lie of Herzl had results he did not dream of, as did the compromises of Ben-Gurion. Religion did not wither away in Israel, but on the contrary: it is gaining control of the state. The government of Israel does not speak of the nation-state of the Israelis who live here, but of the “nation-state of the Jews” – a state that belongs to the Jews all over the world, most of whom belong to other nations.
    The religious schools are eating up the general education system and are going to overpower it, if we don’t become aware of the danger and assert our Israeli essence. Voting rights are about to be accorded to Israelis residing abroad, and this is a step towards giving the vote to all Jews around the world. And, most important: the ugly weeds growing in the national-religious field – the fanatical settlers – are pushing the state in a direction that may lead to its destruction. . .

    SOURCE – http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/28/the_nation_of_israel_wait_and_see/

  4. yourstruly
    yourstruly
    April 27, 2012, 11:58 pm

    zionism is the belief that the establishment of a jewish and democratic state in the land of israel is essential for the survival of jewish people?

    and never mind that israel has been built by jewish settler colonization of palestine and ethnic cleansing of its native people

    and we jewish-americans aren’t to concern ourselves with whether israel’s actions endanger america, the land that has welcomed and nurtured us?

    no thanks, traitorous israel firsters

    before i’ll turn my back on america and universal human rights, israel can disappear*, and a terribly deformed judaism along with it.**

    life will go on

    without even a pause

    and with doomday everted

    *the entity, not its people

    **who needs a racist credo?

  5. Sin Nombre
    Sin Nombre
    April 28, 2012, 4:29 am

    Phil Weiss wrote:

    “Let us go to the simple issue: What are my obligations as an American citizen? I am commanded by Yoffie to support Israel.”

    Hurrah to you Phil for your patriotism here, my fellow American. Because obliterating that issue is *exactly* the point that Yoffie’s entire piece was subtly aimed at. Just as hurrahs go to MJ Rosenberg posting in the thread about your dinner with those jewish society members at Yale calling ’em Israel Firsters.

    And just as with that thread I’m just amazed at the comments here so far. Here after all is an American—Yoffie—telling other Americans to put the interests of another country first, and the reactions here are … to quibble with his view of what Zionism means? To get into the minutia of … UNGA (181) Resolution?

    Or (and I can’t help being so harsh, jon, despite your obvious good intentions), the forehead slapping comment that no, “pitting Israeli nationalism against American nationalism is [not] the best way to frame this argument …. I think a better argument would be framing this issue as Jewish cosmopolitanism versus Jewish nationalism.”

    As if .. riiiight … because after all Americans are much more likely to be moved towards a better policy towards the I/P conflict not by arguments that their political system is being manipulated and their blood and treasure is being taken advantage of, but because deep down … they have fretted over the distinctin between jewish cosmopolitanism and jewish nationalism and prefer the former….

    Riiiiiiight.

    Yeesh.

    Like I said in that Yale society thread: Go ahead and ignore the constant open appeals of people like Rabbi “I prefer to live with jews” Yoffie to other Americans telling them to be Israel Firsters. And go ahead and (unlike Phil) don’t raise the issue when they go on and on about the importance of Israel and etc. and never ever utter a molecule of concern about American interests no matter how greatly and gravely they are immediately implicated. (With nuclear weaponry issues even.)

    Go ahead instead—like so much commentary here—debate the Yoffie’s of the U.S. over the intricacies of what Zionism or democracy means, and whether the Mufti was really a bad guy or not and whether the Palestinians said X or Y back during Conference A or Conference B or blah blah blah, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

    Go ahead. The Rabbi Yoffie’s of the world *love* you for it. They’ll argue with you until the cows come home over this crap! Delighted to do so! First off of course you ain’t never going to move them from their opinions. But the greatest thing of all is that you’re just impliedly reinforcing the idea that oh of *course* the U.S. should be up to its neck in the conflict over there! That … there’s innumerable matters of great and vast concern and interest for the U.S. over there that we *must* be involved in! After all, all *you* appear to be saying is that, gee, maybe we ought to be a little more even-handed….

    Or go even further if you want, and they’ll love you even *more* for that: Go “take the Palestinian/arab/persian side” and see what fun they’ll have with you. Siding with bin Laden and Yassir Arafat and the lunatics of the Taliban and the loudmouth from Iran who doesn’t even know to wear a freaking tie when speaking to the U.N….

    Go ahead. Hell, you’re like the Rabbi Yoffie’s best friends in the world! Giving them a free pass to exhort Americans to put the interests of Israel first, and then … to not even have to *argue* whether America has any true interests over there worth our blood and treasure! What a pal!

    As I said in that Yale society thread, nobody on the planet much less here can say with any good degree of certainty or credibility whatsoever what’s the perfectly just and fair solution to the I/P conflict. And damn near everyone here agrees the U.S. is just being used like a cheap prostitute and that involvement is hurting the situation.

    And yet … so much of the sensibility here seems to be that no, Americans don’t care so much about their country being used like a cheap whore, and the real solution is to just make all Americans Ph.D’s on the vast intricacies of Zionism and jewish and Mideast history and this will result in a fair and just solution, despite the fact that nobody here can even articulate same with any confidence or credibility.

    Pfui.

    All the more glad you nailed it here Phil, and MJ Rosenberg in that other thread. Not that these other substantive issues aren’t interesting or aren’t worth discussing on their own, but damn, a Yoffie talks like that and all that is noticed is the freaking trees and nobody even mentions the forest?

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      April 28, 2012, 11:17 am

      Sin Nombre, I don’t see what you are recommending in terms of how to counter hasbara, which is not in in the least recognized by average Americans as propaganda.
      Rather than have this issue devolve to the waste of time that is Mondoweiss as you delineate, what do you propose we do, say, to and about our US leaders mirroring hasbara at every turn to be consumed by Dick and Jane, who never get the POV generally agreed upon on Mondoweiss? I’ve admired your comment and respected them over the years here at Mondoweiss. What don’t I get about this, your latest comment? I think my question goes to what is to be done, as I agree Dick and Jane could care less about relevant issues on this subject matter get intricately parsed here. What should “an activist secular and/or humanist monk” do or say to Dick and Jane, or their leaders, & how to even get them to listen?

      • Sin Nombre
        Sin Nombre
        April 28, 2012, 12:51 pm

        Well I think it’s pretty clear, Citizen. Not that discussion of the intricacies of the I/P conflict aren’t valid, but as I said, in our discussions about the thing never lose sight of the forest that is the American perspective that says we have the right to hold our interests as paramount in favor of some endless disquisition on the minutia of Zionism or etc.

        So it’s just as Phil hit the nail on the head here in what and how to *first* analyze and respond to a Yoffie. Not by getting sucked in to talking about… just how much Diaspora jews should have to say about Israeli affairs or the quantum of democracy Zionism might conceivably possess or etc. It might be interesting, but it’s playing on their field. And it’s giving them an absolute pass on what, after all, is not just our *inarguable* right to put our *own* interests at the top of our list of concerns, but is also *their* most invalid and weakest and dangerous issue as well: Without American support just how much of their little project over there could sustain itself? Just how much war would they want then without the U.S. making them invulnerable to same?

        And thus for instance too I see this sort of failure when it comes to publishing things about, say, J-Street. Right away people get drawn in about being thankful it’s not as bad as AIPAC about the settlements but boy we wish it went further about the Right of Return or some other such stuff. And there goes the J-Streeters, *completely* left off the hook having to defend what seems to me is their complete silence about *American* interests, with the obvious implication that same are matters of secondary importance at best.

        Same, I wouldn’t be surprised with all the eclat over Beinart’s book, although I don’t know for sure. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t just a great vast black hole in it essentially failing to talk to any reasonable degree whatsoever about American interests. So nobody says anything about same with this book or others in which it’s certainly true, and nowhere comes any impetus at all for any reviewer or interviewer to start pressing Beinart or whomever on this, the very issue which Americans have the absolute right to be *totally* concerned about.

        Same with Yoffie: Where’s the *real* challenges being devised that he should be presented with? Here after all is the guy who just a few months ago was in Israel and said to an Israeli paper how, when he retires, it will be to Israel because “I prefer to live with jews.”

        In essence, patting himself on the back for the horror he’s been experiencing having to rub shoulders with us goyim over here hauling water for Israel. And nobody says a thing about it. Nor about the no-doubt innumerable other things to be raised with Yoffie: How he casts himself as this great moral figure here condemning even the slightest whiff of racism, or those who are concerned, say, about unrestricted illegal immigration into the U.S., all the while he’s shilling for an obviously racist regime in Israel that now seems on the verge of building actual camps to house captured illegal immigrants there, and which just had fire-bombings of immigrant quarters.

        Like I said, it’s as if people are choosing not to argue their inarguable points, but instead want to push the interminably arguable and indeed unanswerable ones. No-one here knows the perfectly fair and just solution to the I/P situation, but boy for some reason they want to argue the most minute intricacies of what might or might not go into same instead of first just insisting on the answer to the clearer-than-clear one which is why the hell should the U.S. be involved in that conflict at all when it’s so blatantly contrary to a whole constellation of our interests to do so?

        Someone here long ago (“AMERICAN”?) said that the situation is never going to get better while there’s such an asymmetry in the debate: The Yoffie’s and the AIPACers and etc. get to set the bounds of the debate. E.g., call people anti-semites left and right, if not terrorist sympathizers or Nazis or whatever, and everyone on the other side is just terrified of not obeying what *they* say is the proper bounds of debate.

        Well MJ Rosenberg has shown the efficacy of just goddam setting our own bounds of the debate by using the term “Israel Firster.” And not even because it’s efficacious *but because it’s right* that oughta be shouted out first and foremost and repeatedly as what must be responded to by those who appear to fit the definition like Yoffie.

        We have the absolute right to consider things from the perspective of putting our own interests first. And while I can think of all kinds of bad things that might (further) happen to the U.S. due to being stupidly and corruptly involved in the I/P conflict, I can’t think of anything more dangerous or damaging than letting that first principle be degraded. And, predictably, that degradation is the *first* if not the *supreme* priority for the Israel Firsters.

      • yourstruly
        yourstruly
        April 28, 2012, 4:46 pm

        the purpose behind trying to engage jewish-americans in deciding on what sort of society israel is to delude us into believing that we’re really doing something important and meaningful, even though there’s about as much chance as a snowball in hell that israel will pay attention to anything we might propose. indeed the only way we possibly can influence the behavior of the settler entity is by our participation in the struggle to sever the u.s.-israel special relationship. it’s through such an effort that we jewish-americans have a unique role to play, that of relentlessly exposing neocons for the israel first traitors that they are. we succeed in this effort and the the public will come to realize that our government has to rethink and then change the type of relationship it has with israel.

      • American
        American
        April 28, 2012, 6:16 pm

        the only way we possibly can influence the behavior of the settler entity is by our participation in the struggle to sever the u.s.-israel special relationship. it’s through such an effort that we jewish-americans have a unique role to play, that of relentlessly exposing neocons for the israel first traitors that they are. we succeed in this effort and the the public will come to realize that our government has to rethink and then change the type of relationship it has with israel.”

        I would rephrase that to…..’the US congress will come to realize’ they have to change their Israel loyalty”.
        I don’t think it’s going to happen but if it did it would do much more than that……it would kill the canard of Jewish disloyalty the zionist represent and put it square on the zionist cult alone. It would also be a earthquake for Israel ..no more US Jewish power for them..change or perish.
        Inspiring to imagine…but don’t think,it will happen…however I will never say never.

  6. Shmuel
    Shmuel
    April 28, 2012, 4:52 am

    Zionism bestows upon Jews everywhere a role in determining the character of the Jewish state. Final authority rests with Israel’s citizens, whether Jewish or not. But Israel is not primarily the state of Israelis; it is the state of the Jewish people.

    And I’m sure Yoffie would take umbrage at calling Israel an ethnocracy, yet that is precisely what he has described (despite his parenthetical concession to “final authority”): “Israel is not primarily the state of Israelis [demos]; it is the state of the Jewish people [ethnos].”

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      April 28, 2012, 11:48 am

      It’s really hard for me to see how the rest of the nations of the world, all non-Jewish and comprised of mostly non-Jews, why they should not always suspect their Jewish citizens of primary allegiance to a foreign nation, although I understand Israel is the Jewish people’s insurance policy that they deem justified by past world history. What is very clear to me is why US politicians always stress, as Bibi N did when he talk to us all, why “We are you, you are we.” And, hence, why episodes in US history like, e.g. the Lavon Affair, the USS Liberty and Rachel Corrie, and the AIPAC spy cases and history of JFK’s attempt to stop Israel from getting the bomb, not to mention Truman’s view of the Zionists in 1948, are always left out of the ken of Dick and Jane, who also have no clue just how much we give Israel every year with no strings attached like those we would demand of any other foreign state, even those Western states and long-time allies Dick and Jane most closely associate with America.

      • American
        American
        April 28, 2012, 12:17 pm

        Send this to every single person you know.

        http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2012/04/how-does-aipac-endanger-america-irmep.htm

        “How does AIPAC endanger America?” IRmep

        How does AIPAC endanger America? Workshop videos now online

        April 23, Washington, DC–Video from the March 3, 2012 workshop “AIPAC: What it is, who its allies are, why it’s dangerous and how to stop it” sessions are now available over the Internet. Turn off HD (high definition) for faster video streaming.

        AIPAC History Proto-AIPAC’s incubation in the Israeli embassy in 1948. Strategic direction-setting by the Mossad and Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Confrontations with the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations and the secret battle over registration as an Israeli foreign agent. FBI espionage investigations of AIPAC. AIPAC and the clandestine Israeli nuclear weapons program. The grassroots fight for transparency, regulatory oversight and accountability. Presented by Grant F. Smith, Director of IRmep.

        AIPAC Political Power US politicians and the Israel lobby campaign finance network. Why Israel political action committees use confusing and misleading names. How ostensibly independent political action committees are coordinated to avoid contribution limits imposed on other industries. How AIPAC has directed PAC contributions to chosen candidates. How to track stealth Israel PAC contributions to your representative. Presented by Janet McMahon, Managing Editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

        AIPAC and the Media Why establishment media outlets consistently fail to present an accurate picture of Palestinian vs Israeli casualties in the ongoing conflict. Why the background and motives of key Middle East reporters prevents Americans from receiving accurate reporting. Enduring myths about Israel’s value as a US ally. How to counteract the disinformation network. Presented by Alison Weir, President of the Council for the National Interest and Founder of If Americans Knew.

        Promoting Islamophobia AIPAC’s role in promoting Muslim “otherness.” The Clash of Civilization policy framework, why is it of strategic value to Israel, especially after the Cold War? Who funds Islamophobia in the United States? What can be done about it? Presented by Hatem Bazian.

        Exposing, Challenging and Stopping AIPAC Why aren’t operatives and their organizations (WINEP, FDD, FPI, AEI, JINSA) ever properly identified in the mainstream media? Are AIPAC and the larger network of organizations vying to operate as an “alternative government?” How can proven tactics to confront dangerous policy be implemented in the Internet age? Presented by Jeffrey Blankfort.

        “Occupy AIPAC” and “Move Over AIPAC” are annual Washington DC gatherings of over 100 organizations organized by Code Pink to challenge and present alternatives to dangerous and costly Middle East policies. The Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) is a Washington, DC based organization that studies US Middle East policy formulation. The Council for the National Interest works for U.S. Middle East policies that serve the national interest. If Americans Knew is dedicated to providing Americans with everything they need to know about Israel and Palestine. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs is a magazine published to provide the American public with balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states.

        PR Newswire news release:

        http://news.yahoo.com/does-aipac-endanger-america-workshop-videos-now-online-151804832.html

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      April 29, 2012, 3:32 am

      Eric Yoffie has a piece up at Huffington Post on the importance of the existence of Israel to the survival of the Jewish people.

      Not much apparently. He claims that “Zionism is the belief that the establishment of a Jewish and democratic state in the Land of Israel is essential for the creative survival of the Jewish people.” If that’s the case, they should have ceased to exist a long time ago, when they drove the majority of their fellow citizens into exile.

      In any event, American Jews are not going to determine the character of the Jewish state. The religious and political establishment in Israel would never stand for it.

      And I’m sure Yoffie would take umbrage at calling Israel an ethnocracy, yet that is precisely what he has described (despite his parenthetical concession to “final authority”

      Not only that, but the “final authority” in the Israeli establishment doesn’t even consider him to be a Rabbi or a proper part of their ethnocracy. The Forward reports:

      In response to the Neeman Commission on conversion, certain Orthodox leaders gave voice to their opinion on other forms of Judaism. Rabbi Andrew Sacks in the Jerusalem Post reports:

      Rabbi Yisrael Eichler, a spokesperson in the Haredi world, wrote that “Reform Rabbis are further from Judaism than Christians and Muslims and that they should be considered as filthy, lying, shekotzim who are criminals, who brought about the holocaust on the Jewish people.”

      Rabbi Ovadia Yosef said, “Reform Jews should be vomited up…and thrown out of the country.”

      Both Sacks and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs quote an advertisement signed by Orthodox leaders including Rabbi Shalom Yosef Elyashiv, the leading halachic authority of the haredi community, and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Shas’ spiritual mentor:

      As darkness covers the earth, the Reform and Conservative sects that are the destroyers of the religion are trying to dig their nails into the Holy Land and receive recognition as though they were streams of Judaism, God forbid. We hereby pronounce da’at Torah [this Torah opinion] that it is inconceivable to grant them any recognition whatsoever, and it is forbidden to conduct any negotiations with the destroyers that counterfeit Torah…

      http://forward.com/articles/123374/the-odd-couple/

      • piotr
        piotr
        May 1, 2012, 12:16 am

        They eat shrimp and their women are not modest. They are heretics.

        This is the joy of living in the Jewish state. Who was a heretic in exile? I mean, after Spinosa and before the Jewish State. New dogmas relate to Jewish State, like Immaculate Conception of the State. Recently Tel Aviv police had to detain and arrest heretics (Zochrot) who denied that dogma.

  7. yourstruly
    yourstruly
    April 28, 2012, 7:06 am

    an appeal to ows

    welcome back
    now so lean and fit from your winter hibernation
    without further adieu how’s about focusing upon preventing an iran war?
    + doing something about the u.s.-israel special relationship
    the two are intertwined
    has to do with averting a nuclear winter
    yes, the top 0.1 percent might hold out for a few months deep in the rockies
    but us 99.9 percenters?
    not to put pressure on you
    but please do your thing
    you know
    general assemblies
    leaderless yet everyone a leader
    the better to change the world

  8. MichaelRivero
    MichaelRivero
    April 28, 2012, 10:35 am

    What would be the reaction of the American press if a citizen of China, or Iran, were to write in the American press that all Americans of Chinese or Iranian ancestry were obligated to support China or Iran. Would questions not be raised regarding the loyalty of those Americans who agreed? Should we not question the loyalties of those who purport to support Israel, a nation that has repeatedly attacked and murdered Americans, tricked us into fighting their wars for them, stripped us of our wealth, and subverted our own government?

    • annie
      annie
      April 28, 2012, 10:41 am

      or mexico omg, they’d form a minute man group and propose a wall!

  9. Xpat
    Xpat
    April 28, 2012, 2:23 pm

    he could be right that the survival of the Jewish people depends on having a nation state with an army

    1) That’s a bleak vision. Substitute any other ethnic that does not have its own ethnic state. Would you say the same? If so, doesn’t that guarantee endless conflict around the world. Every ethnic minority will necessarily go to war to protect its group identity and gain sovereignty. Kurds in Turkey/Syria, Assyrians and so on all over the world.

    2) You must mean survival as a culture not physical protection. But it’s not at all clear what the meaning of “Jewish” is. Even on Israel’s own terms, that concept has evolved over the last seven decades and continues to be dynamic.

    3) A fairer statement might be: “he could be right that the survival of the Jewish Israeli people depends on having a nation state with an army”

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      April 29, 2012, 11:54 am

      But it’s not at all clear what the meaning of “Jewish” is.

      It’s actually pretty clear that Yoffie is a Reform Rabbi. So he is not considered a competent official who can conduct a valid conversion or marriage in the Jewish State of Israel.

      The Knesset has always delayed adoption of a legal definition that would create two or more “Jewish peoples”. So the Courts have been forced to cobble together a makeshift definition that embraces the various streams in response to a series of petitions from “Jews” who have been denied that personal status by the government.

      When the High Court finally adopted a ruling to accept non-Orthodox conversions conducted in Israel, the Rabbinate and the Knesset simply circumvented the decision and delayed some more.
      *http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=28914
      *http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/world/middleeast/24israel.html

  10. American
    American
    April 28, 2012, 3:37 pm

    “he could be right that the survival of the Jewish people depends on having a nation state with an army:

    Every time I see that statement I go crazy……who,who,who…in their right mind could possibly think Israel could protect Jews from anyone but unarmed Palestines????
    Listen, if the world, even half or a quarter of the world ever turned on the Jews Israel could be ashes in a nano second. It is the absolute l.a.s.t place on earth I would go if I were a Jew running from rampant anti semitism….unless I just wanted to die with a bunch of other Jews.
    Seriously, who with an I/Q above 70 could believe Israel is any kind of safe haven or protection?

    • Shmuel
      Shmuel
      April 28, 2012, 3:59 pm

      Reminds me of this recent, Beinart-related post, by Jerry Haber (Magnes Zionist): http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2012/03/israel-as-refuge-for-jews.html#links

      Which brings me to the “place of refuge” dogma: If Israel exists as a physical refuge to ensure the survival of the Jewish people, then it has failed miserably in that respect. We are told by Israel’s leaders that the Jewish state is, or soon will be, under an existential threat from Iran, or from terrorism. If this is true, then will some one please tell me how Israel is a safer refuge for the Jews than, say, the United States, or even, Europe? More Jews have died because of the Israel-Arab conflict since 1945 than as a result of all other anti-Jewish behavior combined since 1945. And since much of the new anti-Semitism is correlated to Israel’s actions, not only is Israel a dangerous place for Jews living within its borders, it isn’t so good for the physical safety of Jews outside it either.

      Haber also rejects the claim that “a nation state and an army” are necessary for the perpetuation of Jewish culture.

      • yourstruly
        yourstruly
        April 28, 2012, 8:26 pm

        as an entity that has no legitimate raison d’etre, israel. has to contrive ways to justify its existence, such as the “place of refuge”, should there be a resurgence of virulent antisemitism. and when there’s not only no increase but a decrease in antisemitism, it gets desperate and seizes on incidents, such as the recent murder of 3 jews at a jewish school in toulouse, to put out a call for jewish-french to play it safe by emigrating to the “jewish” homeland. only it’s the palestinian’s, not the jewish homeland, which is one reason why so few in the so-falled exodus ever seriously consider packing up and going there. not when life, however difficult it may be in the west, isn’t laden with fear that the moment of the terrible reckoning is nigh. palestine for the palestinians and however many jews living there decide that that they’re willing to live in a land in which there’s equality and freedom for all

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 29, 2012, 12:03 pm

        The “place of refuge” dogma is being challenged in an article that appears in Haaretz this weekend. Some of the participants in the debate have noted Hitler’s plans to use to the German Africa Corps to carry-out the final solution in Palestine. The participants are also challenging the basis for exceptionalism and the desirability of living in a state governed by Jewish religious law. See “Keyboard warriors fighting over Israel’s future”.
        http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/the-makings-of-history/keyboard-warriors-fighting-over-israel-s-future-1.426848

  11. Xpat
    Xpat
    April 28, 2012, 9:09 pm

    Those who oppose a two-state solution or who advocate never-ending Israeli control over the territories without granting full rights to their Arab inhabitants have abandoned democracy and cannot legitimately claim to be Zionists at all.

    Per Yoffie: Zionism minus democracy = no Zionism. Therefore, Zionism = democracy.

    But:
    Zionism does not see the Jewish state as “a state of all its citizens,”

    Therefore: Zionism is the opposite of democracy.

    Yoffie has the impossible job of being the Chief Rabbi of Reform Judaism. His audience is his constituency. He is trying here to carve out some middle ground between AIPAC and J Street. He doesn’t care that Zionism isn’t cool. He’s addressing Jews from the platform of HuffPo. Saying that Jews have a say in Israeli matters is a poke at AIPAC.

    I found this statement to be the most disturbing:
    The task of Zionism now is to assure that the Jewish state has a secure Jewish majority
    Since, per Yoffie, American Jews do not need to move to Israel and now that there are no large concentrations of Jews left in the world that would possibly do so, how exactly does he intend to break the 50/50 gridlock in I/P? Isn’t he just giving the nod to ethnic cleansing, just as his predecessor, Alexander Schindler authorized the West Bank settlement project in the 1970s?

    • Sin Nombre
      Sin Nombre
      April 30, 2012, 3:06 am

      I think Elliot’s analysis here is a very very sharp one showing Yoffie’s impossible job.

      In the main I still think that the fundamental intent behind Yoffie’s piece was to just sort of combat some of the implications some American jews might take from Beinart’s book and re-affirm and reinforce the idea that no, American jews simply must continue to support Israel. But in doing so he also needed to add some other things along the lines of explaining *why* that can be done within the bounds of acceptability.

      As Elliot so beautifully shows though—and what ought not be missed for its great future importance—is that this essentially does consist of trying square a circle. It just can’t be done … unless indeed some form of either ethnic cleansing or some permanent denial of arab voting rights at least gets … accepted as being acceptable.

      Thus in a big way Yoffie is being very smart and reactive here to Beinart’s piece: He isn’t just calling Beinart names, or denying the turning away from Israel that Beinart says is happening. He’s trying to genuinely meet Beinart’s arguments and get out ahead of them. But of course he can’t come right out and say openly—yet—that this includes acceptance of ethnic cleansing or permanent second-class citizenship for arabs, even though those would indeed seem to be his and Israel’s only options. (Again as per Elliot’s fine writing here.)

      Very keen piece of work Elliot. Very keen.

  12. Xpat
    Xpat
    April 30, 2012, 10:46 pm

    Sin Nombre, many thanks.

    To be fair, I have to assume that Yoffie does not desire the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Palestine. In his mind, the desirable outcomes would be the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, thereby ensuring a Jewish majority within Israel proper.

    However, when it comes to Israel, the Reform movement has increasingly disengaged from the big political issues (Palestinian issues are such a drag) and focussed on Israeli issues that resonate with American Jews. Top of the list are women’s rights and freedom of religion for Reform Jews in Israel. In essence, Reform Jews in America are reverting to a pre-Zionism model of engagement with Israel: religious pilgrimages and supporting their landsman i.e. the Reform movement, over there.

    The gatekeeper for activism in the Reform movement is the charismatic Washington-based rabbi, David Saperstein. Eric Yoffie is retiring and Rabbi Jacobs is moving in to Yoffie’s job, but Saperstein has been in D.C. forever. As Mondoweiss has reported, Saperstein long ago decided to throw Israel under the bus so that he could have the freedom to do the work he favors: women’s right to choose, separation of church and state, and other domestic American issues.

    For Yoffie (Mr. I-prefer-to-live-with-Jews), the combination of abandoning the tough battles on I/P while advocating for a Jewish majority in Israel adds up to the damage I described in my previous comment. Rabbi Yoffie would deny the accusation but then I’d ask him: what are you doing as an American Jewish opinion-maker and player to protect Palestinians from the ethnic cleansing that you appear to endorse?

Leave a Reply