Trending Topics:

Shavit and Beinart willfully ignore an anti-Zionist Jewish movement

Israel/Palestine
on 78 Comments
Ari Shavit. (Photo: Spiegel & Grau/NPR)

Ari Shavit. (Photo: Spiegel & Grau/NPR)

Ari Shavit got home to Israel from his triumphant U.S. book tour and reported that the American Jewish community is still Zionist, even if the young people don’t find Israel that relevant:

The American Jewish community opened its heart…. Even the Jewish left longs to see a reincarnation of the old Labor Zionism that it so loved to love.

So Shavit ignores all the criticism of his book from leftwing Jews like Jerry Slater and Ira Glunts (and me too). We simply don’t count as Jewish left. Maybe we’re too fringe, or maybe we’re too deracinated in Shavit’s view?

Peter Beinart performed the same magic trick in The New York Review of Books when he said the American Jewish community was inside a “cocoon” and it did not listen to Palestinians. He left out all the grassroots: Max Blumenthal and Rebecca Vilkomerson and Donna Nevel, who have spent a lot of time listening to Palestinians. They’re simply not members of the American Jewish community, or too fringe to reach Beinart’s attention, let alone the ears of the New York intelligentsia. Jonathan Chait performed the same magic trick a few years ago at J Street when he said it was fine to include anti-occupation voices, but the Jewish conversation must not include Phil Weiss (I was then in the audience).

How long can these “liberal” voices continue to marginalize an important movement? At Swarthmore young Jews have stated that they want to hear anti-Zionists at the Hillel there. Max Blumenthal’s book on an Israel gone rightwing amok is getting a second printing at Nation Books. The American Studies Association’s landslide vote for boycott surely included many Jews.

Today I gave money to Vilkomerson’s non-Zionist group, Jewish Voice for Peace because of a stirring appeal from Noam Chomsky:

These days, there are really only a handful of Jewish organizations that honor the traditions of universal equality that inspired me to be an activist so many years ago. Jewish Voice for Peace is one of them.

Is Chomsky chopped liver? I’d note that Beinart’s website, Open Zion, which resolved to create a groundswell for the two-state solution, has closed after less than two years— in some measure because the political/generational energy is to the left of him, and speaking a language of equality. (Compare Chomsky’s words to Beinart’s defense of second-class citizenship for Israeli Palestinians: “I’m not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state.”)

Shavit and Beinart ignore us because we represent the most important challenge to their project inside the Jewish community in a generation or so. In doing so, they are practicing a form of intellectual dishonesty. The readers of the New York Review of Books and Haaretz deserve a more accurate picture.

And they are both arguing implicitly that Jewish voices should matter more than others. That may be our biggest error. We think everyone has a right to be in this tent.

 

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

78 Responses

  1. just
    just
    December 27, 2013, 9:47 am

    Predictable and terrible. What they don’t realize is that your pov and exposure of ills and crimes of Israel (and Max’s and, Rebecca Vilkomerson’s and Donna Nevel’s, Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s, and President Carter’s, etc. is the one true thing/conversation that will actually bring peace and justice.)

    Your voice means so much, Phil. Many of us are so grateful for the truth that you and all of the gracious contributors to MW bring.

    Happy New Year.

  2. seafoid
    seafoid
    December 27, 2013, 9:48 am

    There is no left left in Israel . It was marginalised out of existence. They now want to do the same in the US. They cannot turn back . They know that if people listen to those who speak about justice it will expose all of the jewish leaders who have given their tacit approval to the Zionism of Danon and the settlers . They are trying to hold back the tide and they are holding Judaism hostage . Such a mess . So intellectually dishonest . So morally bankrupt . The longer they hold out the greater the damage to their own tribe .

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      December 27, 2013, 3:47 pm

      Right.

      But the reason why the left was “marginalized out of existance” as you put it is that they fell into the trap that Chait and other “liberals” set for them, namely loyalty to the race above all else, democracy included in “all else”.

      That’s why the Jewish left inside Israel has failed. And as Max documented, it was the left that begun most of the projects inside Israel anyway, so their liberalism is highly questionable – if not farcical – to begin with.

      The last paragraph of what Phil wrote doesn’t quite jibe with the gist of the rest of the article. I agree about his thesis, but I am cautioning people not to play the game that the left tried in Israel. I am not hiding the fact that I care deeply about the welfare of the Jewish people, but that cannot override humanitarian concerns, especially when the “Jewish interest” is framed in direct opposition to democracy.

      However, we cannot, at this point, be too needy of recognition by people like Shavit, Chait or even Beinart. They have made their views(or should I say contempt) regarding democracy very clear, including the chilling quote from Beinart. Should we pursue their approval?

      Phil doesn’t quite answer the question but the tone of the article suggests a lamentation that we haven’t yet received it, thereby implicitly raising their authority on this issue as something we should strive to be acknowledged by. I reject this completely.

      Ultimately my view remains the same: there is a growing progressive Jewish voice on this issue but the establishment holds all the cards. At one point in the future, most Jews will come to our position – some will be dragged screaming – as Israeli apartheid will become indefensible even to most neocons.

      But the process of getting there will rely mostly on non-Jews, not as an accessory but really the primal force. We’re seeing it in the BDS initiatives already.
      And because of this we cannot spend too much time, or any time at all, worrying about how people like Beinart, who openly demonstrates his willingness to abridge his so-called democratic values in favour of racial loyalty, to accept us. Indeed, if we are accepted by people like him, we should worry.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        December 27, 2013, 5:24 pm

        The right in israel told israeli jews they could have it all. Total bullshit. Very reminiscent of reaganomics. Bibi reminds me of Dick Fuld of Lehman. Financialisation is very similar to Zionism.

        Things fall apart.

        They are going to shaft the sephardim too in the endgame I bet.

  3. dbroncos
    dbroncos
    December 27, 2013, 10:39 am

    Beinart, Shavit et al are afraid of American Jewish critics of Zionism because those critics break apart their best lines of defense against outsiders:

    Anti-semite
    Holocaust denier
    Israel speaks for all Jews

  4. yrn
    yrn
    December 27, 2013, 1:06 pm

    Truth really hearts, as there is NO Anti Zionist movement.
    and especially A Jewish Anti Zionist movement.
    A few individuals don’t count as a Movement.
    Hard to accept, but that reality.

    • DanH
      DanH
      December 27, 2013, 1:53 pm

      Just, may I second? “Your voice means so much, Phil. Many of us are so grateful for the truth that you and all of the gracious contributors to MW bring.
      Happy New Year.”

      don’t wonder why they won’t listen to you, or your argument
      one advances in the Israel/aipac hasbara regime through strategy
      everyone who is not against them is potentially with them, being observed, on the verge of being rewarded

      why don’t they listen? etc., etc.
      those who advance have learned the strategy – you don’t have to read the Protocols – it is all around us (even if it was written by a pope, or a Russian Cossack, or Phil Weiss in a previous existence)

      ignore, marginalize, trivialize, denigrate, spit upon (figuratively), attack the person (not the argument), demonize, falsely accuse, spit upon, convict, imprison, assassinate

      So be another Mandela!

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      December 27, 2013, 2:21 pm

      Bukra fi mismish

  5. Dan Good
    Dan Good
    December 27, 2013, 1:39 pm

    People like Beinart and Shavits are concerned about “the company you keep”. In other words, anti-Zionists, they will say, play into the hands of the anti-Semites. That is also their objection to Max Blumenthal. As an objective observer of the I/P debate, however, the real threat is the other way round. Believers in the Jewish State “warts-and-all” play into the hands of the anti-Semites. Only a non-Zionist Israel can survive in the long run. The debate is no longer about the existance of Israel since Israel now exists. The Zionist won that battle. Now it is about the continued existance. Other countries have changed their stripes. Read Lawrence davidson: http://consortiumnews.com/2013/12/10/embracing-israels-atrocities/ for a clear expression of this idea. The main flaws of Zionism is that it needs anti-Semitism for its survival, since without anti-Semitism there would be no need for Zionism.

    • yrn
      yrn
      December 27, 2013, 2:14 pm

      “Only a non-Zionist Israel can survive in the long run.”

      Well Another American Loony – Zionism dose not exist anymore in Israel, it finished it’s role once Israel was created.
      Israelis are not Zionist, they live in Israel and are Israelis and don’t need Zionism and specially American loonys’ who will give suggestions what to do, as I would tell you, how to behave to your wife in order to keep your family.

      “since without anti-Semitism there would be no need for Zionism.”

      You are an Old Timer anti Zionist propaganda troll, it’s like saying if the situation in Europe was good, there was no Need to create the USA.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        December 27, 2013, 2:39 pm

        yrn, your logic is nuts. The US was not created because the situation in Europe was bad. There was no “need” to create the USA. There were groups in the British colonies that just wanted to break away from England for various reason. Economics was a biggie.

        The US just declared itself. The British Empire had too much going on elsewhere to really bother with their claims far away from Europe.

        The Brits eventually lost all their colonies around the globe. It was all too expensive.

        Yes, Israel exists. And the sooner it becomes economically independent, the better its chances of surviving.

        So far, that is not looking promising for the dependent colony.

        It has nothing to do with the religion of Judaism.

      • yrn
        yrn
        December 27, 2013, 2:58 pm

        Ellen

        Good morning, train your brain, that’s exactly why I gave the same Analogy.

        Read what you write. and put the word Israel instead of the US.
        As that logic is nuts, same goes for Dan Good nuts logic when he mentioned that “without anti-Semitism there would be no need for Zionism”.

        Now you got it……………….

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        December 27, 2013, 5:30 pm

        yrn, train your brain. Read what I wrote. The colonies could not be supported. The European/US colony, called Israel will not survive without the mother countries.

        If you want to stick to your own analogy: Time for Israel to break free if it wants to survive.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 27, 2013, 5:31 pm

        Zionism dose not exist anymore in Israel, it finished it’s role once Israel was created.

        Zionism is racism.
        Zionism is colonialism
        Zionism’s ethnic cleansing and expansionism

        All are continuing to this day

      • eljay
        eljay
        December 27, 2013, 6:20 pm

        >> … Zionism dose not exist anymore in Israel, it finished it’s role once Israel was created. Israelis are not Zionist, they live in Israel and are Israelis and don’t need Zionism …

        Zionism (from JewishVirtualLibrary.org):

        Its general definition means the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.

        Zionism is alive and well within and without supremacist “Jewish State”.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      December 27, 2013, 4:14 pm

      @Dan

      The main flaws of Zionism is that it needs anti-Semitism for its survival, since without anti-Semitism there would be no need for Zionism.

      There shouldn’t be a need for Zionism long term. Israel simply exists and Judaism is the state religion of Israel. Anti-Semitism mostly is anti-Israli at this point.

      Moreover I think one of the idea in the essay is just simply wrong:

      Increasingly in the contemporary world, legitimacy does not simply rest on the mere fact of occupying or asserting sovereignty over territory. Today legitimacy has to do with national behavior that satisfies international norms and laws. Now that might not be the consistent opinion of governments which are prone to hypocrisy, but it is increasingly the position taken by civil society.

      Legitimacy in the sense that Zionism is questioned, i.e. should this people exist, I almost never hear questioned for any other state (there are some exceptions but none remotely as successful on the ground as Israel). We are having a terrible time with the Pashtun, I don’t hear any calls to dissolve the very notion of Pashtun as a people as a nation. Similarly for Iran, even the neocons don’t want to eliminate Persian culture, the Persian language or argue that the Persians have no right to live in Persia.

      The whole discourse of legitimacy is frankly ridiculous. Start with the basic premise that Israel exists and is the state with its obvious borders and population. Then have a debate that it is engaging in some actions people don’t like, and that’s a different discussion. I’d still side with Israel, but at least it isn’t a discourse about imaginary countries which is what reviving the 1933 dialogue on Israel in 2013 sounds like.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 27, 2013, 4:51 pm

        ” Israel simply exists”

        BFD. So did Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Apartheid South Africa.

        “Legitimacy in the sense that Zionism is questioned, i.e. should this people exist, ”

        No one questions zionism in that manner. That’s simply a figment of zionists imaginings coupled with pathological paranoia and a victim complex. What people question is whether a state in the modern world is legitimate if it is built by destroying another people and run as an apartheid regime.

        “Start with the basic premise that Israel exists and is the state with its obvious borders and population.”

        “Obvious”??? Oh, even you can’t be stupid or delusional enough to believe this nonsense.

        “I’d still side with Israel”

        Of course you would, you’re a bigot, and you don’t give a damn whether something is good or bad, if a Jew does it.

      • annie
        annie
        December 27, 2013, 10:34 pm

        “…should this people exist, ”

        No one questions zionism in that manner. That’s simply a figment of zionists imaginings

        it’s not a figment of their imagination, it’s a hasbara strawman crutch. no one asked if israeli jews should exist. zionism is a political construct, ethnic nationalism. and it’s perfectly acceptable to question if political constructs deserve to function, or to exist. it doesn’t mean anyone is asking if a people should exist. they just like to say that to pretend their ideological opponents are radically weird because they do not want to deal with the real arguments. it’s a cowards way to argue.

      • lysias
        lysias
        December 27, 2013, 6:14 pm

        Start with the basic premise that Israel exists and is the state with its obvious borders and population.

        Israel has always refused to define its borders.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 27, 2013, 6:29 pm

        Start with the basic premise that Israel exists and is the state with its obvious borders and population.

        Which borders might they be JeffB?

  6. NormanF
    NormanF
    December 27, 2013, 1:44 pm

    Anti-Zionism is rooted in anti-Semitism.

    The difference between anti-Zionists and classical anti-Semites is that while classical anti-Semites rejected equality for the Jews in existing nation-states, anti-Zionists reject the equality of the Jew as a nation among the nations.

    Now, Jewish non-Zionists don’t have to be anti-Semites; they simply don’t want to become citizens of Israel and that’s fine. But where they become anti-Semites is when they join non-Jewish anti-Zionists to take away from Jews – and only from Jews – the national rights they now possess.

    Israel is a fact and Jews living there have an internationally recognized right of national self-determination. The reason there is no peace is the Arabs reject the Jews having what they claim for themselves. Zionism has no real problem with sharing the Land with the Palestinian Arabs but the Palestinian Arabs cannot see Israel in anything other than in zero sum terms – a Jewish State means no national rights for them.

    There is no debate in the American Jewish Community about the desirability of real peace. As long as there is no peace camp on the Arab side, its not in the cards in the foreseeable future.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      December 27, 2013, 2:13 pm

      “anti-Zionists reject the equality of the Jew as a nation among the nations.”

      Nope. They just don’t think the Jews have the right to build a nation on the bones of another people, people who were there first.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      December 27, 2013, 2:25 pm

      Norman, cheers for the laughs. Israel is a fact. So was the flat earth for so long. So is climate change denial. Sovereignty can also be lost. Ask Prussia.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      December 27, 2013, 6:56 pm

      Anti-Zionism is rooted in anti-Semitism.

      Logically impossible. Zionism is racism and so is anti-Semitism.

      The difference between anti-Zionists and classical anti-Semites is that while classical anti-Semites rejected equality for the Jews in existing nation-states, anti-Zionists reject the equality of the Jew as a nation among the nations.

      Actually Zionism and Nazism are both rooted in the belief that Jews don’t belong in normal society.

      Anti Zionism is a belief shared by those who believe that Jews are not only equal, but belong in society and therefore so not need their own state.

      But where they become anti-Semites is when they join non-Jewish anti-Zionists to take away from Jews – and only from Jews – the national rights they now possess.

      But that too is false.

      Jews enjoy national rights in every country they live in. Ending Zionism would not change that fact.

      What you mean by “national rights” is ethnocentric supremacy.

      uIsrael is a fact and Jews living there have an internationally recognized right of national self-determination.

      Jews have internationally recognized right of national self-determination I every country the live in. It’s a human right.

      Zionism has no real problem with sharing the Land with the Palestinian Arabs

      We know that’s a lie based on the confessions by Zionists like Ben Gurion who was an advocate for compulsory populations transfer. Clearly population transfer would not be necessary if they intended to share. The policy of Hafrada was institutionalized segregation.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 27, 2013, 10:04 pm

      Now, German non-Nazis don’t have to be anti-Aryan; they simply don’t want to become citizens of 1933 Germany and that’s fine. But where they become anti-Aryan is when they join non-German anti-Nazis to take away from Germans – and only from Germans – the national rights they now possess.

    • annie
      annie
      December 27, 2013, 10:44 pm

      Anti-Zionism is rooted in anti-Semitism…….Zionism has no real problem with sharing the Land with the Palestinian Arabs …..– a Jewish State means no national rights for them.

      so what’s this kind of unequal ‘sharing’ worth? i wish you could hear yourself the way others hear you. Anti-Zionism is rooted in the reality a Jewish State offers no national rights for others, its racism is embedded within the structure of the state (the nationality law). so accusing anti racists of anti semitism is orwellian BS.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        December 27, 2013, 10:54 pm

        Anti-Zionism is rooted in the reality a Jewish State offers no national rights for others, it’s racist. so accusing anti racists of anti semitism is orwellian BS.

        Very true Annie,

        It appears that some of the flat earthers haven’t figured out that describing anti-racism as racism is a failed strategy.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 27, 2013, 11:15 pm

        @Annie

        What nation does support foreign hostile nations to setup inside their country? Every nation treats a nation that is trying to establish an alternative nation on their soil as a hostile enemy. Heck that’s was the Palestinian objection to the Zionists, that by the 20’s the Zionists weren’t there to just immigrate to Palestine but to build a Jewish Homeland and/or state.

      • annie
        annie
        December 27, 2013, 11:28 pm

        palestinians are the natives, they are not ‘trying to set up’ inside israel/palestine, they are already there. like any normal people, they want and deserve equal rights where they live and exist already. they are not foreign agents and should not be referenced as such.

        btw, so i take it you reject ayalon’s bs claim that palestinians are not a people. http://mondoweiss.net/2013/12/misrepresents-christian-islamophobic.html

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 28, 2013, 12:16 am

        @Annie

        tw, so i take it you reject ayalon’s bs claim that palestinians are not a people.

        I have no problem considering the Palestinian people a people or for that matter a nation. I’m not sure they were a distinct nation prior to the very early 20th century but after about 1920, absolutely.

        That’s of course a huge problem. They are an enemy nation of Israel.

        palestinians are the natives, they are not ‘trying to set up’ inside israel/palestine, they are already there. like any normal people, they want and deserve equal rights where they live and exist already. they are not foreign agents and should not be referenced as such.

        They are foreign to the nation of Israel. They aren’t foreign to the land on which Israel sits (Mandate Palestine). Moreover they support and ally themselves with foreign governments particularly Syria, Saudi Arabia… against the government of Israel Hence, functionally they are no different than invaders. I agree they have a stronger moral claim which is why I’m willing to offer them full citizenship as Israelis if they want to join the Israeli Nation and quit being part of the Palestinian Nation.

        But national rights inside Israel proper? I think that was a huge mistake of Ben Gurion’s. He never should have permitted separate Arab schools as permanent structures for Israeli Arabs. I think the regression that occurred in the early 1980s was a result of that separation. A far far better model is the one being used with Russian Christians.

      • talknic
        talknic
        December 27, 2013, 11:46 pm

        JeffB “What nation does support foreign hostile nations to setup inside their country? Every nation treats a nation that is trying to establish an alternative nation on their soil as a hostile enemy. Heck that’s was the Palestinian objection to the Zionists, that by the 20′s the Zionists weren’t there to just immigrate to Palestine but to build a Jewish Homeland and/or state.”

        Correct LOL Whose side are you on? You’re not only babbling, you’re babbling in circles, defeating your own argument.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 28, 2013, 12:16 am

        @talknic

        How does that defeat my own argument?

      • talknic
        talknic
        December 29, 2013, 12:21 pm

        JeffB “How does that defeat my own argument?”

        Simple.

        // “What nation does support foreign hostile nations to setup inside their country? //

        None would. The Palestinians should be any different?

        // Every nation treats a nation that is trying to establish an alternative nation on their soil as a hostile enemy //

        Yes. The Palestinians should be any different?

        // Heck that’s was the Palestinian objection to the Zionists//

        Exactly

        //.. that by the 20′s the Zionists weren’t there to just immigrate to Palestine but to build a Jewish Homeland and/or state.//

        Quite.. the Zionist aim has been to take as much of Palestine as possible.

        No deal has ever been enough for the Zionist Movement. The LoN Mandate for Palestine wasn’t enough even though Jews could immigrate and gain Palestinian citizenship, with equal rights, freedom of religion et al (see Article 7 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7 the one article never cited by Zionist propagandameisters )

        Since Israel’s independence from Palestine was proclaimed effective May 15th 1948 in 56% of Palestine (of May 14th 1948), Israel has illegally acquired by war over 50% of what remained of Palestine after Israel’s proclaimed frontiers came into effect at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

        Israel has illegally taken and claimed non-Israeli territory as its own. The Palestinians have not taken anything of Israels. They haven’t illegally settled in any Israeli territory and they’ve never asked for any Israeli territory. They have only asked for their legal rights.

        For peace the Palestinians have offered to accept only 22% of their rightful territory under the Laws and UN Charter Israel agreed to uphold.

        Israel replied by building more illegal settlements and making ridiculous demands that have absolutely no legal basis.

        Demanding recognition as the Jewish State has no legal basis. There are UN Member States that do not recognize each other. It is not mandatory.

        All states have equal legal right to ‘defensible’ borders. Israel has no more right than the Palestinians to defensible borders.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 29, 2013, 10:08 pm

        @ JeffB

        So, let’s see, according to your logic or belief, Phil Weiss, for example, is a full and loyal member of which nation? And, how about, e.g., JFK before he was murdered?

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 29, 2013, 10:55 pm

        @Citizen

        up a level

        So, let’s see, according to your logic or belief, Phil Weiss, for example, is a full and loyal member of which nation? And, how about, e.g., JFK before he was murdered?

        I don’t know much about Phil. But I think he’s American. JFK was American.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 30, 2013, 10:33 am

        @ JeffB
        Yes, right in both cases. JFK tried to prevent Israel from getting a nuclear bomb, and Bobby K tried to require the Israel Lobby to register under FARA as agent of a foreign state, to wit: Israel. Of course their attempts were cut short because they were both murdered. Instead, the US got Johnson, who turned back the defense of the USS Liberty and its crew against Israeli attack, and then covered up the incident. Phil also tried to point out that US values do not favor the decades old support of Israel’s government, right or wrong according to international and US moral/ethical values.

        Next question: Is America a national subsidiary of the state of Israel? Of course not. Are you? Do you distinguish Jewish from Israeli? What’s the precise distinction you make between being a Jewish national and being an American national?

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      December 27, 2013, 11:33 pm

      “Zionism has no real problem with sharing the Land with the Palestinian Arabs”

      But when the Palestinians were prepared to (joint use) share the land, the Zionists rejected the idea and drove the Palestinians out.

      When, in the 70’s, the Palestinians were prepared to (partition) share the land, the Zionists refused and carried on taking over the whole land.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 28, 2013, 12:25 am

        @Roha

        But when the Palestinians were prepared to (joint use) share the land, the Zionists rejected the idea and drove the Palestinians out.

        When was that? Can you give me a single year after the start of WWI the where the Palestinians didn’t oppose Jewish immigration?

        When, in the 70′s, the Palestinians were prepared to (partition) share the land, the Zionists refused and carried on taking over the whole land.

        Where is this partition offer from the 1970s? Why wasn’t the PLO informed about how the Palestinians were prepared to partition the land? The PLO charter opens with stuff like, “Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation. Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.“. So somebody really should have told them. Or are you saying that it the foundation documents of the sole negotiating representative for the Palestinian people at the time they were fundamentally lying about their position?

      • talknic
        talknic
        December 29, 2013, 12:33 pm

        @JeffB “Can you give me a single year after the start of WWI the where the Palestinians didn’t oppose Jewish immigration? “

        1922 The LON Mandate Article 7 .. Jews could immigrate and obtain Palestinian citizenship. What they couldn’t do was immigrate in such numbers as to overburden the country’s resources to the detriment of the locals. Nor could they enter the country illegally.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 29, 2013, 9:17 pm

        “Can you give me a single year after the start of WWI the where the Palestinians didn’t oppose Jewish immigration?”

        You’ve dragged out this before, but I don’t get the point. The Palestinians were prepared to share the land with the Jews who were already there. What has immigration got to do with it? They had no obligation to foreign Jews in foreign countries.

        “Where is this partition offer from the 1970s?”

        In the 1970s the Palestinians moved towards accepting a two-state solution. Said Hammami made this position public.

    • talknic
      talknic
      December 27, 2013, 11:35 pm

      NormanF “Israel is a fact and Jews living there have an internationally recognized right of national self-determination”,

      The State of Israel was already determined by Jews in 1948. Catch up.

      National self determination already applies within the sovereignty of the the State of Israel. It does not apply in non-Israel territories acquired by Israel by war.

      Israel was proclaimed by Jews ” as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

      “The reason there is no peace is the Arabs reject the Jews having what they claim for themselves”

      If it ain’t in Israel, Israeli Jews have no right to it

      “Zionism has no real problem with sharing the Land with the Palestinian Arabs “

      The Zionist Movement‘s Israel was given completely gratis 56% of 1948 Palestine in 1948. The territories “outside the State of Israel” were never Israeli and have never been legally acquired by Israel. Israel’s ‘sharing’ as you put it, seems to have required the Zionist Movement‘s State of Israel to take MORE than its ‘share’

      “As long as there is no peace camp on the Arab side..”

      The fact that keep on posting nonsense when you know about the Arab peace initiative, shows you’re a liar. Bravo!

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 29, 2013, 10:15 pm

        That’s why there’s 32 full UN member states that do not officially recognize the state of Israel, do not even recognize an Israeli passport (plus a few more without full UN membership status, such as Palestine)?

        It’s true that the Arab peace initiative did fully recognize Israel as recognized by the UN upon Israel’s own expressed self-declaration and definition. Israel spurned that Arab offer. Israel has never lived up to its own original definition, which always was and still is a condition subsequent to its legitimacy. Israel firmly resists being a full-fledged member of the family of nations.

  7. seafoid
    seafoid
    December 27, 2013, 2:29 pm

    Beinart is a cheap plastic crap Walmart ripoff of someone with principles. It is easier now to understand how systems break down. It is so much easier to go with the flow and try to triangulate without offending anyone.

    • just
      just
      December 27, 2013, 2:45 pm

      Your on a “roll” seafoid!

      May you keep on keeping on– keeping me laughing and hoping.

      “A Change is Gonna Come”.

      • annie
        annie
        December 27, 2013, 10:46 pm

        love you just, happy new year.

  8. sky7i
    sky7i
    December 27, 2013, 2:55 pm

    Phil and Adam are publishing in all the wrong places. They need to scrawl their messages on the walls of the bathrooms of the nightclubs of Tel Aviv. That’s where all the progressive social intercourse is taking place, apparently.

  9. schlemiel
    schlemiel
    December 27, 2013, 3:12 pm

    I’m never sure how much of his own hype Phil Weiss believes, but apparently he believes all of it. Firstly, Beinart’s a joke. His aborted attempt to do whatever he was trying to do showed him to be an intellectual lightweight of the first order.

    Secondly, if this website and its contributors are the example of the “movement” Phil Weiss is talking about, then he’s got some hard lessons to learn.

    This is the fringe. 24/7 dedication, bombastic headlines, and attention-grabbing publicity stunts don’t change that.

    Phil seems to have discovered the I/P conflict in about 2006, and like newly minted acolytes everywhere, he thinks he possesses the knowledge that will make everyone see the truth if only they will be compelled to stop and look. Usually this is a behavior seen in college kids, not 50-year olds, but it’s the same dynamic. Time and sophistication generally temper the initial zeal.

    I’m not really sure what the core value of this site is supposed to be. Is it to indulge the commenters who imbue Zionism with all the traits that classic antisemites used to bait Jews with, and who come here to daily vent their rage at a Jewish lobby that will one day be made to pay in flesh for their evil traitorous ways?

    Is that it?

    Or is it to promote a new topic of conversation, antizionism, for the Manhattan limousine liberals to glom onto?

    The two seem mutually exclusive to me.

    And as Peter Beinart learned, those who set up a popsicle stand to preach a naive idealism will be contemptuously dismissed or simply ignored by anyone with a lick of sophistication.

    • just
      just
      December 27, 2013, 3:38 pm

      I do believe that you are miserably and woefully lost on this website.

      Your moniker, schlemiel, is apt. Good use of the English language, though.

    • American
      American
      December 27, 2013, 3:44 pm

      ”to preach a naive idealism will be contemptuously dismissed or simply ignored by anyone with a lick of sophistication.””…..schlemiel

      I find you tough guy zionist hysterically amusing. You spend a third of your hasbara on Jewish victimhood, being expelled from and persecuted in 100 nations thruout history — another third on how anti semitism is now back in full force in the 21th century —–and other third on how you are so big and bad now you can get away with whatever you want.
      So in light of your claims about what the anti semitic nations did to you for all of your history and your claim that anti semites are once again rampant in the nations–wouldnt it be you who is ‘naive’ and unsophisticated—–as in expecting the anti semitic nations to hand you a different ending this time?
      At least try to make your contradicting delusions and hasbars a little bit logical and we wouldnt have to ridicule you so much.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      December 27, 2013, 7:00 pm

      Is it to indulge the commenters who imbue Zionism with all the traits that classic antisemites used to bait Jews with

      I find it sad how Jews think Jews are are so primitive that they canbe baited. Sounds pretty Hitlerian to me.

      • MRW
        MRW
        December 29, 2013, 11:38 am

        I find it sad how Jews think Jews are are so primitive that they can be baited. Sounds pretty Hitlerian to me.

        Bingo, Shingo. Or that they can convince non-Jews that such is the case, using a maudlin example of the poor put-upon Jew in the 21st C. The Israeli commenters put the lie to that here, as coarse as they are.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 27, 2013, 10:25 pm

      @ schlemiel

      Why yes, indeed, AIPAC should be forced to register as agent for a foreign government under FARA and lose its tax exempt status. http://electronicintifada.net/content/zogby-poll-should-aipac-be-asked-register-agent-foreign-government-and-lose-its-tax-exempt

      schlemiel |SHləˈmēl|(also shlemiel )
      noun informal
      a stupid, awkward, or unlucky person.
      ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from Yiddish shlemiel .

    • annie
      annie
      December 27, 2013, 11:10 pm

      I’m not really sure what the core value of this site is supposed to be. Is it to indulge the commenters who imbue Zionism with all the traits that classic antisemites used to bait Jews with, and who come here to daily vent their rage at a Jewish lobby that will one day be made to pay in flesh for their evil traitorous ways?

      Is that it?

      Or is it to promote a new topic of conversation, antizionism, for the Manhattan limousine liberals to glom onto?

      this is so funny i don’t know where to start. first of all, we get 10’s of thousands of hits every single day. so the concept the commenters are the main audience (“Is it to indulge the commenters “) is frankly, absurd. i love commenting, i started out as a commenter on this site and to be honest, i’m more attached (much more) to commenting than i am to writing on the front page. plus, i love reading the comments. they’re totally essential for me. and i know many people love them, many many people read the comments and lots of people learn a lot in the comments. but there are comment people, and non comment people (meaning people who like reading them and those who could care less), i know this because we have staff who are definitely non comment people.

      but there are maybe 50 commenters (i don’t really know). and that does not explain the 10’s of thousands (pushing close to a million a month) who show up here on a regular basis.

      and as for “the Manhattan limousine liberals ” well we have sites where we can watch the traffic flow in, and it’s not primarily from NYC. so keep fishing and maybe you can figure it out. lol ;)

      edit, ps, you might start by reviewing the jerusalem ‘neh’ vote at the dem convention. not all “Manhattan limousine liberals”. in fact, kinda spread out geographically. albeit, it doesn’t represent any of our international readers.

    • Xpat
      Xpat
      December 28, 2013, 5:33 pm

      Schlemiel – you don’t get Mondoweiss because you appear to reject a Judaism rooted in universal values. This is a world community of Jews and non-Jews, including Jews like myself who are also Israeli. I hope you stay curious and stick around.

      • schlemiel
        schlemiel
        December 29, 2013, 2:09 pm

        It’s true, I am morbidly curious about this place, but no I have no interest in exploring the ideology presented here. I don’t know how old you are, Elliot, but I have been following the I/P conflict rather closely since the 1980s, and there is nothing new or interest-sparking for me here.
        Is that what this place is about: nurturing a Judaism rooted in universal values? I’d say you’re a minority in your own website, if the comments are anything to go by. I’d imagine the “universal values” people here would prefer to cater to a more ecumenical audience rather than having to police the board to make sure it doesn’t go into Holocaust denial or Holocaust justification at any turn.
        Faith is called faith for a reason, because it is impervious to logic. Best of luck with your faith in this site and its quest to replace Zionism with a Judaism rooted in universal values.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        December 29, 2013, 3:05 pm

        schlemiel,

        Can you cite comments that support the accusation that Elliot is a minority: “if the comments are anything to go by……Holocaust denial or Holocaust justification…..”blah blah blah.

        And where does it say this site is on a quest to replace Zionism with a Judaism rooted in universal values? Or who has declared this?

        Isn’t Judaism rooted in universal values. Your comment implies that you do not believe this to be so.

        And do you believe that Zionism replaces Judaism?

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        December 29, 2013, 6:08 pm

        @Ellen

        Isn’t Judaism rooted in universal values. Your comment implies that you do not believe this to be so.

        No. Judaism is rooted in Babylonian mythology. It developed some universal values overtime but it certainly isn’t rooted in them.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 29, 2013, 10:31 pm

        @ Ellen
        Good questions for schlemiel. Will he respond to them? Stay tuned.

        I see JeffB says Judaism is not rooted in universal values, but something he calls Babylonian mythology. JeffB chose not to answer the other question you ask, that is, does Zionism replace Judaism (or Jewish selected parts of Babylonian myth)?

    • Cliff
      Cliff
      December 28, 2013, 6:34 pm

      @schlemiel

      Is it to indulge the commenters who imbue Zionism with all the traits that classic antisemites used to bait Jews with, and who come here to daily vent their rage at a Jewish lobby that will one day be made to pay in flesh for their evil traitorous ways?

      Is that it?

      Or is it to promote a new topic of conversation, antizionism, for the Manhattan limousine liberals to glom onto?

      Great choices you present us with.

      You do not know the site statistics, so I’d shut up about that.

      Annnnnd the rest of your comment is basically ‘Verb, noun, antisemitism.’

      Stop wasting ours and your time and get lost.

      • MRW
        MRW
        December 29, 2013, 11:54 am

        @Cliff,

        Love you.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 29, 2013, 10:38 pm

        Yeah, schlemiel should take a pilgrimage to Spiro Agnew’s grave site.

    • talknic
      talknic
      December 28, 2013, 7:55 pm

      @ schlemiel “Secondly, if this website and its contributors are the example of the “movement” Phil Weiss is talking about, then he’s got some hard lessons to learn”

      Welcome. Stick around schlemiel. You’ll soon find out that every bit of false information you try to post, every silly Hasbara notion you try to propagate and every irrelevant justification to try to pass off, will be shown to readers for what it is.

      “I’m not really sure what the core value of this site is supposed to be”,

      I doubt you’d be here if you didn’t know schlemiel.

      “..anyone with a lick of sophistication…” … can see through the Hasbara and those who try to propagate it

      Let’s start with the idiotic notion that Israel didn’t declare its borders. See if you can hold up … schlemiel
      1) http://pages.citebite.com/o1y0c4n1i3far
      2)

      Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel… ” I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

  10. American
    American
    December 27, 2013, 3:20 pm

    ‘And they are both arguing implicitly that Jewish voices should matter more than others’

    Thats always been their mistake.
    They should listen to what all those people they call ‘enemies’ are saying to them.
    But I don’t expect they ever will. You cant change people that don’t want to change even for their own good.
    So …‘que sera sera’.

  11. Les
    Les
    December 27, 2013, 8:45 pm

    “willfully ignore an anti-Zionist Jewish movement” which also happens to be the stance of the entirety of the US media, most of which is Jewish owned. Its amazing how many people fail to appreciate that the New York Review of Books is part of that particular problem, not part of any solution. The slurs against Arabs and Muslims in the NYRB that appeared with the passing of Barbara Epstein would not have occurred under her editorship because they were so obviously anti-intellectual.

  12. OlegR
    OlegR
    December 28, 2013, 7:04 am

    /So Shavit ignores all the criticism of his book from leftwing Jews like Jerry Slater and Ira Glunts (and me too). We simply don’t count as Jewish left. Maybe we’re too fringe, or maybe we’re too deracinated in Shavit’s view?/

    Or maybe he simply has no idea who you guys are.

    • schlemiel
      schlemiel
      December 29, 2013, 1:46 pm

      That’s the crux of the matter. Weiss posts near daily updates about Shavit and his book tour, but seems insulted that people like Shavit continue to not notice him.

  13. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    December 28, 2013, 7:36 am

    The liberal Zionist movement is dependent upon the viability of the two state solution, which although viable is certainly not lively. As such, given the rightward trend in Israel recently, it is inherently a nostalgic movement, not one of the current tense. The one state solution as offered by all the anti Zionists that are touted by Phil Weiss in this column has the advantage of not being captive to any current process that involves Netanyahu, Abbas and Jon Kerry, nor is it constrained by the realities of the current tense of the Middle East, for it is only dependent upon a set of ideals and not on any set of realities.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      December 28, 2013, 8:34 am

      The liberal Zionist movement is dependent upon the viability of the two state solution, which although viable is certainly not lively.

      Correction: The liberal Zionist movement is dependent upon maintaining the illusion that the two state solution is viable.

      The fact is it is dead and has been for 20 years. As Miko Peled wrote in his book, the only reason the Israelis agreed to talk to Arafat in 1993, is because they were confident by that stage that they had dine enough to make sure the 2ss was no longer viable.

    • Xpat
      Xpat
      December 28, 2013, 9:31 am

      @yonah
      You most likely know that Israeli settlers on the West Bank have also proposed 1 state solution. This is the only meaningful settler proposal, although it is not the democratic solution we are discussing here. The 1ss is the only viable one for ideological settlers as they cannot support a 2 state solution. They understand firsthand the 1 state reality that Israel created for them.
      Meanwhile the politicians play the game of pursuing pie in the sky.

    • piotr
      piotr
      December 28, 2013, 9:53 am

      viable is certainly not lively

      I was thinking about “zombification”, usually applied to financial institutions that should be bankrupt but are not by the grace of state regulators. But perhaps a better analogy is a vintage car that has appealing shape but requires many spare parts that are not available anymore and which would have to be machined by a knowledgable craftsman (if any such is still around).

      Personally, I am a fan of 2SS, but while many required parts are easy to identify, it is unclear if the art of making them still exists.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 29, 2013, 10:47 pm

        @ piotr
        The art of making them still exists, but not the AIPAC-Israeli license.

  14. piotr
    piotr
    December 28, 2013, 9:41 am

    One can argue that while Erasmus was Jewish, he was not a member of Jewish community but of a cosmopolitan intellectual community of free thinkers that included heretics of various faiths. In the case of Erasmus this was determined formally and legally.

    There are definitely grand poobahs styling themselves Leaders of the Jewish Communities who pronounce shunning edicts. My reading of the situation is that folks like Phil Weiss and the heretical branch of Hillel at Swarthmore are under such edicts, while the status of folks like Beinart is precarious. If they want to be invited to the dining tables in the Community (capitalized) they should tread carefully.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      December 28, 2013, 9:45 am

      piotr- Erasmus was Jewish? Not. Or at least link to some place that says he was. Maybe you’re thinking of Spinoza.

      • piotr
        piotr
        December 28, 2013, 9:57 am

        Yes. “Erasmus was his baptismal name, given after St. Erasmus of Formiae. ” Not to be mistaken with “Baruch Spinoza (born Benedito de Espinosa)”. To the degree I was thinking, I was thinking about Baruch Spinoza.

  15. just
    just
    December 29, 2013, 11:21 pm

    All I know is that I made and ate Chrusciki, Naan, and Æbleskiver.

    What does that make me? (Probably a carb nut and peacenik) LOL!

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      December 30, 2013, 5:04 am

      Mmmmmm – æbleskiver…

    • piotr
      piotr
      December 30, 2013, 9:46 am

      I had no idea what you are talking about, but Google helped with an instruction how to make faworki (chruściki). I only remember that my group successfully made them during “practical skills” class in elementary school, so it cannot be too hard. And they are delicious. “w” in faworki is pronounced “v”, I would not try to teach an English speaker how to say chruściki. Also, instead of weird name Æbleskiver. you could simply write pączki (say “pongchki”, really easy!).

      All that stuff is deep fried, so you are not just into carbs, my friend. I must say I am envious. :-(

  16. RoHa
    RoHa
    December 31, 2013, 3:52 am

    “instead of weird name Æbleskiver. you could simply write pączki”

    I know what æbleskiver are. Nothing weird there. “Pączki”, on the other hand …

Leave a Reply