Trending Topics:

The ‘strong Jew’ is weak

Opinion
on 26 Comments

The ethos of Zionism has been that of the “strong Jew”. This notion was a counter to the ‘diasporic’ Jew, who lives on others’ terms, either in seclusion or in assimilation, and cannot defend her/himself.

The people who championed this notion often expressed their contempt for this supposedly weak Jew. Some of the Zionist founders’ descriptions of such ‘diasporic’ Jews were downright anti-Semitic. Consider, for example, Zionist founder Theodor Herzl’s description of Jews at a gathering at a wealthy Berliner’s home in 1885:

Some thirty or forty ugly little Jews and Jewesses. No consoling sight.

The Zionist leader who became Herzl’s second-in-command of the Zionist venture, Max Nordau, coined the term “Jewry of Muscle” (‘Muskeljudentum‘). This term served as the title of his 1903 article, where he argued:

We must think of creating once again a Jewry of muscles. . . In the narrow Jewish street our poor limbs soon forgot their gay movements; in the dimness of sunless houses our eyes began to blink shyly; the fear of constant persecution turned our powerful voices into frightened whispers, which rose in a crescendo only when our martyrs on the stakes cried out their dying prayers in the face of their executioners. But now, all coercion has become a memory of the past, and at last we are allowed space enough for our bodies to live again. Let us take up our oldest traditions; let us once more become deep-chested, sturdy, sharp-eyed men.

Later on, those Jews who were born in Israel, considered themselves ‘strong’, as the so-called ‘Sabras’ – those who were born in Palestine, which they considered Eretz Israel (the term ‘Sabras‘ is a Zionist cultural appropriation from the Arabic Sabr – the cacti which are typical nowadays in Palestine-Israel, though not indigenous). Thus we have people like the late Yitzhak Rabin, calling Prime Minister Eshkol and his ministers,  who were not born in Palestine, “the Jews” with a wink-wink suggestion that they represented diasporic weakness.

There has been rather wide understanding, especially from the West, that this “strong Jew” notion is a self-protective response to historical persecution, and as such, the rough-and-tough vein of Israelis was basically excused under this idea, if it wasn’t actually admired, which it often was.

But I contend that this supposed ‘strength’, this intrinsically macho demonstration of bravado, is actually meant to hide a weakness, and is a compensation for lacking moral stature. I believe that the root of the “strong Jew” notion is an attempt to avoid the difficulties of working together with the international community, and instead to isolate oneself (in a national sense) in a nationalist self-imposed ghetto of sorts, one which survives on and accentuates the use of power – the sword – a modern Sparta. The basic rationale of this is deeply entrenched in the roots of Zionism – that ‘nobody can really help us but ourselves’, that ‘nobody really cares’, and that ultimately, ‘nobody can be trusted’. ‘We’, of course, are ‘the Jews’. This is the notion that instructed another Zionist founder, Leon Pinsker, in his theory of “auto emancipation” – the Jews were to liberate themselves, through a Jewish nation-state.

That an international body was created in the wake of WW2, the UN, meant to address and hinder the worst examples of human persecution, was of interest to Israel only in part. The part that interested it was the international legitimacy that it was able to afford the nascent Zionist state, first by suggesting partition (thereby legitimizing a ‘Jewish State’), and second by accepting Israel as a member state. Besides this, the UN was of rather little importance for Israel, and often represented an obstacle to it getting away with its crimes of ethnic cleansing and unilateral violent expansionism. Thus, Israel has basically treated UN resolutions taking it to task for the most serious issues, such as Palestinian refugees, military expansionism and unilateral annexations, with contempt, and has managed to ignore the consequences of these by the method of veto by its patron, the US.

The Zionist idea of the ‘strong Jew’ is not merely an idea of adding strength to the former diasporic Jew, of developing her/him – but rather of creating a whole new type of human – creating a “Jewish Nation” from scratch. Consider the late Golda Meir’s words, concerning her signing of the Israeli Declaration of Independence:

From my childhood in America, I learned about the [US] Declaration of Independence and the geniuses who signed it. I couldn’t imagine these were real people doing something real. And here I am signing it, actually signing a Declaration of Independence. I didn’t think it was due me, that I, Goldie Mabovitch Meyerson, deserved it, that I had lived to see the day. My hands shook. We had done it. We had brought the Jewish people into existence.

There are two critical points in Meir/Mabovitch/Meyerson’s account which are worth emphasizing:

1) Notice how she refers to herself by her former, ‘diasporic’ names, tracing the metamorphosis of the girl who was born in Kiev in 1898, immigrated to the US as a girl in 1906, and finally immigrated to Palestine in 1921, finally “Hebraicizing” her name. This is her saying that she shed her past and became this ‘new Jew’.

2) Notice how she says “brought the Jewish people into existence”. How can it be, one may ask, that Meir’s referred Israeli Declaration of Independence starts out with “The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people”, referring to biblical history, if they were only brought to existence through the Declaration of 1948? The Declaration is not merely referring to biblical history, it is suggesting a continuity, to wit: “Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland.” Meir’s words can perhaps be considered a kind of Freudian slip. The “Jewish people” did not exist in the sense of a “nation” as was to be understood in modern concepts. It was invented by the Zionist venture as a novel concept which was extra-territorial and mythologically reaching to times immemorial.

Meir’s idea of the Jewish people coming “into existence” is also based on the idea that Jewish existence can only truly materialize in a Jewish nation-state, thus rendering Jewish existence as a religion, irrelevant. This is the inextricable coupling of Judaism with nationalism that Zionism championed, thus essentially rendering Jewish existence outside of this paradigm as irrelevant, perhaps even non-existent. The Zionist idea of state power is actually not a completely secular notion – the power of a ‘Jewish state’ has its roots in the Talmudic concept of “when Israel is mighty”. “Israel” in this context is the Jews, when they are no longer subordinate to the “nations” (literally “goyim” in Hebrew), and is able to exert its own state power as an exclusively Jewish state. It is in this light, which we must reflect upon the words of the Judeo-Nazi settler-rabbi educators, who were recently caught on video praising Hitler – they said:

The Lord (blessed be his name) is already shouting for many years that the [Jewish] exile is over, but people don’t listen to him, and that is their disease, a disease which needs to be cured by the Holocaust.

Many Jews, also the Zionist ones, would oppose calling the Holocaust a cure, but it is in the Zionist vein to abhor the diasporic “weakness” which supposedly led them to go “as sheep to slaughter”, a term which epitomized the contempt with which the Israeli Zionists viewed diasporic Jews, including Holocaust survivors in general, in the early years of Israel. It was only in the 1960’s, following the Eichmann trial, that there started to be serious interest in Israel for hearing stories of Holocaust survivors, apparently since they began to witness its PR value for Israel. Before that time, Holocaust survivors were generally not listened to, and their stories merely represented weakness. The term “soaps”, common in Israeli colloquial, was derived from the myth of Nazis creating soap from human fat of Jews, and it meant “weaklings”.

The emphasis on military power and prowess is framed by Zionists as a pragmatic response to a “rough neighborhood”. In 1956, then army Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan made this claim in a eulogy he delivered for a fallen soldier:

A generation of settlement are we, and without the steel helmet and the maw of the cannon we shall not plant a tree, nor build a house.

There is an admission hidden here, as to the settler-colonialist nature of the Zionist venture. Dayan was aware, that having ethnically cleansed Palestine (whatever he would call it then), it is doubtful that there would be much goodwill from those dispossessed. In fact, only two paragraphs earlier in his elaborate eulogy, he admitted it outright and with full clarity:

Let us not hurl blame at the murderers. Why should we complain of their hatred for us? Eight years have they sat in the refugee camps of Gaza, and seen, with their own eyes, how we have made a homeland of the soil and the villages where they and their forebears once dwelt.

But Dayan saw this as a fait accompli of Zionism and did not see or offer an alternative to this situation. The Palestinian refugees had to be kept away indefinitely, and we had to live by the sword.

That situation, of dispossessing people and then dealing with their response by military power, is something that Zionists basically require, since they will not rectify the root cause of the violence, which they know, beyond their walls of denial, stems from their own doing. I thus suggest further, that the intrinsic Zionist demonstration of power is not merely a response to external matters. It is a frenzy meant to strengthen one’s own denial. As long as one is involved in and obsessed with power, the noise generated by that allows to overdub the more subtle sounds of reason, of introspection, of recognition of the wrongs and crimes committed in the name of this power. As long as the noise continues, one does not have to turn around. This is the nature of being reactionary – you do not look back and introspect – you respond, and hence escalate the violence.

It is no wonder, that the Zionist vein, even in its relatively liberal mode, has basically always held a certain contempt for this kind of introspection, for it held the danger of weakening the Zionist project. Whenever true equality was suggested in the Palestine-Israel paradigm, it was seen by mainstream Zionism as anathema to its existence – simply because it is. The discussion of ‘liberalism’ can go so far by Zionists, but never truly reach equality – at that point, the response is the macho derision. A prime example of this sort of ‘strong Jew’ who nonetheless seeks to appear liberal and introspective, is the late Israeli author Amos Oz. The contradiction between his supposed empathy and violence is on full display in one of his last lectures before his death last year. Here he speaks of a need for a “big stick” with which to beat Palestinians, but tries to qualify that you can’t “treat a wound with a stick”:

What is between us and the Palestinians for over a century, is a bleeding wound, and not only a bleeding wound, it’s also a poisoned wound, it’s infected, it’s festering.  You do not treat a wound with a stick! There is no such thing. You cannot keep beating the wound with another hit and another hit, to teach it a lesson that it should stop being a wound and stop bleeding. I’m not against a stick. I’m no pacifist. In opposition to my colleagues in Europe or North America, who often embrace me for the wrong reasons, ‘our brother art thou, our brother art thou’, ‘make love not war’ [said in English], in opposition to them, I never thought that violence is the ultimate evil in the world. I always thought, all my life and also now, that the ultimate evil in the world is the aggression. And aggression needs to be stopped by force, often. You need a big stick in order to inhibit and subdue aggressiveness. Aggressiveness is the mother of all violence in the world. And therefore I have never believed ‘make love not war’ [said in English], ‘we’ll turn the other cheek’, ‘all you need is love’ [said in English].

Anyone could be forgiven for not knowing what to make of this. Should we use a stick? Should we try treating the wound? Is violence not a problem? Only “aggressiveness”?? Oz is an eloquent author. If this rant is contradictory, it is not because Oz is simply confused. It is because he tries to portray an ideology based on power and violence, in peaceful terms, and it doesn’t work.

The weakness of Zionism is this automatic, intrinsic resort to violence. Israel perceives its military might as its strength. This strength was bought in large part by US foreign aid (Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid since WW2, totaling at $228 billion in constant 2017 dollars between 1951 and 2017 and growing by $3.8 billion each year in military aid alone). Receiving such gifts has made Israel largely oblivious to the need of providing Palestinians with a state. When the requirement was being pushed by the US itself as the “honest broker” of the failed “peace process”, it could be perceived as mere “advice”, which could be easily declined. As Moshe Dayan once said:

Our American friends offer us money, arms and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice.

And since Israel had little reason to relinquish its 1967 occupation, since it carried no effective sanctions (the US blocked this) and since its plundering of resources and even most of foreign aid to Palestinians proved profitable, Israel would have no reason to carry through on a ‘2-state solution’, not even providing Palestinians with a state on the remaining 22% of historical Palestine. It was simply never to be, and a Palestinian state was always to remain fiction for Zionists – no Israeli government intended it, only, at best, “less than a [Palestinian] state”, as Rabin told the parliament less than two months before he was murdered in 1995.

Israeli leaders have tried to depict their reasons for not withdrawing to pre-1967 under the pretext of fear. In 1969, then Foreign Minister Abba Eban told the UN that the pre-1967 lines bring to Israelis “something of a memory of Auschwitz”. Later, less melodramatic expressions, have often cited the generalist “security concern”. Beyond the fact that Israel simply covets all of historical Palestine, the cited fear is not really territorial. It is the fear that if Palestinians are not kept under control, they might consolidate a threat, and that threat needs to be contained by direct Israeli control. And this fear arcs back to before Israel was even established. It goes back to the very isolationist concept of Zionism. Since the concept of a settler-colonialist Jewish nation-state worked out, through the massive expulsion of the native population and subjugation of the rest of it by Apartheid, the first fear has created a second – the fear of the response of the native Palestinians.

All this speaks of how the Palestinians became victims of Jewish collective fears, first fears that had nothing to do with Palestinians (before Palestine was massively colonized, the fear of being a ‘weak Jew’), and then fear of native response to the eliminationist, Zionist colonialist onslaught (Nakba).

Yet all of it, all of it comes from a collective Jewish internal fear, which is the cause of it all. Zionism offered a means of alleviating the fear of being ‘weak’, by being ‘strong’ in the ultra-nationalist way, and that wasn’t the answer to their fears. Zionists may have been afraid of being ‘weak Jews’, but their dealing with that fear has caused them to fear something else – their own conscience. The demonstration of ‘strength’ is a means of compensation meant to override the screeching dissonance between their wish to be moral, and what they have become due to their ultra-nationalist adherence and resultant crimes. The strength is thus the weakness.

The real strength would be found in the will to relinquish violence as a tool, the real strength would be in the ability to believe in a shared future with those one happens to live with in these times – both in the Palestine-Israel paradigm, but also in terms of the entire weltanschauung of Jews as embodied by Zionism. This would be the brave leap of faith – to believe that Jews can exist in this world as Jews, and that they do not need to become settler-colonialists in order to do so. The courage to effectively abandon the Zionist isolation may also come from the recognition, that the price of this isolation and supposed protection, has been the destruction of other people, and arguably, the moral destruction of Jews themselves. The strength would be to believe that coexistence is actually possible. To believe in such things is no longer a luxury – it is a moral imperative.

Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

26 Responses

  1. echinococcus on May 12, 2019, 12:13 pm

    Admirably written and argued, thanks.

    One thing, though: in order to conform to the general civilized norm, the Zionist have to give up not only Zionism but also the “people”hood myth and the illegitimate “Israeli” nationhood. They also must conform to the fully freely expressed decision on self-determination of the territory Palestine by all the Palestinian people as of 1897.

    When it comes to voting, I know for sure that the overwhelming majority of my Palestinian friends would vote “get out!” For them, agreeing to the invaders’ squatting in Palestine, even under another name, can only be a compromise imposed by the force of US-Zionist violence, much as a compromise is sure to be welcome progress.

    • Misterioso on May 13, 2019, 10:28 am

      The term “strong Jew” brings to mind the infamous “Aryan Myth.”

  2. JLewisDickerson on May 12, 2019, 1:39 pm

    RE: “The Lord (blessed be his name) is already shouting for many years that the [Jewish] exile is over, but people don’t listen to him, and that is their disease, a disease which needs to be cured by the Holocaust.” ~ the Judeo-Nazi settler-rabbi educators, who were recently caught on video praising Hitler

    IN A SIMILAR VEIN, SEE: “McCain Backer Hagee Said Hitler Was Fulfilling God’s Will” | By Sam Stein | huffpost.com | May 29, 2008

    John Hagee, the controversial evangelical leader and endorser of Sen. John McCain, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis had operated on God’s behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and shepherd them to Palestine. According to the Reverend, Adolph Hitler was a “hunter,” sent by God, who was tasked with expediting God’s will of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel.

    Going in and out of biblical verse, Hagee preached: “‘And they the hunters should hunt them,’ that will be the Jews. ‘From every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks.’ If that doesn’t describe what Hitler did in the holocaust you can’t see that.”

    He goes on: “Theodore Herzl is the father of Zionism. He was a Jew who at the turn of the 19th century said, this land is our land, God wants us to live there. So he went to the Jews of Europe and said ‘I want you to come and join me in the land of Israel.’ So few went that Hertzel went into depression. Those who came founded Israel; those who did not went through the hell of the holocaust.

    “Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says — Jeremiah writing — ‘They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,’ meaning there’s no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don’t let your heart be offended. I didn’t write it, Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.” . . .

    CONTINUED AT – https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mccain-backer-hagee-said_n_102892

  3. eljay on May 12, 2019, 2:27 pm

    The funny thing about the “strong Jew” (or, as Boris boldly put it, “strong fighting Jew”) is that his strength relies entirely upon special privileges provided to him by non-Jews.

    The hypocritical thing about the “strong Jew” is that even as he objects to Jews anti-Semitically being “singled out” he demands that he be “singled out” to receive the special privileges that allow him to be strong.

    One of the hateful and immoral things about the “strong Jew” is that as he exercises a special privilege to deliberately and unapologetically commit (war) crime and undermine international laws and human rights and the protections they are meant to afford all people, he insists that all Jews be held responsible for his (war) crimes.

    I cannot comprehend why “strong Jews” (Jewish supremacists (Zionists)) hate Jews so much.

    • Stephen Shenfield on May 12, 2019, 6:59 pm

      eljay: The Zionists have two linguistic usages for talking about ‘Jews’ — usages that are incompatible in terms of formal logic but quite compatible in terms of dialectics, indeed they have identical ‘deep’ meanings. One pattern counterposes the ‘strong (new, Israeli) Jew’ to the ‘weak (old, diasporic) Jew.’ The other reserves the term ‘Jew’ for the old weak diasporic Jew; Jonathan gives an example of this in Rabin’s way of talking about Eshkol. The first pattern is necessary in order to conceptualize the transition from old to new, weak to strong. The second pattern, which is a secret usage for Zionist ‘insiders,’ is used when you have become strong and sort-of-forget that once you too were weak, i.e., you throw away the ladder of transition once the transition is complete and you no longer need the ladder. The ladder is a constant annoying reminder that you have changed your identity, whereas you want to feel that your new identity is the only ‘real’ you. I hope you are starting to comprehend. Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc, but at least try…

      • eljay on May 12, 2019, 8:34 pm

        || Stephen Shenfield: eljay: The Zionists have two linguistic usages for talking about ‘Jews’ … ||

        I get that Zionists feel that they are better than yet some how different from “regular” / “weak” Jews. Problem is, for all their bluster and posturing they haven’t yet figured out how to define their version of the Jewish identity in a way that differentiates it from the religion-based identity it is and always has been.

        (They’ll blather on about Jewish being a tribe, a collective, a culture, an ethnicity, a people, a nation and even a civilization but when push comes to shove they will retreat to the fact that Jewish is fundamentally a religion-based identity. I have yet to see a single Zionist advocate a bureaucratic Jewish identity for every person born in or up to n-generations removed from “Jewish State”.)

        And perhaps that why (or at least partially why) they continue to use Judaism and “regular” / “weak” Jews as fodder (or “human shields”) for the evil that they advocate, commit, support and/or defend.

  4. wondering jew on May 12, 2019, 9:06 pm

    respectively “Americanizing” and “Hebraicizing” her name.

    Golda never Americanized her name, Meyerson was the name of her husband, which she took when she married and then she kept it after her divorce and eventually Hebraicized it as all those who followed Ben Gurion did.

    You mention WWII only in the phrase, after WWII. I would think that WWII deserves more of a comment. Certainly the outlandish aspects of that experience seem to confirm the thoughts of Pinsker, to name one.

    The belief in coexistence must be tempered by realism. Currently the belief is overwhelmed, inundated, diluted to nothing by cynicism. But your choice to present this belief as a leap of faith is not acceptable either. Bibi will not get us there, but your alternative will not get us there either.

    • Jonathan Ofir on May 13, 2019, 2:49 am

      Thank you Wondering Jew, you are right about the ‘Americanization’ – I changed the formulation in article to be accurate about that, yet still convey the same idea, which I think is the essence of what she was saying.

      As to “[t]he belief in coexistence must be tempered by realism” and “Bibi will not get us there, but your alternative will not get us there either”, I would say this:

      Herzl’s settler-colonialist scheme was coupled with the notion “if you will it, it is no dream”. You posit that my “choice to present this belief as a leap of faith is not acceptable”, since it is ostensibly beyond realism.

      Yet I would point out, that my suggestion is far more simple, and involves far less inherent violence, than Herzl’s. My suggestion is simply to relinquish Apartheid rule. I will give you this – settler-colonialist ventures were not “unrealistic”, since they really happened. Nonetheless, de-colonization is also something that happened. Relinquishing of Apartheid is also something that really happened.

      I would thus suggest that your idea of “realism” is based in the notion of maintaining status quo for an indefinite period of time. This is no doubt a comfortable position to take from the standpoint of the privileged Jew. But for the Palestinians living under Apartheid, which includes unlivable conditions, I would say it’s unrealistic. That’s the reality that most Zionists simply deny, saying “that’s life”. But life is what we make it. And I think the Zionist solution really, really sucks.

      • johneill on May 13, 2019, 9:48 pm

        idealists say: if we will equality, it is no dream.
        cynics hear equality, and feel existentially threatened.

      • jon s on May 14, 2019, 3:56 am

        Jonathan Ofir,

        “…de-colonization is also something that happened. ”

        The obvious question, then, is why, since de-colonization happened, is Israel still here?
        Since colonialism ended almost everywhere, the European colonialists withdrew and independent nation states were established, how is it that Israel is still here, and growing?

        Answer: Because Israel is, after all, NOT a manifestation of colonialism.

      • eljay on May 14, 2019, 8:05 am

        || jon s: … The obvious question, then, is why, since de-colonization happened, is Israel still here? … ||

        The obvious answer is Holocaust guilt, fundamentalist Christianity and benjamins. Lots and lots of benjamins.

      • wondering jew on May 14, 2019, 8:27 am

        Jonathan Ofir, If Not Now is right about one thing: We must remember Hillel and his first two dicta.

        The name “If Not Now” speaks of impatience (which of course is a virtue, sometimes, as in: once the goal and the strategy is clear, impatience is indeed a virtue)but they are right in that they imply Hillel’s first two dicta: If I am not for me, who will be for me? And if I am only for me, then what am I? and I feel that the balance of these two dicta is of the essence. Self concern and concern for the other. I feel that these two must be balanced and that certain voices on the left have left self concern behind. and most of those in the center and on the right have left concern for the others behind. And I do not think a balance is easy, but I believe that a balance is necessary.

        It is interesting that Hillel’s statement which I am using to justify how a group thinks of itself and how it thinks of other groups is in fact dealing with the individual versus the group. Zionism and I would argue Jewish historical consciousness (for someone of my age that means specifically consciousness of the debacle in Europe) argues that abandoning the group is cowardice and instead demands solidarity. But solidarity becomes uniformity becomes inflexibility and so it has proven itself insufficient, even if only as a mindset for survival of one’s own group.

        (Some other thoughts:
        The American ethos as I conceive it, or certainly the American Jewish ethos as I perceive it, is overwhelmingly individualistic compared to this group consciousness that a debacle minded Jew naturally adopts. The American ethos is today and tomorrow and World War II is almost as ancient as the Civil War and it was a war on foreign soil and America is now and tomorrow.
        If we go beyond the individual and seek a group project, there are many important american projects but if anything deserves concern now it is not america but it is the planet and climate change. And it could be that this is what is the highest height of consciousness that an American who happens to be a Jew would arrive at. But this is very different from the consciousness of nation and religion that dominates the Middle East. (It is also very different from the consciousness of nation that seems to dominate Eastern Europe, the “homeland” 140 years ago of most Ashkenazi Jews.) So there is a conflict between those who are conscious of nation and those who are conscious of the planet. But because America puts more carbon into the air than any other place and because despite the trends in the opposite direction, America can still lead the world, I accept that this struggle to save the planet is most important.
        But regarding how a Jew should react to the Israel Palestine conflict, I idealize a balance between self concern and concern for the other.)
        (And this is better than arguing what is realism and what is also realism.)

      • echinococcus on May 14, 2019, 11:10 am

        John S, the American colonial invader on Palestinian soil, writes:

        “Since colonialism ended almost everywhere, the European colonialists withdrew and independent nation states were established, how is it that Israel is still here, and growing?”

        Can’t even read what he wrote, the “history teacher”: “almost everywhere”. Almost. To the exception of Palestine, the last colonial conquest, and a couple more holdouts. To be cleaned out pdq.

      • Mooser on May 14, 2019, 1:17 pm

        “But regarding how a Jew should react to the Israel Palestine conflict, I idealize a balance between self concern and concern for the other.)” “WJ”

        Really? It never occurs to you that “self concern” as well as “concern for the other” might compel a Jew to be anti-Zionist?

      • wondering jew on May 14, 2019, 6:09 pm

        mooser- benny morris has made his predictions regarding israel and the palestinians. I have no reason to assume he is wrong. as such a strategy of post israel (i’m not sure of the time range, but the question is when rather than if) has its place. do you have such a strategy? your self concern is regarding the human called “mooser”. regarding the group you advise dissolving into the american mass, a process well under way.

      • Mooser on May 14, 2019, 6:39 pm

        “dissolving into the american mass, a process well under way.”

        It can’t be helped, “Yonah”. As long as American Jews support Zionism they will have to propitiate and serve the “american mass”. We don’t dare offend them, lest they cut off support for Israel.
        That’s why we have to marry so many of them. They might be insulted and cut off aid to Israel if we stopped.

      • RoHa on May 14, 2019, 9:45 pm

        “That’s why we have to marry so many of them. They might be insulted and cut off aid to Israel if we stopped.”

        That’s a new twist, Mooser. You make it sound as though young Jews were acting under orders. From previous discussions on MW, I thought that it was a case of poor, innocent, Jewish boys seeing blonde, pneumatic, shiksas waggling their attributes, and thus being hopelessly enthralled.

      • Mooser on May 15, 2019, 12:12 pm

        “That’s a new twist, Mooser.”

        Hardly. Think about it. You don’t get 3 billion a year and impunity without a lot of schmoozing and canoodlin’.

        Without Zionism, we could maintain our proper social, political, religious and marital isolation. Like the Amish, which also ends in “ish”.

      • RoHa on May 15, 2019, 10:07 pm

        Can’t argue with an “ish”.

  5. Marnie on May 13, 2019, 3:00 am

    the so-called ‘strong jew’ isn’t strong unless heavily weaponized and part of a pack. I have no doubt in my mind that this ‘strong jew’ would soil his or her diaper immediately if facing a palestinian man or woman as they face him, without any weapon whatsoever except what was given to them by the Almighty, their bodies. I see nothing but cowardice in these so-called soldiers and police because they know very well they can go into any village, on any street, into any home and into any bedroom in that home and create chaos, fear and trauma whenever they feel like it because they travel in a pack with ammo up the wazoo and who can stop them? They aren’t going to go up against a trained fighter, they don’t have the courage. Their prey is and always has been civilians, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers.

    • Stephen Shenfield on May 13, 2019, 10:14 am

      Marnie — What you say is quite true NOW, but it wasn’t always so. Judging from memoirs like those of Uri Avery, in the 1948 war many Zionist settlers did fight courageously (even if it was in an unjust cause). The human aspect of their combat capability has declined over time and they have come to rely increasingly on high-tech combat by remote control. When forced into direct combat they have fought poorly in recent years, as their defeat at the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon shows. There are various reasons for this. The idea that they are fighting for their survival has lost the plausibility it used to have. The ethno-collectivistic ethos of early Labor Zionism and especially the early kibbutzim was also crucial to combat capacity (e.g., the stress on officers ordering ‘Follow me!’ rather than ‘Advance!’). That is long gone.

      • Marnie on May 13, 2019, 12:37 pm

        @Stephen Shenfield – hello.

        ‘The idea that they are fighting for their survival has lost the plausibility it used to have.’

        Yeah, now it’s just a slogan used for speeches given to americans, especially the politicians and american zionists.

        Fighting for their survival. Hmmm. Is that what the thief does who breaks into your house only to find you at home swinging a baseball bat?

    • Mooser on May 14, 2019, 1:19 pm

      “the so-called ‘strong jew’ isn’t strong unless heavily weaponized and part of a pack…”

      And they are “strongest” at the end of an Internet connection.

  6. RoHa on May 14, 2019, 8:06 am

    “the ‘diasporic’ Jew, who lives on others’ terms, either in seclusion or in assimilation, ”

    I don’t really understand what the supposed problem is here.

    When I lived in Britain, I had a choice between living on the terms British society imposed (assimilation) or trying to cut myself off from British society (seclusion).

    When I lived in Sweden, I had a choice between living on the terms Swedish society imposed (assimilation) or trying to cut myself off from Swedish society (seclusion).

    When I lived in Japan, I had a choice between living on the terms Japanese society imposed (assimilation) or trying to cut myself off from Japanese society (seclusion).

    And likewise for Denmark, the USA, and Australia.

    What is more, everyone in Britain (Sweden/Japan/Denmark/USA/Australia) faces the same choice. It is the normal condition for everyone.

    “and cannot defend her/himself.”

    Defend him/herself from what?

  7. DaBakr on May 16, 2019, 4:17 am

    Ofir is stuck in the 19th and early 20th century somehow trying to make his theories on the “weak jew’ vs the new robust zionist new coincide with the journey arabs took after the Arab /Muslim conquest of the Levant. There was no Palestinian national identity at this time and the argument about strong jews versus weak ones is completely moot now except perhaps an issue exists with the western liberal zionist jews currently wringing their hands at how the 70yrs of conflict has changed much more then facts on the ground and in minds.

Leave a Reply