5 thoughts on “Mishegaas

  1. I happen to agree with some of what he says, but this paragraph in particular really struck me as… bizarre? COntradictory?
    The Palestinians are strikingly unburdened by the pathologies of their oppressors, not least of all because they do not reciprocate their occupier’s widespread racism. Their responses to their sadistic dispossession and unbearable suffering run the gamut from peaceful to violent resistance, including the desperate barbarity of suicide bombings. Yet unlike their tormentors, they’ve not lost their humanity and essential decency, their acceptance of their enemy’s humanity, their cultural generosity of spirit and life, their respect for the sacredness of all life, their sanity. I can’t imagine that Palestinian soldiers would cruelly and coolly remain unmoved — devoid of an abiding sense of rescue — by a Jewish mother dying in her house as her children watched in fear and horror.
    What?! HOw about those engaged inthe violent resistance he mentioned a few words ago, or the desperate barbarity? They wouldn’t remain “unmoved — devoid of an abiding sense of rescue — by a Jewish mother dying in her house as her children watched in fear and horror?”
    Um, come on, here. I’m about as left as a person can get, and I definitely think he’s engaging in some deep denial here. This doens’t negate the other things he says (which I – and you- have said for years), but I think that paragraph is in fact the very paradigm of the example of the flaws of the other side of thiscoin.

  2. Khalaf’s missing the two largest points.
    1) The degree to which Palestinian terrorism, the raison d’etre for Israeli actions, is itself an extension of the Arab anti-semitism that funds it.
    2) The degree to which Israeli action, and especially the demagoguery he cites, is itself an extension of the Christian anti-Arabism that funds it through organizations like CUFI.
    Both of these back ends would rather fan the flames of the conflict and push it into crisis than see peace in the region.

  3. I used to be a TA in the religion department at a nominally Catholic university, where *most* of the students were under the impression that “Jew” was a bad word. We always got a kick out of the awkward phrasing they’d manage to come up with when discussing the “Judaic peoples” or a “person of the Hebrew faith”.
    Once a girl waxed philosophical about how calling myself a Jew bothered her the same way Black people using the “n-word” in public did. She conceded that it might be okay if we called ourselves that when safely amongst our own people, but not in mixed company in order to avoid giving others the impression that they could also call us “Jews”. Oy.

  4. “JEW” is considered offensive by many. Working with a large publishing house, their guidlines specifically insist on “Jewish Person” over “Jew.”

  5. “Jew” is definitely a bad word when used as a verb, as in “Are you trying to jew me down?” (and yes, there actually are still people who use this).
    As “Gyp” should be.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.