Radicals, Rabbis and Peacemakers: Conversations With Jewish Critics Of Israel
“This is an important book. … In these shameful days, when black turns white, when the most brutal leader Israeli militarism has produced is hailed as a man of peace and when standing for justice is silenced as anti-Semitism, this book is a breath of fresh air. The many voices in this book, each different, but all taking basic human values as their point of departure, reminds us that being a Jew today can mean adhering to higher principles than those dictated by the Israeli generals.”
–Tanya Reinhart, Professor Emeritus, Tel Aviv University, Author of Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948
Book Party & Forum:
The Brecht Forum – New York City
451 West Street (that’s the West Side Highway) between Bank & Bethune Streets
Friday, November 4th, 7:30 pm
Seth Farber, Ora Wise & Others TBA
Contributors to this new book are among the leading American Jewish critics of Zionism and of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians: Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Marc Ellis, Adam Shapiro, Phyllis Bennis, Rabbi Weiss of Neturei Karta and others. It is edited and includes a commentary by Dr Seth Farber, a psychologist and member of Jews Against the Occupation. In 2002 in the wake of the Israeli massacre in Jenin, Farber decided to make public his opposition as a Jew to Israel’s occupation, and the subjugation of Palestinians to its reign of state-terrorism. At the time Farber realized that the only introduction for non-specialists to a Jewish critique of Israeli policies was Michael Lerner’s Healing Israel/Palestine. Farber felt Lerner’s Zionism led to serious flaws in his analysis. Thus Farber began puitting together the current book which serves as an introduction to the non-Zionist and anti-Zionist critique of Israel that had been elaborated over the last 15 years (and longer) by leading American Jewish scholars, theologians and activists. Farber’s own commentary argues that Zionism is a betrayal of the ideals of prophetic Judaism.
Suggested donation: $6/$10/$15
Just curious – are any other readers besides myself planning on going ?
I am a Zionist critic of some Israeli policies. I oppose the occupation, support two-states, etc.
Since there is plenty of room within zionism for criticism of Israel, books like these are based entirely on the creation of straw-men; like the claim that “standing for justice is silenced as anti-Semitism” — BULLSHIT! They create the straw-man that one must criticize Israel from outside zionism — BULLSHIT! The reality is that zionism is a big enough tent for those who genuinely and passionately believe in Israel and Judaism, but who want to criticize and dissent from certain of its policies. It’s called shades of grey.
Unlike these writers, I am a Jew against the *occupation*, not against the Jewish state.
btw, John Brown: you seem to think that Israel is an “illegitimate” state.
Do you also think it should be “wiped off the map”?
As the settlers understand, Hashem gave Eretz Yisroel to the Jews in its entirety. Other peoples have no justification for living there. It is against Hashem’s will. Their time has come and they should leave. THAT is Zionism. You either believe in Hashem and Hashem’s will for Israel or you don’t. If you do, all the silly discussions of “Democracy” an the like come crshing down. Would America be democratic if it were a constitutional “Christian state”?
As Rev Kahane understood so man years ago, Israel is Jewish or it is democratic. It isn’t both. Two states. Feh.
jb – i usually agree with stuff youi post. but i have problems with this.
i feel like in the israeli – palestinian conflict and the so-called left – there is a real lack of authoratative voices on the issue from israel/palestine. none of these authors are israeli.
and most of them are american jews. jews from other countries have opinions on the issue as well. i would love to know what albert memmi, the tunisian writer of “the colonizer and the colonized” is thinking about the whole situation. but i have to look around the world to find it because he is not considered a “real” voice. guess hes to arab to have an opinion. but look up any “progressive” american jewish (ashkenazi male) voice and you’ll find that the control of information is obscene. american imperialism is the reason why israel/ palestine is in the situation today. im sick of seeing our vision for the world being sold to oil tycoons and weapons manufacturers. is american jewry an extension of that here conducting intellectual imperialism? i am not sure.
maybe that is what seth intended, but there are rabbis in israel who are doing grassroots organizing to end the occupation. about israeli peacemakers… the so called instiutionalized peace movement in israel seems mostly concerned with cheap palestinian labor and making a quasi colonial peace.
but again, there are many israelis, like shimnistim, new profile, and other organizations that are providing an amazing critique from an authoratative point of standing – from their own backyard.
and then there are everyday israelis. the taxi cab drivers, the restaurant owners, the broken veterans because of this unholy war, that are for peace. talk to them. write a book about cab drivers for peace. i would read that. in every conversation i have had with an israeli family member or friend, they have truly desired peace – even if they are right wing supporters of likud.
im sick of the obsession of israel in american jewry. and i think the ownership of the conflict – taking it away from everyday palestinians and israelis – is unfair. even further, it is taking away from our ability to see the israel here. the one in our own community.
i feel exile from an exiled community…
I would so go, but I am afraid that an event like this held on the Sabbath is a betrayal of the ideals of prophetic Judaism.
jon wrote: “[Y]ou seem to think that Israel is an “illegitimate” state. Do you also think it should be “wiped off the map”?”
That depends on what you mean. I do think that the Zionist case for a Jewish state is as valid as the anti-Semitic case for an ethnic state that marginalizes Jews – in other words not valid at all.
Right wing people seem to have no problem understanding why ‘dhimmitude’ is objectionable in Muslim states. Yet they don’t seem to be able to grasp that for all intents and purposes, Zionism in many ways amounts to ‘reverse dhimmitude’.
As ‘Big Bill’ paraphrased Kahane earlier – “Israel is Jewish or it is democratic. It isn’t both.” I think I agree with Kahane on this one point. Big Bill continued on to ask “Would America be democratic if it were a constitutional ‘Christian state’?”, and my answer to that is “No”. The same principle applies to Israel. But that is where I part ways with Kahane – he wanted to reject democracy and go for a religious/ethnic-nation alist theocracy. I propose the exact opposite.
So, jon – to come back to your question about whether I think Israel should be wiped off the map – I don’t think that’s necessary, fair, or sane. I think Israel could stay where it is and become a true liberal Democracy, becoming legitimate by rejecting modern political Zionism as its guiding principle, just as South Africa rejected Apartheid. Of course, I expect the mirror image from Palestine – no judenrein, no dhimmitude, no inequality.
However if Palestine and Israel both become secular democratic states where anyone can live anywhere, it begs the question, why have two states at all ? Why not have one binational state ?
to ck – tell ya what, I’ll string up an eruv around the building for ya if that’ll make you feel better
john brown — i used to think like you, but during an extended stay in israel during which i also spent some nights in palestine i came to realize that the problem with the binational state is that outside of a few professors at tel aviv university, nobody WANTS it. the palestinians want their OWN state, with their OWN flag and their own national anthem — the trappings of nationalism, the psychic payoff for all the struggle. and the israelis just don’t want to live with the palestinians or have to deal with them. if there was a bi-national state not only would these two unwilling populations be forced together but the palestinians would instantly become an economic third class within the state, and lots of horrible problems would occur within the new state simply because of that. there’s no reason that tel aviv and nablus should be in the same state — nothing they have in common, no shared aspects besides that they’re cities full of people.
Thanks John! But if I were to go, I wouldn’t be carrying anything so I don’t need an eruv, and certainly not one around the building as it is permissible to carry indoors. The problem would be with the suggested donation – eruv or no eruv, you can’t carry money on the sabbath. Also, do I really want to miss Friday night services and dinner for this? The scheduling leads me to believe that this event is meant to preach to the converted anyway. No dialog here! But hey, thanks for the invite anyway. I seriously would have gone had it not been such a shlepp.
Sam — You left out this esential point:
Binational state = Palestinian majority = Open season on Jews
check out the website “for jews against the occupation”— theyre also against the jewish state. They believe in the “right of return” and all that goes along with it.
Big Bill:
That is NOT what Zionism is. Zionism, in its early inception, was mostly socialist and very anti-religious in nature. The true nature of Zionism, in my opinion, is much like other political movements; it’s personal. I’m not going into my personal feelings; if anyone is absolutely interested (which I doubt anyone is) you can manuever yourselves to my blog and read up or email me to ask. Just as French nationalism doesn’t exclude non-French people from full civil rights as French citizens, neither does Zionism (or shouldn’t have to, as discrimination against Arab citizens can and should be eliminated) exclude others either. Yes, a Jewish state can be democratic for that same reason.
John Brown:
Israel is a true liberal democracy, and nor should it have to reject political Zionism. The comparison between South African Apartheid is a stretch. Political Zionism will still exist and be necessary to exist as long as Jews are continued to be seen as the “other” on an individual level and on an global level. Yes, Jews are still seen as the “other;” deny it all you want but it is still there.
The truth is, even if Israel rejected Zionism and became a secular liberal democratic state (although I think Israel is in many ways a secular democractic state; to complete the classification the stranglehold of the Orthodox in Israel needs to be lifted in order for it truly to be secular), there is no reason to believe Palestine would become the same. Palestine, or its apparatus as exemplified by the PA, is a largely theocratic, apartheid, ultra conservative dictatorship. Islamic law pervades much of the judicial system, and there is no indication that it would be dropped, in law or practice. Apartheid as Jews are currently prevented from purchasing land there. And ultra-conservative regarding women’s rights, gay rights, separation of church and state, economic reform (preferring the feudal system rather than a capitalistic or socialistic one).
Maybe perhaps when the two peoples decide there’s more cohesion than division would a one-state be possible. Then again, when the same thing happens between the US and Mexico then maybe a one-state solution to the problems between those two countries would be feasible. The point is, as Sam pointed out, you can’t force two people to join into one state if neither one wants to.
John, are you meaning to tell me that two peoples who have been fighting and killing and hating each other for over a century, who can’t agree on when to come back to the negotiating table are suddenly going to be able to function in a democratic state together? I don’t see it as likely.
John Brown wrote: “However if Palestine and Israel both become secular democratic states where anyone can live anywhere, it begs the question, why have two states at all ? Why not have one binational state?”
John, my answer to this is quite simple: there is room in this big, diverse world for a Jewish state. Simple. There are more than 200 states in the world, including dozens of muslim states, christian states, some hindu, confucian, etc. Some states don’t have an “official” religion. Some states, like Israel, have an “official” religion wherein approx 50% of the population either doesn’t practice, isn’t affiliated, or actively practices another religion. Great. Point being: there are many ways to organize a state.
For your view to be consistent and not anti-semitic, you would have to be opposed to ANY state –whether Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc– governing its affairs according to a religion or ethnicity (broadly speaking). Of course, I am definitely not calling you anti-semitic, but your views on Israel only hold if you also think that Jordan, India, Egypt, etc should all become lib dem and secular. In other words: you must ascribe to a single model of governance. In other words, you must not tolerate any model except a secular lib dem model. Unlike you, I think that we have room in this world for different models, one of which can include states that have an official religion — as long as its citizens have the freedom to practice what and however they want, and as long its citizens have equal rights. This distinguishes Israel from most other states that have a “religion”. (Not to downplay Israel’s faults or pretend that it doesn’t have its own problems with discrimination).
isnt there a comment in the Torah that “those who will hate and persecute you the most will rise from among you”.
Let’s face it, the reality is that Zionism, as it is practiced in the real world, is Fascism. Does Israel have “a right to exist”? No, but it does exist. The real question is does Palestine have “a right to exist”. Israel has never been a “Jewish State”. It is a perversion of everything I have understood to be Jewish values. I remember an “Orthodox” woman tellling me, “Look, we stole the land fair and square.” Stole it? I thought the Ten Commandments taught that “Thou shall not steal”. Obviously in our modern world, all of these values have gone out the window, and I can understand why. My mother is a holocaust survivor. Of course we were desperately seeking a sanctuary, who wouldn’t in our circumstances? But to equate this with being in harmony with God’s will, is, well, deeply sick and offensive to me. Let’s just call a spade, a spade, as they say. Our principles have been hijacked, we have made a deal with the devil in exchange for “security”, for which we are paying (as are our Palestinian brethren) very dearly. If you want to steal someone else’s belongings, usurp their culture, and impose a fiction, fine. But please, leave God out of it. I mean, really, can anyone imagine Native Americans descending upon NYC, demanding that the present residents move across the street, into a parking lot of tents, because “The Great Spirit” has given it back to them. Absurd, right? The logic of Israel has always been the same for me. It is not a “Jewish” state (where is the Messiah?), but an extension of an increasingly fascist West, specificially the US, whose job it is to police the oil-rich Middle East. As a Jew, as a human-being, this is offensive to me. I wonder how long it will be before our “Allies” dispose of us. They have a history of doing this, and there’s no reason to believe that we too are not expendable. What then?
The reason that the people in the lineup are commonly called anti-Semites is because their actions merit such a title. I mean, Adam Shapiro met with Yassir Arafat, to begin with. And Chomsky and Finkelstein are not admirable Jews (or Americans, for that matter) to be celebrated.
That fucking twerp John Brown should not be allowed to post anymore after advertising for that anti-Semitic garbage.
And there was no fucking “massacre” in Jenin! Only the most vehemently anti-Israel people believe that crap.
Here goes John Brown again…
There is no contradiction between Israel being an explicitly Jewish homeland, and it being a liberal democracy.
This is not “reverse dhimmitude” – no more than all the democracies of Western Europe which are explicitly Christian and in no way separate between church and state as drastically as America does.
Some random examples:
– the taxpayer-supported Anglican church, whose officers occupy seats in the House of Lords, and whose institutions receive taxpayer money.
– the presence of a Catholic clergyman in the “counseling” staff of most large French schools – again, government funded. This didn’t stop the French from banning headscarves. Catholicism is understood to be “part of French culture” and therefore receives governmental sponsorship.
The Italian school system hangs crucifixes in every classroom, and this is also the practice in some areas of Germany. Again, as an unabashed symbol of national culture. And Muslim students in German schools learn the details of the Protestant Reformation – a key to national identity.
– most European countries pay for explicitly religious Christmas and Easter festivities out of public coffers.
Even the current trend to enervated Euro-secularism has not significantly dented the widespread comfort with public deployment of Christian symbols, and the quite natural embrace of Christian heritage and ideas. Religious freedom means that others can practice their religion in private – but it’s clear what the cultural default is, and most Europeans aren’t apologizing for being themselves in their own countries!
Europeans openly discussed of whether Turkey had sufficient “cultural affinity” with Christian Europe to join the EU.
Nobody called these opinions racist, or facist. Nobody calls these countries oppressive or “colonial”.
Only Israel is thus demonized. Only the Jewish desire for a place were Judaism is the default cultural setting – only this is illegitimate.
And it’s no accident that some of the most strident critics of Israel are Jews caught between cultures. Jews who pour their own conflicted feelings into the larger issue of Israel.
Pathetic.
Hey John Brown – you never answered other posters’ direct question:
Does Israel have a right to exist – or do you agree with the Iranian policy of wiping it from the face of the earth?
Or should it be rejiggered as a “binational state” – after which you will wring your hands affectedly as the Jews are massacred?
Matt
what right have you to censor John Brown? Your hero Kahane proves the antizionists right abut zionism being imcompatable with prophetic Judaism. Kahane had not heart or compassion. He taught complete lies, like the idea that the ten commandments only applied to Jews. They (his followers in Hebron)not only treat Palestinians like animals, they have shit on poor people in Israel for years.
Matt wrote: “The reason that the people in the lineup are commonly called anti-Semites is because their actions merit such a title. I mean, Adam Shapiro met with Yassir Arafat, to begin with.”
So what if Shapiro met with Arafat ? This is a text-book example of what Prof. Tanya Reinhart of Tel Aviv University was referring to when she wrote “when standing for justice is silenced as anti-Semitism” in the original post. Lots of people have met with Arafat and even publicly shaken his hand, such as Israeli Prime Ministers Netanyahu, Rabin, and Barak. By your reasoning they are all anti-semites.
Don’t you realize that when you cry wolf and claim that meeting with Arafat is proof of anti-semitism as you have just done, you take away from the seriousness of *real* anti-semitism ?
———-
jon wrote: “there is room in this big, diverse world for a Jewish state”
If this is true, then the reverse must also be true – that there is room in the world for states that discriminate against Jews. Sorry, I disagree. As I wrote earlier, “the Zionist case for a Jewish state is as valid as the anti-Semitic case for an ethnic state that marginalizes Jews”
jon continued: “For your view to be consistent and not anti-semitic, you would have to be opposed to ANY state –whether Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc– governing its affairs according to a religion or ethnicity (broadly speaking). Of course, I am definitely not calling you anti-semitic, but your views on Israel only hold if you also think that Jordan, India, Egypt, etc should all become lib dem and secular.”
I thought I made it clear that my position is that states which discriminate against minorities are not legitimate liberal Democracies. To the extent that states in the world discriminate against Jews or other minorities, I say that is wrong. I don’t know how you can possibly justify such systems.
———–
Ben-David wrote:
“Europeans openly discussed of whether Turkey had sufficient “cultural affinity” with Christian Europe to join the EU. Nobody called these opinions racist, or facist. Nobody calls these countries oppressive or “colonial”.
What planet are you on, where “nobody” called European countries colonial, and where “nobody” calls European attitudes towards Turkey’s admittance to the EU racist ? Of course if Israel wanted to join the EU and Europe rejected the idea right wingers would be among the first to proclaim it “anti-semitic”
Ben-David continued: “Hey John Brown – you never answered other posters’ direct question”
Yes I certainly did. scroll up. I don’t think you bothered to read very carefully.
John Brown wrote: “If this is true, then the reverse must also be true – that there is room in the world for states that discriminate against Jews.”
Wow, I gave you more credit than you deserved. First of all, that is not the reverse of my statement. The reverse is that there is no room in the world for a Jewish state.
Point: there is room for a Jewish state in the world.
Counter-point: no, there is not room.
Invalid counter-point: yes, but there must also be room for discrimination. Er, no. Non-sequitor.
Secondly, even if you are right — that if there is room in this world for a single Jewish state, then there must also be room for states that discriminate against Jews– what exactly does this prove? (Considering that a Jewish state does not, or at least must not, discriminate against non-Jews)
“To the extent that states in the world discriminate against Jews or other minorities, I say that is wrong. I don’t know how you can possibly justify such systems.”
OBVIOUSLY, I don’t justify this! Like, dude…c’mon! You clearly have not thought through the implications of your ideas, let alone mine. My point is that your views are essentially intolerant, in that you only accept one form of governance — government by secular liberal democracy. You reject all alternatives. This is intolerant.
Flies on shit here. Lots of ’em.
Just because someone was born Jewish does not mean that have a an understanding of Jewish history or culture. Yes, Chomsky, et al are Jewish and Clarence Thomas is Black. That does not mean that their opinions are not bad for Jews everywhere.
No Israel is not a perfect state, but I don’t think that means that Zionism is wrong or that Israel should not exist. Jews and even Zionists are human being who are subject to the same foibles and follies as any other human being. That does not mean that Israel should not exist because it is not perfect. You are putting Jews up on an impossible pedestal for the purpose of knocking them off.
How long after Pearl Harbor did the US government put Japanese-Americans into detention camps? Israel has faults, but it has come through certainly better than most democracies would have under similar circumstances.
I might add that Jews have tried the non-Zionsit route. It has proved to be a non-viable option. I can live in the US because Israel exists. If Israel did not exist, I would have to be there helping to create it. The most assimilated Jews were in Germany and Austria. It did not work out very well for them.
“As ‘Big Bill’ paraphrased Kahane earlier – “Israel is Jewish or it is democratic. It isn’t both.” I think I agree with Kahane on this one point.”
John Brown admits to being an extremist!
Like the Republicans he claims to loathe, JB doesn’t seem to grasp ‘nuance.’
Too bad.
jon wrote: “there is room in this big, diverse world for a Jewish state”
“If this is true, then the reverse must also be true – that there is room in the world for states that discriminate against Jews.”
This is one of the most absurdly perverse bits of rhetoric I’ve heard in a while. And it makes no sense.
Julia Eisen seems to be honest. And truth be told, there’s truth in them words. But of course, all states/countries came about via similar circumstances.
“Secondly, even if you are right — that if there is room in this world for a single Jewish state, then there must also be room for states that discriminate against Jews– what exactly does this prove? (Considering that a Jewish state does not, or at least must not, discriminate against non-Jews)”
What are you talking about? Of course he Israeli state discriminates against non-Jews!
His statement would also tend to support the suggestion that Zionist Jews are hypocrites (at the very least) for advocating a race-based state in Israel, while pushing multiculturalism, race-mixing, and mass immigration on host populations in the United States and Europe.
Sue I believe in the two state solution so I am not siding with John Brown, but he has a right to be heard. Having said that, Jews lived in this country long before Israel so the fact that you live in the US has nothing to do with Israel.
A French state and a democratic state are incompatible.
Julia:
Leave the rhetoric to the propaganda papers. Outlandish accusations like “Zionism is fascism” without a shred of analytical proof cannot be discussed and are therefore not appropriate for any forum. Secondly, do you have any idea what fascism is? It’s an economic -political system, more of an extremist form of corporatism, with only the nation being higher than the corporation. Israel has a socialist economy (or more appropriately now a welfare system economy); very non-fascist.
Matt:
Simply meeting with Arafat does not make one into an anti-semite. John Brown hit it on the head with this one. Although, with regards to Jenin, you were right; there was no massacre. This is the second time I’ve had to say this, but just because you disagree with John Brown (as I do) does not mean he should be censored. Censorship, in addition to being an anti-democratic tactic, is also an anti-Jewish one (even a tactic which goes against the ideals of Zionism, I think). Anyone who advocates such action is being ridiculous.
John Brown:
First off, your logic of “if this is true, then the reverse must also be true – that there is room in the world for states that discriminate against Jews,” is logically false. For a French state to exist an state that discriminates against the French must also exist. Do you see the false logic? In any case, there ARE states that discriminate against Jews. Russia and Germany currently of laws of return, granting ethnic Russians and ethnic Germans to return to Russia and Germany respectfully. I could be wrong, but I don’t think those laws apply to Jews kicked out of either country, although both have a history of making Jewish refugees. Most Middle Eastern countries vehemently discriminate against Jews; it is against the law to sell land to Jews in the PA, Jews are specifically denied citizenship in Jordan, and the only Jews allowed to visit Saudi Arabia are diplomatic ones (all other Jews are automatically not allowed to enter).
Lastly, John, what about Ben-David’s points:
“- the taxpayer-supported Anglican church, whose officers occupy seats in the House of Lords, and whose institutions receive taxpayer money.
– the presence of a Catholic clergyman in the “counseling” staff of most large French schools – again, government funded. This didn’t stop the French from banning headscarves. Catholicism is understood to be “part of French culture” and therefore receives governmental sponsorship.
The Italian school system hangs crucifixes in every classroom, and this is also the practice in some areas of Germany. Again, as an unabashed symbol of national culture. And Muslim students in German schools learn the details of the Protestant Reformation – a key to national identity.
– most European countries pay for explicitly religious Christmas and Easter festivities out of public coffers.
Even the current trend to enervated Euro-secularism has not significantly dented the widespread comfort with public deployment of Christian symbols, and the quite natural embrace of Christian heritage and ideas. Religious freedom means that others can practice their religion in private – but it’s clear what the cultural default is, and most Europeans aren’t apologizing for being themselves in their own countries!
Europeans openly discussed of whether Turkey had sufficient “cultural affinity” with Christian Europe to join the EU.
Nobody called these opinions racist, or facist. Nobody calls these countries oppressive or “colonial”. ”
Aren’t these inherently discriminatory? I mean, we’re not even going to touch the other Middle Eastern regimes, which are wrought with Islamic and ethnic ties. What about these measures, in supposedly enlightened Europe? Shouldn’t they give up all that stuff first?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If Israel is going to have to shed ALL of its religious/ethnic ties, the European and Middle Eastern nations which created the necessity for Israel’s existence should give theirs up first.
Jared Goldberg wrote: “For a French state to exist an state that discriminates against the French must also exist. Do you see the false logic? ”
No, I see you misunderstanding me. France’s policies do not discriminate against people who are not ethnically French. That’s why France is full of Muslims and Jews, and dozens of other ethnicities who immigrated. And even if they did, that wouldn’t change my point.
My point was, we can all agree that nations discriminating against Jews is wrong, so why should Israel follow in their examples?
Jared Goldberg continued: “Russia and Germany currently of laws of return, granting ethnic Russians and ethnic Germans to return to Russia and Germany respectfully. I could be wrong, but I don’t think those laws apply to Jews kicked out of either country, although both have a history of making Jewish refugees.”
Yes I believe you are mistaken. Russia and Germany offer citizenship to anyone who is a descendant of CITIZENS of Russia or Germany, regardless of ethnicity or religion. In fact, many Israelis have been obtaining EU citizenship recently based on the citizenship of their parents or grandparents:
Israelis pursue German citizenship | EU Passport Gets Popular in Israel
Once desperate to leave, now Jews are returning to Russia, land of opportunity | Russia beckons Jews who fled
Jared Goldberg continued: “Most Middle Eastern countries vehemently discriminate against Jews; it is against the law to sell land to Jews in the PA, Jews are specifically denied citizenship in Jordan, and the only Jews allowed to visit Saudi Arabia are diplomatic ones (all other Jews are automatically not allowed to enter).”
Of course, and I never denied this. However my point is, if you can admit that Arab states discriminating against Jews is wrong, why can’t you admit that the reverse is equally wrong, and oppose it ?
Jared Goldberg continued: “Lastly, John, what about Ben-David’s points: “
I didn’t address those points about having crucifixes in classrooms because they seem to me to be red herrings and they don’t address the crux of the discussion.
Jared Goldberg continued: “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. “
This is missing the point entirely. It’s not good for the goose nor the gander. You’re saying it’s “good” for people to discriminate against Jews and I disagree. That’s bad, not good – and shouldn’t be emulated.
in other words, the position that some people seem to be taking here : “Discrimination is wrong when THEY do it, but is justified when WE do it” is hypocritical. It’s hypocritical because 1) you hate countries which discriminate against Jews, therefore you should realize that Israeli policies create hatred towards Jews 2) you don’t really believe it’s OK when other people discriminate against Jews, therefore it’s two-faced for you to use their behavior as justification
France’s policies do not discriminate against people who are not ethnically French.
You should really check out the real world. It is a fascinating place. A few riots these days. Schools still won’t allow that pesky religious headgear. But great croissants. Y’know, the kind of food that is ethnically French and whose purity the state therefore passes laws regulating. It’s good stuff. And it reminds us of our ancestors the Gauls!
in other words, the position that some people seem to be taking here : “Discrimination is wrong when THEY do it, but is justified when WE do it” is hypocritical.
No, the position they’re taking is that your proposal that we loudly eliminate Sweden, Portugal, Poland, and Sudan from the map ’cause this whole United of Nations thing is just too darn imperfect is, well, stupid. Also kind of fascist: “if imperfect then eliminate” is the kind of totalitarian thinking that rarely turns out well.
Now, you can disagree; but you should at least let those gears turn long enough to understand what it is you’re disagreeing with. On the issue of right of return, similarly, suggest you start at least informing yourself of the basics. I hear Wikipedia is a popular source.
Or, if you prefer, you can tell us more about what France is really like.
John:
I don’t think you understood me. I have never, nor will I ever say it is ok to discriminate people based on ethnicity. The discrimination of Arabs in Israel is one thing I have spoken out against many times.
You seem to think a Jewish state is INHERENTLY a discriminatory one, and I argue that it is not. I bring up my example of France to say a French state is not an inherently discriminatory state simply for being French. By the way, Israel is full of Muslims and Jews as well.
With regards to Germany and Russia, I said right of return, not citizenship. Looking over what I read earlier, I made a generalization error and I see that Jews are not barred from returning. However, like I said, German immigration policies tend to favor those who have “Germanness.” But, this is irrelevant and I won’t bring it up again. It’s not important.
I admit that Arab states discriminating against Jews is wrong, and so is Arab discrimination in Israel. But, whereas in Middle Eastern countries this discrimination is codified into law, in Israel it isn’t exactly like that. There is de facto discrimination (non-legislative) but little de jure (legislative) discrimination. And when the de jure discrimination does pop up, it is wrong and should be opposed (for example, that law last year that targets Palestinians who marry Israelis, that was wrong).
Ben-David’s posts DO address the crux of the discussion, as he demonstrates that other European countries exhibit more ethnic and religious policies than Israel yet are not criticized.
And when I said what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, what I MEANT was is that European and Middle Eastern countries should shed their ethnic/religious identities before Israel does.
I did NOT, nor did I EVER imply that it is good to discriminate against people.
You need to learn not to see racist when you see Zionist, and not to see discrimination when I make a valid point.
It’s getting really annoying to keep reading you misinterpreting people’s words.
No one is arguing that discrimination is wrong when THEY do it but justified when WE do it. I’m arguing that the simple existence of the Jewish state is not discriminatory, as is the simple existence of a French state is not discriminatory.
First I wrote: ” France’s policies do not discriminate against people who are not ethnically French.”
Grimy replied: “You should really check out the real world. It is a fascinating place. A few riots these days. Schools still won’t allow that pesky religious headgear.”
Stop being disengenuous. We’re talking about France’s immigration policies. If France’s immigration policies were like Israel’s, and only gave full immigration rights to people of French ethnicity then France’s population wouldn’t be 5-10% (relatively recently arrived) Muslims (source: CIA world fact book) would it ?
———-
Jared wrote: “Ben-David’s posts DO address the crux of the discussion, as he demonstrates that other European countries exhibit more ethnic and religious policies than Israel yet are not criticized.”
Ben-David’s posts may address that European countries exhibit some religious policies that promote one religion over another (I didn’t see a single thing about ethnicity, or anything about taking rights away from anyone), but I don’t believe any European country has an immigration policy that says if you belong to XYZ ethnicity/religion then you have preference over everyone else. At the same time, I have a hard time seeing how having a state sponsored Christmas pageant is really comparable to Israel blocking Muslims from using 90+% of the land, not allowing inter-marriage and not allowing immigration unless one belongs to the dominant ethnicity/religion
Jared continued: “And when I said what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, what I MEANT was is that European and Middle Eastern countries should shed their ethnic/religious identities before Israel does.”
I never said Israel had to shed its identity, I only spoke of discriminatory laws and policies
Why would you suggest that Israel’s policies should be based on what EU or Middle Eastern countries do ? Even a 6-year old child knows “but mommy, he did it too” isn’t a valid excuse for bad behavior. Either discrimination is inherently wrong, or it isn’t. If it is inherently wrong, then it’s not legitimate to say “as long as other people discriminate, we will also discriminate”
Jared continued: “I admit that Arab states discriminating against Jews is wrong, and so is Arab discrimination in Israel. But, whereas in Middle Eastern countries this discrimination is codified into law, in Israel it isn’t exactly like that.”
But it is codified into law in the “law of return”, the laws regarding military service (on which social benefits are based) and in the historic policies of the Israel Lands Authority – to name a few examples
First I wrote: ” France’s policies do not discriminate against people who are not ethnically French.” Grimy replied: “You should really check out the real world. It is a fascinating place. A few riots these days. Schools still won’t allow that pesky religious headgear.” JohnBrown wrote: Stop being disengenuous. We’re talking about France’s immigration policies.
Erm, no; I was talking about France’s ethnic cleansing policy, which are quite clear. That’s one of the central pieces of the current riots. All immigrants to France are to become French. It is not by coincidence that all textbooks began with “Our ancestors, the Gauls”, etc. Who’s being disingeuous here?
If France’s immigration policies were like Israel’s, and only gave full immigration rights to people of French ethnicity…
First, you are confused about Israel’s immigration laws. You are incorrect to state that only people of a certain ethnicity get “full immigration rights” — in fact, the immigration rights that non-Jews have to Israel are stunningly similar to the immigration rights that everyone has to France.
I think that your confusion lies from the belief that granting additional rights to some disadvantages all others. This is not true, and it is why there is no problem with the immigration policies of Armenia, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, India, Ireland, Israel, and all the other countries which have rights of return.
then France’s population wouldn’t be 5-10% (relatively recently arrived) Muslims (source: CIA world fact book) would it ? You also appear confused about the citizenship status of 5-10% of France’s (relatively recently arrived) population, incidentally. But that’s another story.
Ben-David’s posts may address that European countries exhibit some religious policies that promote one religion over another (I didn’t see a single thing about ethnicity, or anything about taking rights away from anyone), but I don’t believe any European country has an immigration policy that says if you belong to XYZ ethnicity/religion then you have preference over everyone else.
Then go here, read, Google for a while, and report back. Your belief is charming, but wrong. Not that faith-based politics of that type doesn’t have its own charm…
It’s been a while, but I have to respond. First of all, my comment about Adam Shapiro wasn’t supposed to say that he was necessarily anti-Semitic. I wrote my post in a hurry.
The context in which he met with Arafat can’t be ignored. After Arafat had already been proven to be a driving force behind the second Intifada through rhetoric and support, Shapiro chose to meet with him as a show of solidarity. Arafat had already been ostracized by Israel for a good reason, and Shapiro was acting in defiance to Israeli policy and was showing his support for a criminal.
Yitzchak Rabin, other Israeli officials, and American officials met with Arafat when there was still hope for peace, as in the early 90s. How is that anti-Semitic? According to your logic, John Brown, Neville Chamberlain’s meeting with Hitler in Munich in 1938 was an anti-Semitic statement. (I’m not making any comparison of the Oslo Accords to the Munich Agreement. What kind of Yigal Amir right-wing nut do you think I am?) It’s all about context.
Shapiro’s actions and statements show that he has a particular bias against Israel by showing solidarity with an avowed enemy of the country. You don’t only have to look at that to see that he hates Israel.
Does hating Israel necessarily make someone anti-Semitic? He or she is serving the cause of anti-Semites, but isn’t necessarily an anti-Semite. Such a person, however, does display an inherently discriminatory bias against a sovereign country, and that is morally wrong.
I know the whole “other countries do it so why can’t we” argument doesn’t work. But that’s not the proper way to go about things. I know the whole PLO argument that Arab citizens are inherently second-class citizens in the Jewish state, so there is institutionalized discrimination and the only solution is a binational state. That argument is flawed for a number of reasons though. First of all, Israel as a sovereign national entity has the right to define its own character. And that character ends up being one as a safehaven for the Jews. Pretty noble, wouldn’t you say? It’s a Jewish country serving the national interests of its ethnic group, the Jews. While anti-Arab discrimination does exist in Israel, it is not an institutionalized feature of the country and is not written into law. Arab citizens are defined legally in Israel as citizens with full rights. This makes them legal inhabitants of a democratic country that identifies itself as legally Jewish. Where this expectation is not fulfilled is another issue.
Based on my understanding of your posts, you, as an anarchist, oppose national institutions of any kind. National institutions with an ethnic character only create conflict. But the natural tendency of people, especially upon coming in contact with people with different customs, is to create a group that they belong to by identifying what they are not. Thus is the case with nationalism, of course. It sounds like people are inherently racist on some level, but there is little that can be done to get rid of the natural desire of man to belong. Ethnic and national pride are manifestations of this natural desire. Unfortunately, ideas of identity can be manipulated to cause some of the worst acts of inhumanity ever known. This is why despotism must always be kept at bay and a society that recognizes the natural rights of all people is absolutely necessary. Whether Israel can exist as a Jewish country that embodies this ideal is its major existential question to deal with.
Targeting Israel for replacement by a secular democratic society free of any identity is unrealistic. In addition, Israel is a poor place to start should such a utopian ideal ever be implemented. It already makes attempts to be democratic, despite its occasional shortfalls.
I hope my rant somehow provides a coherent response to your fundamental argument, Brown. Damn, I need to go do work now.
I was going to respond to John’s post, but then I read the link from Grimmy, the one that goes to Wikipedia that talks about other countries and their “laws of return” some of which if you read carefully, are even more strict than Israel’s.
I think it makes my point rather well. What about those laws John? Shouldn’t we force those countries to change theirs first?
Sorry Jared, I didn’t realize this was an ongoing debate. Anyway, with respect to your charges of my “rhetoric”; National Socialism, that is Socialism without an international perspective is Facism. Nazi Germany practiced National Socialism. Socialist countries engage and support eachother and are committed to Global Socialism. Is Israel allied with any other “Socialist” countries? Is Israel committed to International Socialism? The allies of Israel include, of course, the US, (hardly a Socialist country), Egypt (an Arab Dictatorship), and in the past South Africa, when it practiced apartied (lovely). It has a policy of institutionalized racism toward its Arab and Sephardic Jewish population, who it marginalizes and exploits. This is hardly “Socialism”. Again, Israel is a lackey of the West, which will probably become expendable. And so, the question remains, what kind of Israel is this going to be, a right-wing fascist Israel, or a progessive Israel, which honors the human rights of others, as well as its own inhabitants. And again, a country supposedly founded because of persecution, which then exploits that persecution in order to practice racism, is disgusting. Not that other countries aren’t pigs as well, but they don’t profess some special relationship with God, and then use that relationship to exploit other. I as a Jew, and as a human being find this offensive, how much so non-Jews.
Julia Eisen is absolutely right, Jared Goldstein — Zionism IS fascism — and I salute her sterling courage and honesty. You are a beautiful soul, Julia!
Zionism didn’t start out fascist, but by the 1920s fascism was emerging in Italy AND among Zionist Jews in Palestine. Vladimir Jabotinsky and all his Revisionist ilk identified very strongly with Mussolini, and their rhetoric was blatantly fascist. Jabotinsky’s ideological progeny included most of the militant extremists, e.g. Irgun and Lehi, who were considered maniacs by most Zionist Jews of the 1940s. Today, alas, they would seem almost “normal.” Avraham Stern, the leader of Lehi, even approached Hitler with a proposal to set Israel up as a German client state during WWII !!! He knew what was going on in Germany, everyone in Israel did, but for him this was trivial compared to his lust for a Jewish state. Stern’s organization (also called the ‘Stern Gang’) was an ultra-extremist splinter of Irgun, which was itself an extremist splinter of Haganah, which in turn was not known for moderation. Though a tiny group with only 300 or so members, Lehi was responsible for 70% of the political assassinations in Israel during the ’40s, half of whom were Jews. What’s most striking about Lehi was that despite its whacko-fringe obscurity in the ’40s, it contained an astonishing number of future generals, leading politicians, and even future Israeli heads of state (Yitzhak Shamir; Menachem Begin). The power of this tiny nucleus of fascist ideologues has expanded geometrically over the years. Following Israel’s formal creation in 1948, it faked up some legitimacy for itself by transforming into the Herut Party, later to become the Likud Party…
Most of the extreme Zionist leaders today — and I would include Sharon in this category — trace back in some way to this tiny 1940s circle of Revisionist i.e. fascist fanatics.
Zionism’s hidden fascist character fully explains Israel’s present strong relationship with the United States, hands down the most dominant fascist country in the post-WWII world. The relationship is exactly analogous to the one Stern hoped to develop with Nazi Germany. Zionism’s fascist undercurrent shows up also in the dominant Zionist faction among the so-called “neoconservatives.” Douglas Feith, for example, whose political education began on the knee of his father, a hardcore Revisionist. Neoconservatism’s formal ideological origins are no less fascist, tracing back as they do to the teachings of Leo Strauss, a protege of Nazi jurist Karl Schmitt.
So you see there IS an analytical/historical case for Julia’s indictment, a very solid one