Criticizing Israel is not an act of bigotry
Wed, 2007-02-28 06:23
#1
Criticizing Israel is not an act of bigotry
Wed, 2007-02-28 06:23
#2
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?sh_itm=52128d0b8eb8ce51f3a239... feature: Criticizing Israel is not bigotry[/url]
quote:
It is wrong to criticize all Jews for Israel's wrongdoings, yet Israel's leadership and its supporters in the Diaspora consistently encourage this view by insisting that Israel acts on behalf of the entire Jewish people.This shifts blame for Israel's crimes onto the shoulders of all Jews. But Jewish critics of Israel demonstrate through their words and deeds that the Jewish community is not monolithic in its support of Israel.
(Can someone move this to Rabble news features?)
[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]
Wed, 2007-02-28 07:20
#3
I'm not sure Israel DOES claim to be acting on behalf of "all of the world's Jews." They're a country and I think it is obvious to them and to everyone else that they are acting on behalf of their own citizens. I'm Jewish and have never felt that any action taken by the Israeli government was done on MY behalf.
Certainly, criticizing Israeli policies or certain actions by the government there is not anti-Semitic. No more so than criticizing the Canadian government would mean that you hate all Canadians.
Wed, 2007-02-28 07:25
#4
Numerous Israeli leaders and politicians have regularly (and paternalistically) told Jews in the Diaspora that Israel acts in their best interests.
Unfortunately, by doing things like lobbying the US in the 1980s to deny Soviet Jews wanting to enter the US refugee status so that they have no choice but to go to Israel, they and Zionist leaders outside of Israel have a record of actually acting against the interests of Jews in preference for the interests of the Israeli state.
[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]
Wed, 2007-02-28 07:37
#5
Your point with regards to the Soviet Union may be true, Mycroft, but I really do disagree with the premise that Israel considers itself acting on behalf of ALL Jews, everywhere. Certainly, there is a longstanding principle of Israel that it can be a refuge for all Jews if they ever wish to go there, but the notion that the policies its government carries out are for Diaspora Jews strikes me as ludicrous. Does this only apply to Israeli policy related to security issues? I mean, if Israel raises or lowers taxes, is THAT for all Jews? If they invest money in infrastructure, is THAT for my family and I.
Again, my father, mother, brothers, sister, my wife and I - all Jewish and I don't think any of us have ever seen an Israeli policy and thought that they were doing this on OUR behalf.
I aslo jsut now went and read the article, itself, and am really bothered by the premise it contains that Jews have a special responsibility to speak out against Israeli policies and actions since our silence could be interpreted as support. That's a very silly and, I believe, bigoted proposition. I have no more special responsibility to condemn certain Israeli actions than a Muslim in Canada has a special responsibility to publicly speak out whenever a terrorist from Gaza blows up a bus. Or than a Catholic to speak up when some nut bombs an abortion clinic. Or for a black person to speak out when some otehr black person commits a crime. If all of these people don't issue public denunciations, is their support implied? I believe that is called "guilt by association".
Wed, 2007-02-28 07:57
#6
The article does seems a bit contradictory when on the one hand it denies that Israel acts in the interest of Jews in the diaspora, but then it goes on to say that Jews have some "special responsibility" to dissociate themselves from Israeli policies.
Wed, 2007-02-28 10:36
#7
Cueball
That is true. Except I missed the part where the article said that Jews had a special "responsibility" to denounce Israel.
Wed, 2007-02-28 10:39
#8
Yes, that "special responsibility" is nonsense.
It's like what the cops always say here in Toronto: if some black person is wanted for murder, the black community has a special responsibility to help the police find the guy.
Yes, just like I, a WASP, have a "special responsibility" for the acts of George Bu8sh and Tony Blair and the Prime Minister of New Zealand.
I'm onto it.
Wed, 2007-02-28 10:41
#9
Cueball
Yes, but if you read the article that the thread is based on, the author (Kunin) says no such thing.
Wed, 2007-02-28 10:43
#10
Yeah. It doesn't.
Wed, 2007-02-28 10:48
#11
I believe Jews who oppose Israel's policies have a particular obligation to speak out. Silence gives (confirms?) the impression to the world that all Jews support Israel unconditionally, or that Israel speaks for and represents all Jews.
Wed, 2007-02-28 10:51
#12
Good article!
It is really timely given the amazing [url=http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/politics-israels-divided-soul/]look at zionism in the walrus[/url].
Wed, 2007-02-28 10:53
#13
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
[b]... or that Israel speaks for and represents all Jews.[/b]
This is the only myth that truly need to be dispelled. By a couple of my jewish friends say that there is a bit of community pressure to maintain the silence, even if the majority disagrees.
Wed, 2007-02-28 10:57
#14
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
[b]I believe Jews who oppose Israel's policies have a particular obligation to speak out. Silence gives (confirms?) the impression to the world that all Jews support Israel unconditionally, or that Israel speaks for and represents all Jews.[/b]
Its not an obligation. There might be some other way of getting the idea across.
Wed, 2007-02-28 10:58
#15
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Yes, but if you read the article that the thread is based on, the author (Kunin) says no such thing.[/b]
Perhaps this paragraph
"Jewish people can help avert the catastrophic effects of Israeli behaviour, but only by taking a stand in opposition to it. "
was interpreted that way.
Wed, 2007-02-28 11:01
#16
Cueball
The operative clause is: "Jewish people [b]can[/b] help avert the catastrophic effects of Israeli behaviour..."
Some of us, here, are journalists I am told, and so specially equipped to make semantic distinctions as to the meaning of words.
If Kunin had used the word "should" I think we would be batting on a differnt field.
[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2007-02-28 11:04
#17
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]The operative clause is: "Jewish people [b]can[/b] help avert the catastrophic effects of Israeli behaviour..."Some of us, here, are journalists I am told, and so specially equipped to make semantic distinctions as to the meaning of words.
If Kunin had used the word "should" I think we would be batting on a differnt field.
[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]
Perhaps others thought the operative words were "Jewish people" as opposed to people in general.
[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]
[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]
Wed, 2007-02-28 11:05
#18
Cueball
Is the new prohibition to be that we are not allowed to discuss Jewish people at all?
Wed, 2007-02-28 11:15
#19
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]Yes, that "special responsibility" is nonsense.[/b]
Which is probably why the article doesn't say that.
However, when groups like the AJC in the US try to read Jews who criticize Israel out of the Jewish community and claim that all Jews are united when it comes to the country they are, in effect, claiming there is a special responsibility amongst Jews to support Israel when, in fact, there has always been a wide spectrum of views in the Jewish community. Indeed, the Economist this week cites a US survey that shows only 18% of Jews in that country consider themselves Zionist yet, listening to the "leaders" of the community you'd think the figure was more like 99.9%.
Wed, 2007-02-28 11:32
#20
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Is the new prohibition to be that we are not allowed to discuss Jewish people at all?[/b]
What if the paragraph said...
"Muslim people can help avert the catastrophic effects of Islamic extremism, but only by taking a stand in opposition to it. "
Wed, 2007-02-28 11:51
#21
Banning will commence in 5... 4... 3...
Wed, 2007-02-28 12:01
#22
quote:
Originally posted by Kronstadt:
[b]Banning will commence in 5... 4... 3...[/b]
Thank you for making my point, outrage would erupt here.
And by the way, isn't the reference to "Israeli behaviour" a generalization against all Israelis? The author should have written 'israeli government behaviour".
[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]
Wed, 2007-02-28 12:01
#23
Well I think that Joel Goldenberg might have a point. Even though he works for the Zionist Newspaper The Suburban, I think that muslims should stand up against extremism.
I also think that Jews should stand up against extremism especially when it comes to Israel and attacks against the Zionist State. Even though they act like a bunch of terrorists, they still have the legal right to exist and govern.
That is all
Samer Yamitzi
If Allah died for our sins, we'd be Christians..Allah LIVES FOREVER!
Wed, 2007-02-28 12:02
#24
What is the Rabble definition of Anti-semitism? And who defines it?
Wed, 2007-02-28 12:09
#25
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Joel_Goldenberg:
[b]What if the paragraph said..."Muslim people can help avert the catastrophic effects of Islamic extremism, but only by taking a stand in opposition to it. "[/b]
Fact, that exact position regarding Muslims and extremists has been said over and over again. and everyone seemed to think it just fine.
quote:
Anything that affects a Muslim in any part of the world can affect all the ... Muslim extremism worldwide which has grown out of the manifest injustice ...
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/08/11/dl... double standards[/url]
Wed, 2007-02-28 12:10
#26
quote:
What is the Rabble definition of Anti-semitism? And who defines it?
No reason it would be any different than your average dictionary's.
an·ti-Sem·i·tism
NOUN:
1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
2. Discrimination against Jews.
[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: Jacob Two-Two ]
Wed, 2007-02-28 12:14
#27
Remind wrote:
"Fact, that exact position regarding Muslims and extremists has been said over and over again. and everyone seemed to think it just fine."
1. I'm pretty sure not "everyone" think it's just fine,m especially given the "banning" reference above.
2. Also, wouldn't that version of the sentence infer that Muslims have a "special responsibility" in this regard?
Wed, 2007-02-28 12:14
#28
quote:
(Can someone move this to Rabble news features?)
Can and shall
Wed, 2007-02-28 14:23
#29
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by Joel GoldbergWhat if the paragraph said...
"Muslim people can help avert the catastrophic effects of Islamic extremism, but only by taking a stand in opposition to it. "
I would say that there is no specific admonition for Muslims to do so. That a member of the Jewish community might say something similar about Jews, in an article about Jews, is merely to emphasize that the person has a right to speak to the collective to which they belong, specifically.
Wed, 2007-02-28 14:26
#30
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
[b]Which is probably why the article doesn't say that.
However, when groups like the AJC in the US try to read Jews who criticize Israel out of the Jewish community and claim that all Jews are united when it comes to the country they are, in effect, claiming there is a special responsibility amongst Jews to support Israel when, in fact, there has always been a wide spectrum of views in the Jewish community. Indeed, the Economist this week cites a US survey that shows only 18% of Jews in that country consider themselves Zionist yet, listening to the "leaders" of the community you'd think the figure was more like 99.9%.[/b]
Only 18% of US Jews consider themseleves Zionists. I have been waiting for this figure to come to the surface for some time now. I always suspected it.
Wed, 2007-02-28 14:32
#31
It'll be interesting to see what kind of response that figure will elicit. I would never have guessed that the figure would be THAT low.
Wed, 2007-02-28 14:36
#32
Cueball
Why? The reality is that most Jews don't live in Israel. If they were committed Zionists, no doubt they would.
Wed, 2007-02-28 15:40
#33
Agent 204
Not to mention, when a movement that claims to act on behalf of all Jews commits atrocities that fill decent, progressive people with a sudden urge to rush out and buy the DVD box set of Mel Gibson's movies, it's apt to reduce the lustre of the movement in the eyes of the people it claims to represent.
Wed, 2007-02-28 15:55
#34
Cueball
I have never had the urge to rent Mel Gibson movies, with the exception of "Road Warrior," which is could not be a vehicle for Mel Gibson's ideas, as there really are no ideas there.
Wed, 2007-02-28 16:43
#35
quote:
Originally posted by Joel_Goldenberg:
[b]What if the paragraph said...
"Muslim people can help avert the catastrophic effects of Islamic extremism, but only by taking a stand in opposition to it. "[/b]
It would be fine. In fact, it's damn near tautological - as in "Joel can help stop paranoid, hysterical arguments by standing against paranoid and hysterical arguments." You have no greater "responsibility" than anyone else, it's just as easy to say, "B.L. Zeebub can help stop paranoid, hysterical arguments by standing against paranoid, hysterical arguments."
I'm doing my part. You?
Like it or not, Israel uses "Jew" as an operative premise when it calls itself "The Jewish State". We here at Babble are regularly pilloried with the claim that "virtually all Jews are Zionists and support the State of Israel". Review the message history if you must.
When someone speaks on my behalf, I usually check to make sure I agree with what they're selling. Don't you? That doesn't mean I have some "special responsibility" to do so any more than the responsibility to assure my own reputation. If you don't care, stay quiet.
[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]
Wed, 2007-02-28 16:49
#36
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]It'll be interesting to see what kind of response that figure will elicit. I would never have guessed that the figure would be THAT low.[/b]
Out of curiosity Michelle: Why?
Wed, 2007-02-28 17:04
#37
Frustrated Mess
I think because of this:
quote:
yet, listening to the "leaders" of the community you'd think the figure was more like 99.9%.
The echo chamber is quite large.
Wed, 2007-02-28 17:43
#38
Ok, I guess I have to say that we should also listen to Jews posting on babble and what our assessment is of whether our co-Jews are rabid pro-Israeli policy types. We'll just have to try to generate louder echos.
Wed, 2007-02-28 17:55
#39
Cueball
Myself, I would rather dispose entirely of the idea that the issue of Israel is in anyway really anything to do with Jewish people as a collective.
Wed, 2007-02-28 17:58
#40
quote:
Originally posted by Agent 204:
[b]Not to mention, when a movement that claims to act on behalf of all Jews commits atrocities that fill decent, progressive people with a sudden urge to rush out and buy the DVD box set of Mel Gibson's movies...[/b]
Huh? I don't get this. Why would "decent, progressive people" want to buy movies made by an anti-semite because of what the Israeli government is doing to Palestinians? That's a really weird thing to say.
Wed, 2007-02-28 18:02
#41
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Out of curiosity Michelle: Why?[/b]
I don't know. Good question, one that makes me examine my assumptions. I guess it was an assumption on my part that it would be higher because we hear so often from the more "establishment" leaders of Jewish organizations that most Jews are Zionists at least to some degree. I knew the claims were exaggerated, but I didn't realize how much, I guess.
I would be interested in seeing the exact polling question and answers that were chosen.
Wed, 2007-02-28 18:09
#42
From the Economist, "Second thoughts about the Promised Land", Jan 11th 2007
quote:
But as early as 1950 Jacob Blaustein, the head of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), told David Ben-Gurion, Israel's prime minister, that “American Jews vigorously repudiate any suggestion or implication that they are in exile.” In November Ze'ev Bielski, the head of the Jewish Agency, the Israeli body responsible for promoting aliyah, got in hot water for saying that one day American Jews “will realise they have no future as Jews in the US due to assimilation and intermarriage”. America has provided a mere 120,000 Israelis since 1948, and still has as many Jews as Israel. A survey two years ago by Steven M. Cohen, a sociologist at New York's Hebrew Union College, found that just 17% of American Jews called themselves Zionists.Nonetheless, Jewish Americans have long been Israel's strongest supporters. Many of the most zealous West Bank settlers come from America. The main Jewish lobby groups have tended to back right-wing Israeli governments and avoid criticising their policies. The fact that Israel is America's strongest ally emboldens this gung-ho stance. So does the ultra-Zionist stance of some American Christians.
But Jews too young to have watched Israel rout three Arab armies in six days in 1967 are less likely to see it as heroic, morally superior, in need of help, or even relevant. “Israel in the Age of Eminem”, a report written in 2003 for the Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies, a Jewish charity, concluded that “There is a distance and detachment between young American Jews and their Israeli cousins that does not exist among young American Arabs and has not existed in the American Jewish community until now.” In Mr Cohen's survey, only 57% of American Jews said that “caring about Israel is a very important part of my being Jewish”, down from 73% in a similar survey in 1989.
As for the response. These are letters the Economist published a few weeks later:
quote:
On Israel and the Jewish diasporaFeb 8th 2007
From The Economist print edition
On the diasporaSIR – Your leader on the Jewish diaspora criticised mainstream American Jewish organisations on a number of grounds for continuing to support Israel (“Diaspora blues”, January 13th). You based these criticisms on the premise that Israel's existence is now taken for granted by most of the world and that some diaspora Jews don't support Israel because “the threat of genocide or of Israel's destruction has receded”. How I wish your premise were true.
While Israel has developed enormously on the economic and technological fronts, and while some Arab states now acknowledge Israel's reality, in fact the threats to Israel are as grave as have existed for decades. Iran, which aspires to be the world's next nuclear state, has explicitly and repeatedly threatened the existence of the state of Israel and denied the existence of the Holocaust. Almost all of Israel's Arab neighbours still refuse to recognise Israel's legitimacy and Hamas, Hizbullah and other extremist groups make sure that rocket attacks and suicide-bombings are daily threats to Israeli civilians. How all of this translates into the reduced vulnerability for Israel that you suggest is hard to comprehend.
Glen Lewy
National chair
Anti-Defamation League
New York
SIR – I found your article on Israel and the Jewish diaspora well written and researched (“Second thoughts about the Promised Land”, January 13th). However, it suffered from a strong Anglo-Saxon bias and a short historical perspective. There have always been differences in opinion between the broader Jewish population and Jewish organisations and this is because most of these groups are not elected (they are better defined as “interest groups”). Moreover, Jewish opinion in Europe was divided between Zionism and other streams of Jewish identity during the whole of the 20th century. I do not see any significant change in these trends. What is changing is the greater visibility of some old differences.
Tomas Jelinek
Ex-president of the Prague Jewish Community
Prague
SIR – In order for there to be a peaceful settlement in the Middle East, the Jewish neoconservative groups lobbying for “not Israel but its right-wing political establishment” must moderate their views. Bloodshed will remain the norm and nothing will be accomplished until there is constructive diplomatic dialogue between America, Iran and Syria and between Israel and the Palestinians.
Gregory Salomon
Houston
SIR – Criticism of the Jews' “knee-jerk defensiveness of Israel” ignores the very real need that Jews feel to defend Israel's honour from the persistent double-standard to which it is held. In 2000 Israel offered the Palestinians a state on virtually all of the land in dispute, only to see the Palestinians respond by strapping bombs to their own children and sending them into Israel to massacre civilians. Yet today it is Israel, rather than its warmongering neighbours, that is treated as an obstacle to peace. Even Vladimir Putin, who has pursued a scorched-earth policy in Chechnya, has the audacity to accuse Israel of acting “disproportionately” when Israel responds with relative restraint to Hizbullah's missile barrages. Instead of criticising diaspora Jews for standing up for Israel, you should fault the rest of the world for lacking the courage to do so.
Stephen Silver
Walnut Creek, California
SIR – If anyone thinks Jews do not feel the Palestinians' pain and speak up about it among ourselves, I assure you that we do. But someone on the Palestinians' side needs to stand up for peace. The day that one of their leaders comes to Israel to say “We want peace”—as Anwar Sadat did—there will be a reasonable and contiguous Palestinian state. No Israeli government could stand in its way. Until then the attacks on Israel will continue and Israel's defenders will continue to do what they must to protect its security. I suppose you may consider it unfair, but I'm tempted to say that your underlying message was, “Why don't you people know your place and stop being so disruptive (and effective) in world political circles.”
Judd Kessler
Washington, DC
SIR – I take issue with your assertion that Poland is a “cradle of anti-Semitism”. This stereotype echoes the oft-repeated fiction about “Polish” concentration camps (actually, Nazi camps located in Poland). Prior to 1939 Poland was home to the biggest Jewish diaspora in Europe and I wonder how you square your view with the fact that so many Poles risked their lives to rescue Jews during the Holocaust. Indeed, the Polish constitute the largest group of the Righteous Among the Nations, the honorary title granted to all non-Jews who saved Jewish lives by Yad Vashem, the organisation charged with commemorating the Holocaust.
No one can deny the existence of Polish anti-Semites, or of shameful acts of anti-Semitism in Polish history. But you did not substantiate why modern-day Poland is a cradle of anti-Semitism. This is unjust. The real cradle of anti-Semitism is the intolerance and prejudice that rear their ugly heads irrespective of national borders.
Piotr Zientara
Gdynia, Poland
SIR – You characterised the relationship between pro-Israel lobbies and evangelical Christians as an “unholy alliance”. Although there are certainly those who warrant that description, it is unfair to portray all Christians who fervently support Israel as diabolic. Many Christians give their support because they believe a Jewish homeland has the right to exist, not because of some warped interpretation of Judgment Day.
James Tanner
Greenwich, Connecticut
SIR – Though the grandchild of Holocaust survivors, I was glad to see Charlemagne criticising laws in Europe that criminalise Holocaust denial (January 27th). But he didn't go far enough. Instead of debating freedom of speech, Europeans should be focusing on their freedom to analyse history. Holocaust denial posits an alternate—albeit entirely inaccurate—reading of the past. Does the European Union really want to start laying down what is “official” history, declaring certain accounts kosher and others illegal?
Jon Grinspan
New York
SIR – With the reams of detailed first-hand and scholarly accounts available, there can be no reason why a sane, rational person would deny the Holocaust, other than an abiding hatred of the Jewish people. So the question is: should such hate speech fall under the legal protection of free speech? There will always be those who hate Jews (and other people as well). I don't see why their right to spread hatred should be protected.
Steve Herskovits
New York
SIR – American Jews, or any other Jew for that matter, will never lose their support for Israel; it is the Jewish people's answer to anti-Semitism in the world and celebrates our resolve never to be destroyed.
David Mandel
High-school student
Glencoe, Illinois
Wed, 2007-02-28 18:11
#43
Cueball
Link?
Wed, 2007-02-28 18:12
#44
The full Economist article can be found [url=http://www.nif.org/content.cfm?id=2853&currbody=1]here[/url]
The letters are [url=http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RGGPNVP]he...
[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]
Wed, 2007-02-28 18:28
#45
Frustrated Mess
quote:
Myself, I would rather dispose entirely of the idea that the issue of Israel is in anyway really anything to do with Jewish people as a collective.
Me too.
Wed, 2007-02-28 19:22
#46
Another part of the survey by the same researcher:
"In Mr Cohen's survey, only 57% of American Jews said that “caring about Israel is a very important part of my being Jewish”, down from 73% in a similar survey in 1989"
[ 28 February 2007: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]
Wed, 2007-02-28 19:24
#47
Cueball
Even I care about Israel Joel.
Wed, 2007-02-28 19:25
#48
quote:
Originally posted by Joel_Goldenberg:
[b]Another part of the survey by the same researcher:In Mr Cohen's survey, only 57% of American Jews said that “caring about Israel is a very important part of my being Jewish”, down from 73% in a similar survey in 1989.[/b]
Well Joel, I would have answered "yes" to that ambiguous question also. I believe Israel's policies, especially since 1967, are one of the major threats to the security, the credibility, and the self-respect of the Jewish people. I care about Israel and want it to shed its ethno-religious chauvinism, its aggressive tendencies, its craven obeisance to U.S. dictate, and start become a good government and a good neighbour. I care about the people of Israel, including my relatives and friends, and the daily danger to which the murderous racist policies of the settler-gangsters and their political allies expose them. Caring about Israel is an integral part of my Yiddishkeit.
Wed, 2007-02-28 20:45
#49
Well Im a Zionist. I travel in many different circles mostly progressive. Most Jews I know are Zionist though many are critical of Israeli policy towards Palestinians.
Secondly, Kunin mentions Farber's evocation that he wishes to educate people about the links between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Ya so why is this a problem? There are links at times.
Methinks the man he does protest too much..looking for things that are not there. Hell I have heard many Jewish leaders (mostly the more progressive types but still mainstream) argue that critisizing Israeli policy is not only fair but expected as long as it doesnt cross into anti-Semitism. Makes sense to me. So why the long face Jason?
Wed, 2007-02-28 20:49
#50
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
[b]Well Im a Zionist. I travel in many different circles mostly progressive. [/b]
What kind of Zionist doesn't do Aliyah? When I was young and belonged to Zionist youth groups, there was no doubt in my mind that Aliyah was the objective. Otherwise you have someone else doing the building and fighting for you. That's really crass. It was 1967 that opened my eyes.
You travel in circles? It shows.
Wed, 2007-02-28 21:03
#51
[url=http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/020207LERNER.shtml]Rabbi Michael Lerner[/url]:
quote:
The New York Times reported on January 31 about the most recent attempt by the American Jewish community to conflate intense criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. In a neat little example of slippery slope, the report on "Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism," written by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, moves from exposing the actual anti-Semitism of those who deny Israel's right to exist—and hence deny to the Jewish people the same right to national self-determination that they grant to every other people on the planet—to those who powerfully and consistently attack Israel's policies toward Palestinians, see Israel as racist the way that it treats Israeli-Arabs (or even Sephardic Jews), or who analogize Israel's policies to those of apartheid as instituted by South Africa.
quote:
Yet there is nothing "new" about this or about this alleged anti-Semitism that these mainstream Jewish voices seek to reveal. From the moment I started Tikkun Magazine twenty years ago as "the liberal alternative to Commentary and the voices of Jewish conservatism and spiritual deadness in the organized Jewish community," our magazine has been attacked in much of the organized Jewish community as "self-hating Jews" (though our editorial advisory board contains some of the most creative Jewish theologians, rabbis, Israeli peace activist and committed fighters for social justice). The reason? We believe that Israeli policy toward Palestinians, manifested most dramatically in the Occupation of the West Bank for what will soon be forty years and in the refusal of Israel to take any moral responsibility for its part in the creation of the Arab refugee problem, is immoral, irrational, self-destructive, a violation of the highest values of the Jewish people, and a serious impediment to world peace.
quote:
But the most destructive impact of this new Jewish Political Correctness is on American foreign policy debates. We at Tikkun have been involved in trying to create a liberal alternative to AIPAC and the other Israel-can-do-no-wrong voices in American politics. When we talk to Congressional representatives who are liberal or even extremely progressive on every other issue, they tell us privately that they are afraid to speak out about the way Israeli policies are destructive to the best interests of the United States or the best interests of world peace—lest they too be labeled anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. If it can happen to Jimmy Carter, some of them told me recently, a man with impeccable moral credentials, then no one is really politically safe.When this bubble of repression of dialogue explodes into open resentment at the way Jewish Political correctness has been imposed, it may really yield a "new" anti-Semitism. To prevent that, the voices of dissent on Israeli policy must be given the same national exposure in the media and American politics that the voices of the Jewish establishment have been given.