Collective Self-Deception: The Most Common Mistakes of Israelis

[QuietStorm]

The most common mistakes made by Israelis are as follows:

1. To fail to realize that there is no essential difference between Tel Aviv and a Jewish settlement in the West Bank.

2. To believe that the creation of the state of Israel was an outcome of the Holocaust.

3. To regard themselves as innocent people and thus as victims of the Israeli­Palestinian conflict.

4. To believe that they live in a democracy and therefore that their atrocities are legitimate.

THERE ARE TEN BY THE WAY...

additional snip from the article.

Throughout the relatively short history of Jewish nationalism many Jews have managed to find flaws within Zionist philosophy. Many have detached themselves from Zionism. Since the declaration of the Israeli state, numerous Israelis have left Israel and more than a few Jews around the world have joined forces with the Palestinian liberation movement. Israelis, on the other hand, are those who still fail to realize that the ten beliefs above are grave, indeed fatal, mistakes.

One could probably ask whether these essential mistakes are made by Zionists in particular rather than all Israelis. In response I would argue that Israeli people are Zionists even though they may only have a very little knowledge of what Zionism is. Most Israelis were born into a colonial and racist reality. They are educated to maintain Zionism rather than to question it. This blind acceptance of one of the most radically chauvinist worldviews turns the Israelis into an impossible candidate for any form of peaceful negotiation.

The mistakes in detail....

http://www.counterpunch.com/atzmon08282003.html

[mmm]

1. Atzmon sure doesn't pull any punches

His last statement says volumes:
"Facing a moment of truth, many Israelis will be happy to leave Zionism behind and rejoin the human family."

[psyche777]

2. Reading the History

Thank you very interesting article. It is very nice to find a place to discuss this having had many failed attempts on other message boards thruout the years. I agree Isralies are taught to not question, and many that do not support this leave. The stories of those that stay and refuse, like the IDF that have refused to serve are not usually covered in the US media. Most people dont go into the history of the region and assume it is all based on Palestine because here we are basically taught the same thing. Israel good -- Palestine bad. You have to actively seek out the information if you want to try and understand, very few typical americans do this. I had felt for years that there was more to the story after meeting a family that moved here from Palestine. The more I read the more I learned.

[quilp]

3. It seems the tail is wagging the dog in a lot of "democracies".

From the expressed sentiments of many of Jewish posters to the board, few of them seem to support "Sharon" type Zionism. But the fence continues to go up. Few people in the UK supported invading Iraq, but their government went ahead. How many in the USA really support Bush. We only know what we are told.

One of the things I have been taught over the last two years is the overwhelming power of propaganda. How appealing belligerency is, provided of course you have big guns, and victory is both cheap and at someone elses expense.

Most anti-Sharon Jews sincerely believe that he will be tossed from power the moment the Israelis goals are met. The present government is an abberation, which is really the fault of the Arab Palestinians whose stubborness impose these brutal tactics on the Israelis.

Since many of this opinion are, in fact, very decent people, and see themselves as "moderate" it is hard to see how this mind set will change. Or, indeed, what these people could do to change the policies of Sharon, even if they wanted to.

[Cassandra]

5. One difference...

is that it is much easier to have a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system. It doesn't automatically take the party in power out of power, so those on the Labor side in Britain and the Likud side in Israel can more easily be persuaded to cut the scandal-ridden leaders loose. (More easily than here, anyway) A freer press also helps. Sharon has been awful for Israel and I think Arafat loves him for keeping him in the spotlight. As long as Arafat is besieged, he never has to account for his decades of lousy leadership. As long as Sharon can keep building settlements and finding fanatics to occupy them, he never has to account for his lousy leadership (although I think the Israelis will hold Sharon accountable before the Palstinians do the same to Arafat).
I have to admit, that is one UGLY wall.

[newyorican]

71. another difference...

is with the defacto annexation of the WB (re: your statement, "one ugly wall") nearly 1/2 of the population inside Israel cannot vote. Of course if they could vote, they just might vote Hamas members into the Knesset. Now that would be prime-time, reality TV.

That* renders the ease of change in a parlimentary system moot. The very concept of a democracy under these conditions would be a defacto end to the jewish state. Kiss democracy good-bye, hello to the Israeli brand of Aparthied.

Those darned Palestinians, they didn't have to win to destroy the Israeli experiment, they only had to resist to deny the Israelis a democratic state. The question now is, how long is an undemocratic Israel viable?

* That = my stipulation that Israel now includes the WB.

[Gimel]

156. Tel Aviv is the same as the WB

Apparently you are responding to that statement in the article. It plays right into the hands of Israelis who view the settlements as a necessary line of defense. In other words,, if the settlers weren't there holding the line in Hebron, they Palestinians would be shooting at Jews daily in Tel Aviv (like they do at the settlers).

If Israel now includes the WB (Newyorican's definition)then in fact the wall is meaningless. Israeli forces entering the towns of Kalkilia and Jenin or Bethlehm, does not make those places Israeli any more than Baghdad is the USA.

[quilp]

138. Cassandra: I may have this quite wrong

Aren't the "fanatics" occupying the "settlements" Zionists? If they are not I have been giving them a thoroughly bad rap. And I feel as much misled as those who think 911 was an Iraqi sponsered.

[GabysPoppy]

141. Calling the Settlers "Zionists"

Is like calling the NY Yankees national leaguers because they play baseball.

Every Israeli I know condemns these settlements and I wish they would just disappear.

edit: spelling

[newyorican]

144. that sophistry doesn't hold water

If you are a Zionist you take the good with the bad. That includes the "settlers".

A simple desire not to be associated with "settlers" is not sufficient. Just because they may be fanatical doesn't change the fact that they are Israeli citizens.

[quilp]

147. Newyorican. This how I seem to get caught every time.

I am accused of making "sweeping statements" about "Zionists" because I am unable to distinguish between them. I've even had my posts removed. I hear from one who tells me he is a "Zionist", but also "agnostic". I hear from another who says he is a "Zionist" but not a "fanatic". Another "Zionist" says he is against the "Settlers". Another says all "Settlers" are not "Zionists". Another "Zionist" avers the "Zionist" claim to the "Promised Land" is not "religious", but "historical". Many "Zionists" claim they don't support Sharon or the Likud. But aren't these two the political arm of the "Zionists"? And every one of them accusing me of not "understanding the issue", and somehow "insulting" them.

I'm sure each of these guys are perfectly sincere in their indignant response to my posts. But it's like I'm being asked to distinguish between Bush, the conservatives, and the Republicans. You seem more experienced than me. How do you get round this?

















?

[Darranar]

148. Since I seem to be...

two or three of the Zionists you mentioned, I will have to explain.

First of all, you could be defined as a Zionist by the least restrictive definition, since you believe that the Jews need a state.

Likudniks and Zionists are different. The definition of Zionist varies depending on who you're talking to, since the term has come to have bad connotations among leftists. For the purposes of this post, I'll use the most common definition: a Zionist is one who believes in a Jewish state in Palestine, the Holy Land, whatever you want to call it. The Likudniks are among the most extremist Zionists, the same way as the members of Al Qaeda are among the most extremist Muslims. You can't use those groups as representatives of the whole, because they DON'T represent the whole. What muddles the matter is that some people say "Zionist" and mean "extremist Zionist." Some people take that to mean that all Zionists are extremist Zionists, which isn't true.

The other matter that muddles the term Zionist is the fact that many extreme leftists and Palestinian terrorist groups (and those who just don't know) use the term "Zionists" and "Israelis" interchangeably. Others, mostly anti-semites, use the term "Zionist" as interchangeable with "Jew" ("Zionist Bankers are taking over the world!") Needless to say, this further confuses an already confusing issue.

Another important matter to consider is that there are secular Zionists (like myself) and religious Zionists (like most of the settlers.) I make the claim for a Jewish state in Palestine on a historical basis, while many religous Zionists make it on a religious basis. (For your information, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodore Hertzel, was a secular Zionist.)

All in all, quilp, to avoid offending anyone I would advise you to use the terms Likudnik or Israeli extremist or something along those lines. I have discussed these issues with you long enough to know who you mean by Zionist, but others may not and may alert your posts.

[quilp]

149. Darranar Okay. Thanks for your post. See if I've "got it".

It's a revelation to me that I could be called a "Zionist". But in the sense I fully believe Jews, along with every other people, must have a state I am indeed a "Zionist". But I also thought that "Zionists" were adamant the land must be in a particular geographic area and in no other. Which is where I would part company.

In my mind the "Zionists" were the Jewish equivalent of "AL Qaeda". If you see what I mean. Just as extreme. Which is why I've never really been able to understand how you can hold the views you do about Palestinians and call yourself a "Zionist". On the media the "Zionists" are always portrayed as these fanatical and uncompromising "settlers" usually toting guns and very racist. They don't call them "Likudniks"

Frankly I'd have thought calling some one a "Likudnik" would be way out of bounds. So let me understand this. If I used "Likudnik" to what in the past I have refered to as "Zionist", that would be acceptable? That is to say people who act as if they believe they have a God given right to the whole of Palestine, and therefore are entitled to use pretty much any means to get and keep it? And everyone would understand that this is the particular "mind set" I am refering to?

[The Magistrate]

150. That Would Be Within Bounds, Sir

The Likud Party is a linear descendant of the Irgun murder gangs, which established themselves as a splinter within the Zionist movement, broadly speaking, during the late thirties and early forties of the last century. These were an extreme expression of one wing of the Zionist movement, generally dubbed the "Revisionists", which split off from the mainstream Zionist movement, at the time led in Israel by Mr. Ben-Gurion, early in the twenties. These were led by Mr. Jabotinsky, a long rival of Mr. Ben-Gurion, and differed not only in their more militant attitude, but by amounting to a petit bourgeois party, while the mainstream Zionists were Socialists. Likud continues this rightist emphasis in its domestic policies today. Likud gained its political prominence as much by appeal to Sephardic Jews (generally used nowadays to refer to Jews from Arab countries, though its technical meaning is other than this) as to its militant policies, for these people felt themselves discriminated against by Ashkenazi Jews (those descended from European Jews), who dominated the ranks of the Labor party.

Likud is, however, a secular party, and neither its militancy nor its expansionism derive much from religious fervor. There are several smaller religious parties of an ultra-nationalist nature, and it is from these the bulk of the militant settlers derive. Such parties have tended to align with Likud despite its secular nature, and it is this combination which today dominates Israeli politics. It is worth noting the great bulk of settlers are not themselves religious ultra-nationalists, but persons enticed by a variety of governmental subsidies that enable them to aspire to higher standard of living than otherwise they could afford, by the expedient of residence outside the borders of Israel. These subsidies make a particular appeal to immigrants, and younger couples.

[quilp]

160. You seem to be saying the Likud

use both "genuine" religion, and the "fanatical" kind to further a "nationalistic" end. But if the "settlers" are being "enticed", who is supplying all the money? It can't be only the Likud, can it?

[Cassandra]

4. Piles of garbage

"As a matter of fact Israel is the only remaining example of a nationalistic state based on racial purity. The Jewish state isn't a legitimate concept anymore."

REALLY?!? What happened to China, Japan, most of the Arab states? And it isn't racial purity we are talking about but religion, which can mirror race, but doesn't have to.
This idiot doesn't even understand the concept of the "chosen people"

" How does it happen that Jews who are so enthusiastic about Swiss banking injustices are found to be completely deaf and blind to their own continuous robbery of Palestinian land, assets and dignity? I have two possible answers to suggest:

a. Israelis and Zionists aren't genuinely concerned about the injustices done against their people in the past; they are simply motivated by greed, by political enthusiasm or both.

b. Israelis and Zionists are very unusual creatures that do not follow any recognized human pattern of empathy, therefore we shouldn't expect them to feel any sensation of compassion or guilt regarding their own crimes against gentiles in general and Palestinian people in particular."

How about the possibility that Jews are involved in fighting for their own as no one else will. And just because some of the Palestinians were living there, doesn't mean they all owned the land. Most of it was absentee ownership, Arab and Ottoman/Turkish.

"In retrospect, it would be hard to point out any major cultural Hebraic rebirth except of some barbarian habits that naturally developed during many decades of sadistic oppression. A consideration of the wide and impressive contribution made by Jewish people to world culture will reveal that very little has ever come from the Jewish state. This is not particularly surprising. As we know, very little cultural contribution came out of the Jewish ghetto. When we think of great Jewish thinkers and artists we find that all of them are emancipated Jews who preferred assimilation to Zionism or Orthodoxy."

If this pea-brain can manage to remember, the "wide and impressive contribution made by the Jewish people to world culture" was answered with extermination. Assimilation didn't work as well as this self-deluding jazz musician would like to think.

" Since the declaration of the Israeli state, numerous Israelis have left Israel and more than a few Jews around the world have joined forces with the Palestinian liberation movement."
I guess he's one of those.

This entire article is full of bitterness and excuses for his not fitting into Israeli society, perhaps. As though anyone who doesn't accept him fully must be unutterably vile; no other explanation will do. Regardless that he appears to be Jewish, I'd still call him anti-Semitic; not because he criticizes Israel but because he does so in such terms of disgust and revulsion, as though no other people have ever done anything so offensive in the history of the world. He clearly sees all evil, in deed and motivation, on Israel's side and all sweetness and light on the Palestinian side. You don't think he's anti-Semitic? How about this; (It would appear that in the new Jewmerica dominated world, you are entitled to regard yourself as a humanist as long as you have enough nuclear weapons at your disposal to support your self-image.) Gee, so he doesn't think Jews who believe in a Jewish homeland are part of the human family. ("It won't take too long. Facing a moment of truth, many Israelis will be happy to leave Zionism behind and rejoin the human family." ) He would make Goebbels proud. If you think this is history, you may want to wonder how much of "history" on the other side is just so much wishful thinking.
Would that he would put that much passion into a defense of Tibet.

[Darranar]

7. Agreed completely...

this article is trash.

[The Magistrate]

8. Indeed, Sir

These paragraphs, repeated below, are nothing but racist swill: the reptile should write for Storm Front.

a. Israelis and Zionists aren't genuinely concerned about the injustices done against their people in the past; they are simply motivated by greed, by political enthusiasm or both.
b. Israelis and Zionists are very unusual creatures that do not follow any recognized human pattern of empathy, therefore we shouldn't expect them to feel any sensation of compassion or guilt regarding their own crimes against gentiles in general and Palestinian people in particular."

[bemildred]

9. You feel that perhaps he over generalizes a bit?

Ah well, at least they don't have a distinctive odor (so far).

Nor are they sub-human or animals; but the suggestion is clearly
there that one would not be too far off in that ... The little
bit about lack of empathy is telling.

Drool.

[QuietStorm]

12. the observations of Jeff Halper come to mind there

Halper has also shed light on this same kind of victomology that this author addresses in regard to lack of empathy. I am not sure this IS an over generalization, but instead a HIGHLY critical dissection of what he feels are the most negative attributes of zionism and it's doctrine and how it supports the kind of superiority which can only segregate rather than intergrate.

It is mosty anti-zionist the opinions of this author.

[The Magistrate]

14. Best To Leave It Lay, Sir, Really

Over-generalization is the kindest epithet that might be applied, but of course it should be obvious to all here long since that my friend Mr. Mildred is a far nicer fellow than me....

[bemildred]

17. You are too kind.

Here I thought I was a fearsome predator,
prowling these boards ....
:-)

[QuietStorm]

19. well I agree with

letting it lay, Sir. You will get no argument from me there.

[QuietStorm]

40. YES: Best To Leave It Lay, Sir, Really

I SHOULD HAVE TAKEN YOUR ADVICE EARLIER, but no...

as if I wrote the piece... IT WAS GOOD ADVICE you gave Mr. Magistrate and with that ... I exit the thread. This is my last post within it.

[bemildred]

15. I believe I posted a piece by this fellow quite a while back.

Some of his points are interesting, but he does IMHO go over
the top, perhaps seeking rhetorical effect, and I believe that
he serves his cause ill in doing so. It is always easier to
see victimology in the other fellow. I suppose you will know
by now that I am not a defender of zionism, I just do not think
that purple rhetoric about "Israelis" or "zionists" is the best
remedy, any more than ranting about "Palestinian terrorists".

[QuietStorm]

18. oh so it's the middle of the road eh

yes that has done the anti-war movement much good, and I wonder where the civil rights movement would have been without the militant or purple rhetoric of malcolm X. My point is sometimes it has it's place, but I am a new yorker by birth and not shy of thoughts that are as confrontational as this piece. As Mr. Magistrate has advised though, I too believe it best to let it be.

[bemildred]

22. There is some merit in that,

but I cannot accept rhetoric that dehumanizes anyone,
it is one of the places where I part ways with Mr. X.
It never hurts to be civil, the redress for prejudice is not
more prejudice, tempting though it may be at times.

[QuietStorm]

25. I tend to take malcolm X

entotal. Although I was never really at odds with his rhetoric, I do know his transformation upon his return from his visit to mecca, came at a time when it looked like he might couple with Martin Luther King.

I do understand your points. While he was killed by his own compatriots within the Black Muslims, the assassination did go down with CIA knowledge. At that time Malcolm would have proven even more threatening as a non-violent activist, then he ever was as a militant. Much truth is sometimes evident out the mouth of the militants, even when spoken in anger or bitterness, and even if directed to ones own race or religion.

I do not feel this author is dehumanizing anyone, but zionism, as he feels it has faltered overtime, and also in regard to the reaction it stirs against itself. There is a self deception evident in Israel, just as there is here within the flag wavers who quote Ann Coulter. Yes, it does seem as if he is speaking about ALL israeli's including what he sees as the failing of the left, but if anyone can speak about the Israeli's I feel it best to be another Israeli, and I did not translate that to ALL israeli's. I tend to not lump people together by nature. I just feel that while a bit militant in nature, he does touch upon some truths. AND MIGHT I ADD. That is an opinion of ONE.

Take my aggrevations with Uri Avnery, well after the fact he eloquently dissects Mofaz's Plan. That he could have done almost a year ago, but instead for whatever reason HE chose not too. That could be considered a bit limp from one that is the director of gush shalom and an advocate of peace, as well as a leftist.

This piece might well have intended to shake the left a bit, although I say that off the top, I am not aware of having read this author before, but that his criticisms brought Jeff Halper to my mind.

That said, I really do not need to persist and I certainly don't want to get in a row about it.

[bemildred]

31. Mr. Farrakhan is probably a better example.

I do have a good deal of respect for Mr. X.

But as I said, in all these cases it is always easier to see
some other guys faults, and being a victim is immensely popular
these days.

[QuietStorm]

35. Farrakan is NO malcolm X

While an eloquent speaker in his own right. Farrakan lost me when he began to express his sentiments about the Jews. I stopped listening to what Farrakan had to say. He lost my favor.

Malcolm spoke not upon the Jews, but upon the elements of Slavery and for the civil rights of his race and Jim Crow. He spoke the truth of his people to his people. He spoke against the elements of White Oppression. He spoke truth to power. He spoke in militant terms to a people who's history was denied them in the history books of that time. He educated them on their history and their worth to be equal in the eyes of American Law in a country to which they had made their fair share of contribution to it's economy, to it's culture.

Farakkan went off path as far as I can see to the point of anti-Semitic hatemongering at a time after civil rights had been won. Farakkan is an opportunist. Malcolm X's motivations were more so genuine as proven by his change of heart and transformation upon visiting mecca where he saw and prayed amongst muslims of different colors and culture.

This author I might consider more in line with Malcolm as he is speak to his own people, but for the fact that he is not speaking to the obviously oppressed (which would be the Palestinians). He addresses instead a kind of ideological oppression he sees Israeli's may suffer from or be deceived by. this author speaks against what he sees as an indoctrination that he feels is anti-peace.

I don't understand what you mean by "some other guys fault". The author is ISRAELI. What am I missing?

[bemildred]

76. "faults", plural

I don't think I want to try to untangle this here.

I think he would serve his purpose better by being more
careful with language and by not treating Israelis as though
they were all alike. Polemics are sometimes fun, but do not
usually help increase mutual tolerance and understanding.
One can posit against this the need to confront evil, but it
is often hard to get a consensus going as to what is evil,
and the perfect is the enemy of the good, as they say.

I am American and I live in the USA and I would be bothered
if someone started talking about what a bunch of assholes all
Americans are, although I am big enough to see the point.
Someone else here once made the point that Violet_Crumble was
a hypocrite because she lives in Australia and favors Palestinian
(indigenous peoples) rights. It is irony, not hypocrisy; she
favors rights for the Australian aborigines too. It does not
follow that all living Australians must liquidate themselves if
they feel the Abos deserve more respect. The same is true of
many/most Israelis too, they are there stuck in the middle of it
in their way as much as the Palestinians are, and there is more
to be said for those who want peace on both sides to make common
cause with each other, rather than to accept blindly an Israelis
against the Palestinians description of the issues. My issue with
him is that he uses language that presents the issues in that way,
and I think that a mistake.

You are right about Malcolm and Farrakhan.

[Darranar]

78. As the Magistrate pointed out...

you are being kind to him. Regardless, I agree with your general sentiment, and it is of course possible that I am biased due to personal experience.

[bemildred]

80. If one takes the point of view that polemics do not

serve ones purpose, one must apply it consistently.

[bemildred]

82. We are all biased I think,

but it is not an epithet that comes to mind when I
think of you ...

[Darranar]

88. Well, throughout my life...

I have met and known many israelis, and NONE-that's right, zero-have struck me as racist, stupid, ignorant, or uncompasionate. I have relatives in Israel, citizens of that country. Blanket statements that state that they are all greedy, uncompassionate people make bme very offended and a bit oversensitive.

Thanks anyway, bemildred.

[bemildred]

121. I have known a number of Israelis and Arabs,

Palestinian and otherwise, and they all seemed excellent
people to me. Some of both have been my friends. I have also
known many American Jews, they were sort of a mixed bag ... :-)

[QuietStorm]

93. well I hate to tell you this

but I HAVE said in frustration American's are assholes, but I give myself the license because I know what I mean. Yes perhaps he should have been more careful, but I gave him license because he is Israeli. Surely, great care is warranted, however this is a very bloody and dirty little conflict here, as is our little US liberation effort, and sometimes situations of this nature DO CALL FOR PURPLE RHETORIC.

I feel he is allowed, he served his state and he left it for good. I am not applauding this, but that he has something he wants to say, he should be allowed to say it. I am as steamed with my own country, and quite frankly if it would be easy for me, i would leave it too. I do not like what I see, but it isn't easy for me to pack up and go out of country. Yes, I have been guilty of speaking very illy of American government and America and the ignorance of American people so spoiled by the comforts they take so greedily for granted. Comforts afforded them by our dirty pool and our racist foreign policies.

And yes I say they. how uppity of me, like I am not part of that they. How do you like that, in anger that is what I say. I remove myself from the greedy ignorant lot of them because I myself make do with simplicity. without that status and possession that so many will kill over. Of course I know I too am a part of that apathy, but I risk speaking out and bare the ridicule for it every time. My criticisms do not make me anti- american, but just vastly disappointed because I was raised under the ideological doctrine that reveals to me what a sham we are right now and clearly have been for quite some time especially in our foreign policy.

This is the way I have framed this mans thoughts. Apparently, I am in the minority here, with regard to my thoughts on his thoughts and where he might be coming from. Fine. I am in the minority. I generally seem to be lately always in the minority, no matter where I turn and on what topic I voice. I have never in my life, have I ever felt as stifled as I have felt these last two years as an American (not here, I am not speaking about here on forum), but in my work a day life. I FEEL GAGGED THESE DAYS. My thoughts Completely stifled. Me, who takes care to read and inform myself. I AM AN AMERICAN IN THE MINORITY, and sometimes out of utter frustration I do not always choose my words carefully either. America is involved in some might sloppy politics and foreign policy, sometimes that does call for SLOPPY WORDS. Words written for shock value.

I agree with you one's presentation is important especially if someone is trying to motivate change. What happen here to some degree is a defense mechanism kicked in this thread which disallowed this man's opinion. What happened in this thread is exactly the kind of defense mechanism that will kick in to defend that which is indefensible. A kind of apathy all it's own. Exactly the point the author was making. I understand the defense mechanism. And you know what. It is not for me to analyze it. Fine. I got it.

[Tinoire]

109. Hey,

If you live in CA, please PM me. I'm an American in the same minority desperate to meet others. That was very well said and I really like your thoughts and style.

[QuietStorm]

11. What happened to China, Japan, most of the Arab states?

well they do not profess themselves to be democracies.

As for assimiliation I do believe last I looked secular jews as well as orthodox jews have assimilated in Europe, in the UK and in the US.

[Cassandra]

21. Japan isn't a democracy???

Wow, you could have fooled them! Or have they fooled us? Japan is also a very homogeneous society; they do have non-Japanese living there (sometimes uncomfortably) but does anyone know if they have voting privilages?
China doesn't have to call itself the homeland for Chinese, because it already is. Unfortunately, they think this includes Tibet. However, you're right about China and the Arab nations; they don't claim to be democracies. But is the criticizm of Israel about its presumed hypocrisy in its claim to be democratic, or it's presumed racism; make up your mind? There are plenty of racist nations out there as well as other democracies that fall short of the mark. Why does this guy single out Israel with arguments that could easily be aimed elsewhere.
"As for assimiliation I do believe last I looked secular jews as well as orthodox jews have assimilated in Europe, in the UK and in the US."
I think the author of the article was waxing lyrical about the accomplishments of assimilated Jews before WWII. I was just pointing out that that didn't do them much good.
I consider myself assimilated, but that doesn't make me a Christian; I'm still Jewish. Orthodox Jews are much less assimilated than you imagine; those who are not Hasidic just make less of a show about it. I wish being assimilated made me feel perfectly safe in America, but there is always that wondering in the back of my mind....

[bemildred]

13. I really must defend China here.

Whatever it is, it is not racially pure.

[The Magistrate]

16. They Rather Think They Are, Sir

Most of the various national minorities are not really distinct races, only the same people emigrating different places at different times, and welded into the central state at different periods. There is certainly as much of what might be called "provincial variation" in China as there is "national variation" in Europe, but no one nowadays would call the diference between an Italian and a German racial. On the fringes, in Tibet, and Chinese Turkistan, and Inner Mongolia, and the east of Manchuria, and in the southwest at Yunnan, there is certainly more significant variation.

[bemildred]

20. I was thinking of the fringes.

It is somewhat of an empire.
There is a certain amount of xenophobia, but that
is common in many places. Japan seems a far better
example to me.

[bemildred]

23. I believe in reading one of Mr. Jared Diamond's books

- Guns, Germs and Steel maybe? -
there was a good deal of discussion of the development
of the area in terms of ethnic and cultural infiltrations
going back quite a long time, and that gave me an
impression of lots of ethnic and cultural pockets present.
Much of this was in the SW as you say.

[bemildred]

29. Then there was reading "Soul Mountain"

a fine book, which gave a strong sense of ethnic
flavor too. As I said elsewhere, I don't really believe
in race anyway, I think what most people mean by race is
something like "ethnic or cultural differences combined with
some obvious predominant observable differences of appearance";
and there is a tendency to think that this somehow implies
a genetic difference, which it does not. We are all as alike
as peas in a pod, genetically, skin and hair variations be damned.

[rucky]

6. Am I to believe that counterpunch fans are against the Oslo Agreement?

So Israel's left wing isn't left wing enough for ya, eh? Which leaves us with a bunch of paternalistic anti-semites on one side, and ultranationalist right-wing hawks on the other. How's that for a peace plan?

If you so strongly oppose the two-state plan, then you are part of the problem - not the solution.

Israel is in a similar situation to the U.S. - the right-wing nationalist extremists are in control. But to blame the opposition as well as Sharon - lump them altogether - what does that accomplish other than generalized hatred of Israelis? The rest of the world sees the two-state solution as the most viable path to peace. So now you're against the rest of the world too?

Just keep pushing yourselves farther and farther to the fringes of the spectrum - yeah, that'll bring peace. And just suppose for a moment that this position the author takes is correct. Somebody please give me a realistic plan on how to implement it? The harshness of his criticism, plus the lack of alternatives leads me only to speculate on the many possibilities alternative to Zionism (which we can all agree is wrong), or the two-state plan per Oslo.

1) Unify and democratize Israel (or whatever you wanna call it). Palestenians living side by side under a secular government. Sounds great, but anybody see that one happening anytime soon? Would you put checkpoints on every block, or just the major intersections? Would the newly unified army and police force conduct training operations with live ammo?

2) Kick the Israelis out of the land and return it to the Palestenians - which Hamas would like to see happen. Equally nationalistic & racist as the hardline Zionists, I hope you'd agree.

You can't force your brand of egalitarianism down the throat of another culture. Isn't that a major criticism of Bushco and his occupation of Iraq? Why don't we leave the government completely to the will of the Iraqi people? Because the popular factions seem to be leaning towards theocracy in a country with two major ethnic groups - one of them in a clear majority - and not much love between them.

While ethnic separatism, theocracy as seen by the Christian Right movement is highly disruptive in America, and would be disasterous if they were in power (which they essentially are), the vast cultural divides in the Middle East (arab nations and Israel), and the constantly changing historical geography, make it make more sense over there. If you don't keep the government territories inline the various muslim sects, the nature of human rights problems which arise will be racist in nature: how a Shiite gov't would treat the Sunnis, or how an Israeli government would treat the Palestenians.

But if you divide the territories and ruling bodies by religion and sect, the debate shifts from theocratic vs. secular - a much more manageable problem to have, similar to the one we're having in the US right now (over the 10 commandments, etc).

[QuietStorm]

10. is it that this israeli is an anti-semite

is that what you mean? that he dissects zionism in so scathing a fashion. Is that what makes him anti-semitic. or is it that his opinion does not conform with criticism that is within a more poltically correct realm.

I just am curious. The author did fight with the Israeli military. And I have encountered myself an odd contradiction in the opinion of those that consider themselves leftists or anti-occupation. From what I can gather they are anti-occupation to the extent that it makes Israel look bad, but on the other hand the seem unwilling to look at the utter sham oslo was.

Oslo was much more an attempt to institutionalize the occupation, which is why some palestinian dissents were against it.

At the beginning of this article the author focuses upon the crux of the Palestinian cause. I have encountered those Israeli's that affiliate themselves with peace now and gush shalom also refuse to give voice to what I believe to be very relevant criticism of Oslo. While on one hand they speak of peace they seem to be unable to give voice to the crux of, what this author rightfully calls, the Palestinian Cause. My response to that has always been it is not enough to be anti-occupation if one does not also come to understand the Palestinian cause.

I found this article gives voice to those aspects of zionism (along with what I have learned about the hardline Nationalistic Propaganda that was implemented) that frighten me the most. The article also seemed to bring to light the exact dicotomy that I have obversed present in the arguments of some. Oslo had little to do with a peace process, and neither does this roadmap. This roadmap actually mirrors some of the same errors of the Oslo accord.

However, I cringe to hit post message, as it seems this author may be considered anti-semitic (which I do not see). He seems to delve into the topic with the same type of criticism exercised by Jeff Halper. And in fact is also in line with some of the criticism one can come across from the very early anti-zionists, those who were eastern European and orthodox as well. Anti-zionist criticism from the mid 30's, I mean.

I fear just posting this message will make me an anti-semite because I felt a kind of relief in reading this article. As I said the author gives voice to some of the same thoughts I have had regarding hardline zionism which I have never actually voiced.

I have often times felt that to find middle ground I did have to accept, what this author calls, the "Israeli self deception". A deception which I attributed to those hardline Nationalist propaganda campaigns implemented by the zionist movement within Israel, make Israel the beakon for what makes the "best Jew". That kind of propaganda campaign has succeeded inculcating a type of conditioning that would make assimilating what this author has to say near to impossible.

I also found his stress on the purity of the race issue not untrue which I have also found bothersome and has been made quite evident in the double standard and some of the more recent legislation passed regarding marriages of mixed faith.

I don't know, but I do not believe this author is an anti-semite.

[Cassandra]

24. Reading some of the article...

makes me feel the same way as I do when reading comments about the Clintons on Free Republic; the snide comments, the assumption that their motivation is always negative, that ambition and self preservation is always evil when done by certain people, that every negative story, no matter how often it has been proved untrue, is eagerly believed. This author has a bigoted point of view. He certainly hates Israelis, if not all other Jews.
BTW, the legislation regarding "mixed" marriages are matters of religious law. If you want to be married by a rabbi in Israel and can't prove Jewish descent through the mother (not the father), you have to convert in an Orthodox ceremony (which I consider a bit onerous, but that's just my opinion). It's an annoying religious law, but better, I think, than cutting off the hands of a thief or stoning adulterers.

[QuietStorm]

33. This author has a bigoted point of view. He certainly hates Israelis

the author IS israeli and one who served with the Israeli military. That he might be disappointed in what it seems he believes is an indocrination that also has the left hedging a bit (which seems to be his opinion, very much echo's my opinion in terms of the vast majority of American's and their apathy in terms of MY COUNTRY. Just because i voice scathing criticism of the WAR PROPAGANDA and the patriotic conditioning which enables rallying a fearful and terrorized nation to a war that as far as I can see was unjustified, does not make me an American hater, nor does it make me anti-American.

I can apply this same argument to the author of this article. Israel has proven itself just by its very recent legislations as solely a Jewish state who's freedoms and equalities apply most aptly only to those of Jewish faith. Even on that point the author of this article has not gone that afar off truth.

He is an Israeli who is scathing critical of the Jewish state, for the reasons he states. That you don't agree with him is one thing. To go further and say he hates Israeli's. I just don't know where that is coming from?

[Resistance]

70. It is the same blindness and denial

That makes conservatives think that criticism of America = anti-Americanism.

Ever heard the right-wing propagandists on the radio shout at you that leftists such as Noam Chomsky really "hate America"?

[rucky]

26. How do you ratify "understanding"?

The immediate goal is to keep them from slaughtering each other. Self-rule will greatly mitigate that problem. Peace, Love & Understanding is an ideal, but given the situation, I'll settle for peace. Promoting understanding among the people will come in time, but not through talks.

"Show" - not "tell" - is what brings lasting peace. The people will have to see it work before they can become sympathetic to each other. You can't mandate it into a treaty, you can only draw lines and have both parties commit to giving some time to let the plan work (and understand there will still be violence from extremists on both sides). They don't have to hug at the end.

I do agree, tho that the Palestenian state should ideally be singular and self-contained, territory-wise, and include part of Jerusalem. A compromise for Jerusalem could be similar to the way Berlin was surrounded by East Germany, but the road into the city was neutral territory. It's a tough sell to the Israelis in power now. But that's what the discussion needs to focus on: break out a map and start carving, cuz once you get into ideological debate - or even use anything resembling ideological rhetoric - it's all downhill from there.

The "road map" actually has some merits, and if it weren't for the boobs in power, there may actually be some progress. We need the right mix of leaders in there who agree to the two-state system. Abbas can do it for the Palestenians. A Labor-Meretz coalition could do it for the Israelis. Sure, ideology is in the backs of everyones minds. The point is not to try to understand each other, but to put aside those differences for the sake of peace.

add: That goes for the differences between the Nations: Then the factions within each nation can debate ideology amongst themselves about what kind of nation they want to be.

[QuietStorm]

30. but for the matter of right to return

which has never been rightful addresses was on final status for oslo and remains on final status within this road map. You do not come to the table in peace by negating the main grievance of the people you are fighting with. There are ways to negotiate right to return, besides ignoring it completely. I believe the author's point is that no one within the Israeli politik is willing to negotiate right to return at all. to the degree that the metaphoric solution has been to fence themselves in. Does the author state the point dramatically without mincing many words? Yes I would have to say he does.

[rucky]

45. I guess I can't get past...

...the writer's tone. If YOU wrote an article stating the same position, I'd eat it up.

[QuietStorm]

51. that is a fair statement

read posts 44 and 48. It might give you a better idea where he is coming from, that it will change how you look upon his sweeping indictment of Israeli's as a whole, I can not say.

For me, firstly, I never took that aspect of his points to heart anyway, I took the article as more so an indictment of radical zionism in it's most militaritic and racist form, which does seem to have reared it's ugly head as recently as the last three years. It seems to me this is what Sharon does represent, as the author pointed out. I did not take to heart that I was to believe it was ALL ISRAELI'S. I clearly is not, he is an ISRAELI with some strong feelings against his place of birth. Thus and secondly, for me him being expatriot does explain his tone.

[Darranar]

27. You DON'T see his anti-semitism?

AT THE VERY LEAST, he makes unfair overgeneralizations about Zionists and Israelis, believing that they don't behave rationally and aren't logical. As the Magistrate pointed above, he should post at Stormfront.

I say that, like David Duke, he is almost certainly an anti-semite.

[QuietStorm]

28. Sheesh

I hate to have gotten sucked into this. I feel the piece is purposely confrontational, to the degree that he might feel the need to shake up what he might feel is the apathy of the left. There is some truth in what he says however militant it might be, there is not one thing I read that I haven't come across before. I see nothing false in what he has stated, though as Bemildred says it is purple, what I call militant.

Anti-semitic. No, sorry I don't see it. Why? Firstly he did not draw me into condeming ALL ISRAELI'S. Secondly, I have encountered that self deception that he described, which I always attributed to ideological conditioning; the same is evident in American culture. Thirdly, as I already said in a post to Bemildred, the author IS AN ISRAELI and one who served in the Israeli militant. If anyone can be allowed pointed and purplish criticism of Israel, one would think another Israeli would be allowed that freedom more so than you or I, without also being called an anti-Semite.

One can say one does not agree with him. One might accuse him of blatantly lying and show me where, but anti-semitic. I don't see how he can be considered anti-semitic. Critical yes. Anti-Semitic no. I don't get it. Are all those Jews that are anti-zionism anti-semitic as well? I just don't get it.

[rucky]

32. So You Motivate People by Attacking Them?

I'm glad he wasn't my soccer coach.

Sure, you go down the platforms of the 15-or-so parties in the Knesset considered to be "left" or "center-left", and you see that the Marijuana party does not take a position on peace. You see that a few parties wish to focus on economic problems, so to make a statement to that effect, they take no official position on peace. Does that mean they're not involved in the debate, or don't vote on those issues?

If the writer wishes to persuade the rest of the country that the only way to peace would be a secular democratic government (which maybe he is supporting), there's at least two partys for that. Why doesn't he offer an endorsement to - or at least mention -- those thinly-represented partys in his article?

Because the tone of the article was not constructive, which is why, I believe, it leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth. Especially considering the constant barrage of attack journalism we're exposed to Stateside.

That's the problem I have with Counterpunch. They do the same thing as Newsmax & co., but with a different agenda. Nothing constructive can come of it.

[QuietStorm]

34. There are so few venues

available in america wherein you can get criticism of any kind in regard to Israeli policy, or the Palestinian perspective. This is the purpose Counterpunch serves. As motivation goes perhaps this particular article would fall into that category called TOUGH LOVE. I would hardly put counterpunch in the same category as newsmax.

[The Magistrate]

53. When People Set Out To Confront, Sir

They have no right to complain they are confronted vigorously; that is what they have courted, after all.

"Counter-Punch" is, as a journal, consistently innaccurate as to fact, and imflammatory in expression of both untruths and opinion, at least insofar as it treats the question of Israel v. Palestine. It is worthless on this subject to any but the hard-core propagandist seeking to stir trouble.

[QuietStorm]

58. but Magistrate (and you will notice I am still in this incendiary thread)

hardcore propagandists exist on both sides. I can not say Gilad falls into that category only because of his circumstance. I have read much from both sides, most of my reading has been of revisionist such as morris and pappe (who I have come to learn - or there are those of the opinion that pappe is a leftist left of left). When do you go from criticism to stirring trouble?

Avnery's work appears in Counterpunch, as does Halper's. Edward Said is another author whose essays appear in Counterpunch with regularity. Are they hardcore propagandists? Said, I have just learned on campus-watch.org, is considered an anti-semite. I have read very much of his great body of work. He speaks for the dignity of his own people. Is that construed too as anti-Semitic? Is he not allowed to speak on behalf of his own people? I understand, he has stirred much ire, as he was quite vocal, not so much against the peace process (which was how he was interpreted for the most part), but in being strongly critical of what he saw wrong with the negotiation process as well as the aftermath of the accord itself. These are his opinions based in much fact which he interprets from the Palestinian perspective.

I really do hate to be a pain in the ass, but at one point these indictments of criticism become seemingly biased in and of themselves. Whilst I can not speak for the misstatement of facts across the board printed in Counterpunch, as representative by the opinions of the authors this particular journal chooses to print; I will say that all media outlets do have their bias, and I am not sure the authors that I chose to read that are represented by this journal have grossly misstated facts either (gilad aside, there is one area upon which he speaks I can not state whether it is fact or not. I have read similar statements, however it is an area I have chosen to steer clear of). For the most part this article is indicative of his interpretation of zionism as he has come to know it's history and it's application, speaking as an Israeli in exile that has taken citizenship in another country.

Whether two agree or not, I would assume that most intelligent people read anything with appropriate discretion. that said I fear I should have taken your advice farther up on the thread, but alas, I am still here. As you well might know there are two distinctly different overviews of this conflict as well as how the history is interpreted which gives voice to two distinctly different interpretations or perspectives. That they don't reconcile on forum speaks volumes for the complexity of the situation at ground zero (that being Israel and Palestinian Area's or the OT's themselves). The nature of the beast itself is not a particularly easy one to reconcile in an amiable fashion.

[The Magistrate]

95. Mr. Averny Is A Good Fellow, Sir

Mr. Said is a tenditious fool, not worth the paper he spoils with ink: that judgement is formed by distaste for his self-serving body of work on "Orientalism", as well as is liking for purples prose, and has nothing particular to do with the propagandas he churns out on the matter of Israel v. Palestine.

[QuietStorm]

120. Well I agree on Avnery but not on Said

who better to speak for a Palestinian than another Palestinian. I have read much of Said, the last thing believe him to be is a fool, so will have to agree to disagree on Said. He isn't the focus of this thread anyway. Anti-Semitism seems to be the focus here.

[Alex88]

65. Is finding the truth what you seek?

"Counter-Punch" is, as a journal, consistently innaccurate as to fact, and imflammatory in expression of both untruths and opinion, at least insofar as it treats the question of Israel v. Palestine. It is worthless on this subject to any but the hard-core propagandist seeking to stir trouble."

I haven't read the article in question sir, so can't comment on it. Your claim above is a unsupported, easy to make, sweaping one. I have twice posted articles from CounterPunch concerning the I/P question with not a single challenge to the validity of the posted article, that even you sir were a participant of in the thread. Further, Uri Avnery to name one person has had countless articles posted at CounterPunch. Is he in your view serving the cause of the hard-core troublemaking propagandist "seeking to stir trouble".

Many people, and their are many, who consider it to be a fact that the creation of the state of Israel necessitated and delivered willful massive ethnic cleansing in order to come into existence, do not resort to accusing those who see otherwise of being a "hard-core propagandist" "seeking to stir trouble" when engaging in discusson on the issue. It would not be productive and if they did they would likely be called anti-Semitic. And that belief makes their convictions on the whole I/P matter deep and emotional.

Regards,

[The Magistrate]

97. You Seem New Here, Sir

This has been my haunt nigh on two years, and the collective judgement is based on bulk exposure, not an occassional glimpse. There is a country saying: "Even a blind hen pecks up a little corn." There is, occassionally, something worthwhile in the journal, and it may be fairly guessed that on those occassions, the editors slipped up. To err is human, and it cannot be held against them.

[Darranar]

37. Uhh... okay...

"a. Israelis and Zionists aren't genuinely concerned about the injustices done against their people in the past; they are simply motivated by greed, by political enthusiasm or both.
b. Israelis and Zionists are very unusual creatures that do not follow any recognized human pattern of empathy, therefore we shouldn't expect them to feel any sensation of compassion or guilt regarding their own crimes against gentiles in general and Palestinian people in particular."

Explain that, Quietstorm.

[QuietStorm]

39. The author is Israeli. He served with the Israeli Military

I didn't make the statement, nor did I take the statement to be the sweeping generalization that most all here did, because THE AUTHOR IS ISRAELI WITH AN ISRAELI MILITARY BACKGROUND. He is criticizing HIS OWN. He apparently finds it abhorent to that degree that is expressed in those passages you pull and apparently he is extremely ANTI-ZIONIST to have made those extreme statements.

I can see carrying this discussion on further will pigeonhole me as well and I will not have it. There is an extreme Jewish-only vein running through the hardline zionist agenda (perhaps indicative of a fringe). It is this vein that makes that occupation palpable for those that call themselves zionists. I have read anti-zionist rhetoric before written by rabbi's and going back to the 1930's. So to some degree what he says is not shocking to me. He is speaking about the negative aspects of zionism as he sees it, and he is speaking as an Israeli. You want a further explanation as too just what exactly he means and why, I would suggest you contact the author.

[Darranar]

41. I have my doubts...

about the truth of his nationality. Anyway, there are plenty of self-hating Jews, and likely plenty of self-hating Israelis as well. The fact that they are self-hating doesn't make their junk any less plainly racist and intolerant.

Counterpunch has been on my list of unreasonable websites, and because of this article and others, I am considering moving it to the racist list.

[QuietStorm]

42. that is your freedom

sorry I do not agree with counterpunch being relegated to the racist dung heap and that is my opinion which I do not expect others must conform with. Must I conform with yours I guess would be the question.

You want to verify the authors ethnicity. there are ways to do that. just googles. I would suggest you do that BEFORE you just off the top suggest he is not an Israeli. He might not be, but unless you have given it the proper research I wouldn't suggest you just take it for granted he ISN'T an Israeli, just because you don't happen to like what he wrote.

[Darranar]

43. I don't take it for granted either way...

but written by an Israeli or not, this article is still a racist piece of dung.

[QuietStorm]

44. GILAD ATZMON: you believe he is a racist fine, but

Gilad Atzmon is an exile, a Jewish refugee, compelled to flee his homeland for friendlier terrain. He emigrated not from Europe or the American South, but from Israel itself. That's what compulsory service in the Israeli military can do: turn you into a martyr, a killer or a refusenik.

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair07192003.html

Gilad Atzmon, the expatriate Israeli saxophonist, has somehow found time to finish his first novel along with fulfilling one of the busiest gigging schedules on the British scene, being a member of the late-lamented Ian Dury's Blockheads, and much else besides.

http://shopping.guardian.co.uk/music/story/0,1587,904165,00.html

here is his website (Born in Israel on 9th June 1963):

Gilad regards himself as a devoted political artist. He supports the liberation of the Palestinian people. In his writings on the issue, Gilad suggests a solution of one state for the many people based on equality and democracy. Gilad's debut novel "Guide to the Perplexed" (Serpant's Tail) explores this very option in a satirical way.

http://www.gilad.co.uk/BIO.HTM

So what does this mean Darranar those that do not conform with your views on zionism and/or Israeli policy are racist. Rather than they just don't agree with you? This is one of the most problematic aspects of this debate. I buy you don't agree with the article, that is fair. I will go as far to say that Gilad expresses points over the top and to the extreme, and quite passionately I might add. I guess he has passion for his topic, as he refers to himself as an expatriot, which must be painful for him in and of itself. So you will have no argument from me their either, but that he is racist? and to then go as far as to say counterpunch is racist as well? There I disagree wholeheartedly. I suppose we should bar counterpunch articles in the future than. One could turn the tables on your opinion Darranar, but that one will not be me.

[Darranar]

46. He does not simply "disagree with my beliefs."

He blatantly goes beyond reason in describing the Zionist and the Israeli as uncompassionate beasts who don't follow logical paths of kindness.

I am a Zionist, in that I believe in a Jewish homeland (though not exculsively Jewish) in Israel. I am MOST CERTAINLY not ignorant and uncaring about the troubles of the Palestinians, and my empathy with others is there and strong.

I know many Israelis. The majority of them are kind people who helped people out of the goodnes of their hearts. They weren't uncaring. They weren't selfish beasts. In fact, the only person I know who has ever suggested transfer of the Palestinians to me is an American Jew, a Zionist but certainly no Israeli.

[QuietStorm]

48. the guy is an expatriot

when one takes zionist to only mean for the State of Israel I have no problem with that. Yes I guess he does structure his sentences to be an indictment of all Israeli's. He is an expatriot and most probably bitter. Expatriots are generally those vastly disappointed with their own country and the hypocrasy of those ideologies that stand up in word only. I am neither Israeli or Jewish, nor am I someone that lumps people together, so I was not insulted to the degree you were. I guess you take his comments personally. In my mind he is comparing the ideology to the actuality. Sharon does seem to strive for a Jewish only state and the fringe fanatics have become the representatives for this state at the demise of another culture.

Gilad recognizes that. He chose to leave. I have read through the review of his book. It sounds very wacky and funny. I don't know if you have read it, but for me it does shed a bit of light onto where perhaps his point of view stems from and, as an "artist" (which he clearly is), the extreme forms with which he has consciously chosen to criticize.

In reading the synaposis of this book, I can see that even it might be considered racistly irreverent. I understand the mentality of artists. I spent a great deal of time around them (probably might be considered one myself by others outside of me - I am not sure i really am though). Many are non-conformists and somewhat iconoclastic. Gilad would fall for me into that category most definitely. His work has shock value. As does his book. A racist he hardly is.

here is the last paragraph of the synaposis of his very zany book, it might give you a better idea of where he is coming from. Not that you should agree with him, but the guy is an expatriot who has rejected Israel in it's current form, he is not a racist, or should I say, I don't believe he is, you are of another mind about it, I respect that, I just do not agree with you.

snip
Atzmon's novel then serves as a final wake-up call to other Israeli intellectuals who must come to terms with being aliens in another people's land. The stakes are incredibly high and the unsettling subject matter could've made for a very hard and somber reading experience. But Atzmon writes with verve and wit. It's a deliriously exhilerating read. Like the best satire and the most profound jazz, A Guide to the Perplexed is painful, but it goes down easy.

end snip

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair07192003.html

My feeling upon reading the article was that he wanted to shake up the left. Think about it. Gilad LEFT Israel as a self proclaimed ex patriot, that he is angered or embittered even by the left tells you a great deal about the depth of his passion. What he stands for is no different than a group like Neturei Karta. An ultra orthodox sect that also advocates for a Palestinian state and decries zionism in no uncertain terms. They are not racists. They simply have a different sense of morality than you and for them the hardline zionist and it's cause crosses that line, especially as it is demonstrated in the form of the occupation.

Well I am glad I hung out a bit longer it facilitated me digging a bit into the background of this author. If nothing else I want to pick up his CD and his book, which is likened to Heller's Catch 22, which I read years ago, and thought hilarious.

[Tinoire]

110. What other answers do you have

Considering the fact that world Jewry led by the Israeli government is pretty efficient at raising demands concerning pre-World War II Jewish interests (in relation to bank accounts or properties in eastern Europe), it is rather bizarre that Israelis are so successfully ignoring very similar Palestinian rights. How does it happen that Jews who are so enthusiastic about Swiss banking injustices are found to be completely deaf and blind to their own continuous robbery of Palestinian land, assets and dignity? I have two possible answers to suggest.

He gave his. What are yours?

I almost had this on my least of things I had a problem with but then I thought about it and, take away the brutality of his statement, strip it down to the bare bones, and can you think of an alternate explanation? I would certainly appreciate one because as I said this bothered me too.

[Darranar]

113. Yes, I can...

Many of the European Jews who were going to settle in Israel in the late 1940s felt, justifiably, that everyone was oppresing them. The Germans had killed six million of them and scarred so many others; then those who went to their homes couldn't get to their houses, and others were simply shot dead by the owners of their former house. The British wouldn't let any into Palestine, and those European Jews felt, once again reasonably, that they needed a state to prevent this from ever happening again.

They showed that determination by smuggling many of the refugees in to Palestine. They showed that determination again with an almost-impossible victory in 1948. But like every other good cause, the cause of preventing the Holocaust was hijacked. "Never again" was sometimes taken to extremes - members of the population, desperately trying to revent another Holocaust, used extreme, inhumanitarian measures against the Palestinians that they shouldn't have used. The mainstream body of the Israelis probably felt angry at the perpentraters of those actions, but due to the fact that they were surrounded by Arab enemies, they tried to ignore it and not risk dividing their nation.

This determination of never to have a Holocaust again has made many Israeli Jews, and many non-Israeli Jews around the world as well, extremely fearful about any threat to the jewish state; once again because they never wish for the Holocaust to happen again. As always, fear aids the extremists.

That is the best explanation I can give for the blindness of many Israelis and non-Israeli Jews to the troubles of the Palestinians. I hope it serves.

[Tinoire]

134. That's part 1 of the question most excellently explained

That's why they went after the banks and that I fully understand. But there's still a disconnect when we get to the Palestinians. There's a total refusal (option a) or inability (option b) to admit the truth and face "their own continuous robbery of Palestinian land, assets and dignity". Some people are finally admitting that horrible things were done to get that land but by most even that is either excused or denied.

But what about part 2, the "genuine concern, compassion, or guilt" for the Palestinians?

That's the question no one's answering. Why are people in this very forum, after 3 years of indisputable proof still nya nya nya plugging up their ears pushing the same lies that

- "the land was uninhabited"

- "the Arabs left of their own free will" so we don't owe them anything

- "What right of return? Jordan is where they need to return to"

- "what demolitions?" "what children being deliberately shot by young men whose minds have totally flipped?"

and all sorts of nonesense... Everything you said is correct but even you just glossed over why there is not enough genuine concern and no sense of compassion or guilt (personally I think that's harsh because there is some sense among the Left and the more left you go, the greater that sense). Because if we had that- we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. If we had that, both sides would have sat down long ago because Israelis, who I believe ARE good people, and even more evolved/aware than we are, would have FORCED thier governments to rectify this long ago. They would have admitted why the Palestinians were resisting and we wouldn't need Rachel Corries or Adam Shapiros because Israelis and Jews themselves would be standing in front of those tanks and stopping them! Israelis and Jews themselves would be hounding Sharon and the Knesset instead of excusing Sharon because they feel the work he is doing is necessary. Israels would at the very least, be fuming and talking about Sharon the VERY same way we are talking about Bush. Why aren't they? But yes there ARE some and this is where I differ with the author. There are brave people in Israel who slowly are waking everyone else up. There were 1000 (maybe 100- I can't remember) brave people who went out in the street and demonstrated against the invasion of Iraq. There are brave Israelis & Jews who are talking on their blogs and accepting responsability and denouncing this. There are brave Israelis, who even though they aren't totally Leftist lay down their arms and refuse to oppress telling the world and their brethren

We are the Chinese young man standing in front of the tank. And you? If you are nowhere to be seen, you are probably inside the tank, advising the driver.

I have a third explanation- I think it's because they're not so unusual, I think it's because it's too absolutely horrifying to accept that you sit by while such things are happening, that you here, in the "now", in the right time and place aren't doing anything to stop the horror.

We've beaten up the Germans for decades judging them, even hating them, saying "how could you have allowed this?". And there was no TV back then! There was no internet beaming photos. Take Rachel Corrie- look at the extreme lengths people in this very forum have gone to to befoul her even in death and exhonerate the driver. Adam
Shapiro, himself a Jew, and a Leftist in its purest form, was vilified for having the audacity to break ranks and report back on what was really happening. In a two-prong effort, people threatened his parents and siblings so much they had to move out of their home and practically go into hiding while others spewed poison and lies from behind their key-boards to demonize/nullify him.

My experience is that it's easier to believe & repeat myths to justify what was done because that allows you not to feel any concern or compassion and stop the madness. I say that from experience, from having lived in a country where the majority was oppressed, and watching people, my own people, justify everything. The situation wasn't as complicated as Israel's because there had been no land theft but same amazing ability to disconnect was there- to disconnect from the plight of the oppressed who you were oppressing.

And wow. It's not just Israel. Israel is not alone in this, but Israel is among us affecting our foreign policy and Jews are among us as our people able to stop this madness. I am so sick of hearing about Jews and Blacks and this and that and wonder, like you, because I come from a similar ethnic background, why it's so difficult to see each other as people and just fight for justice. I hope that nothing in my passionate posts has offended you and that if it has, YOU will call me on it.
------------------------

Before hitting post, I went back and read your answer... Are you saying that the answer is

c. Such an extreme fear there could be a 2nd Holocaust?

because c is only a combination of a watered down a & c, I think.

Where is Tender when we need her with all her knowledge about the effects of trauma? Honestly, I have no idea how I would be reacting. Do you speak a word of French? If so, there's a song I'd like to send you, written by one of France's biggest rock stars, Jean-Jacques Goldman, who is Jewish, and it's a compassionate, deep and beautiful song called "Born in '17 in Leidenstadt" (Ne en 17 a Leidenstadt).

I think you should write to the author; I'd be fascinated to read your exchange.

Peace

[Darranar]

140. What you say...

has indeed a lot to do with it. I think that many among the Israelis are stuck in a shell; they believe the most untrue myths, unable to believe that their nation, a Jewish nation, would commit such acts. Others try to justify their nation's action sby being racist, and saying that the Palestinians are all evil beasts. Then there are others, who you mentioned, who see and understand the suffering of the palestinians, and act to stop it. Similar things are happening in America, and elsewhere in the world.

No, I don't speak a word of French.

[Tinoire]

146. Yes similar things

Just like so many people here refuse to own up to all the horrible things we've done and are doing. We still can't get an honest discussion going about Yugoslavia. I'm grateful to all the people who expose the truth and make people think.

I'm happy about articles like that because the stronger that chorus of voices gets, the closer we are to peace.

What I would like to start seeing now though is more writings by Palestinians on the subject. I do believe they were wronged but they were no angels either. Time to move on and to let yesterday be yesterday. Great thread in GD about pulling out of Iraq (or not) btw.

Peace

[Cassandra]

115. Tinoire,

the Jews who are pursuing the Swiss banks are, I believe, as much American as Israeli. Given that this bank problem suggests that, to this day, Jews are still dealing with continous robbery of their own land, assets and dignity, I wonder why, to this man, that indicates that Israelis are inhumanly greedy and heartless. Jews seem to be the only cohesive group on Earth who are expected by others not to take care of their own first. Why are there Swiss bankers who are allowed to still claim that asking for a death certificate from Auschwitz was proper? Is that not inhuman and monstrous? Would you like to label all Swiss as greedy and heartless? Don't you think that those asking for the money they are entitled to would give it all up if their relatives could be returned to them alive?
Why does the Catholic Church speak of human rights and of being pro-life now, but when that view really would have helped the Jews, they were mostly silent?

[Tinoire]

135. That is your explanation for the lack of compassion and concern?

You totally ignored the question. Either that or you're providing creedence that the answer is both a. and b. without providing an alternative.

[Forkboy]

36. some ugly stuff being posted lately

[QuietStorm]

38. okay I'm out of this thread.

[Resistance]

49. they wont listen, QuietStorm

the Church here is the Worship of the State of Israel and you best not smear the Holy books with your greasy fingers.

[QuietStorm]

50. read the review of his book post 44

It gives you a better idea of where he is coming from. Gilad is an expatriot, who left Israel after he served in the Israeli military. As an expatriot he would be scathing in terms of his criticism. As an artist it seems he is both prolific, talented and zany as hell, if not perhaps a bit hedonistic (judging from the review of his book and all the sex he has included in it).

As self deception goes: is this thread somewhat indicative of it or perhaps is it most indicative (again) of the sensitivity of the subject at hand.

[Forkboy]

52. I must be doing something right

now both sides think I favor the other.

[newyorican]

68. This guy certainly has...

someones panties all bunched up. He obviously has hit several nerves with this article. Nothing like an ex-Zionist going after Zionism, sort of like there's nothing like an ex-smoker going after smokers.

[QuietStorm]

69. perhaps than that is what makes your screen name apt.

you come at the situation from both prongs.

[bemildred]

72. A good sign.

[Darranar]

54. Some of us who don't worship...

The State of Israel are offended by his blanket condemnations of all israelis and all Zionists. He souns like David Duke.

[QuietStorm]

55. Now you are speaking for the State of Israel?

Do you have a source for this indictment?

:hi:

well I have no more to say on the matter. you can't read through the materials I have placed here and see where he is coming from, there is nothing more to say.

Just by virtue of expatriot, he would blanketly criticize in exactly the fashion he has, both Israeli's and the State of Israel. He chose to indict that which he feels is the problem to the degree that he advocates for the PLO.

Relegating him to the dung heap with David Dukes is an extremely one-dimensional understanding of his status in exile. Self-exile yet. The extreme form his criticism takes is not unlike any expatriot from any country. In fact, lately I have found myself so disgusted with my own, I find my mind often ask me where it thinks I could go that would remove this bad taste I have in my mouth for my country and my fellow americans (those most apathetic that feed the sickness of this turn my country has taken), these are the form thoughts would take if one is an expatriot. At least I imagine so.

I believe David Dukes is an incorect analogy here. He might more be a Rushdie than a Dukes, but for I am not sure what were all the circumstances of his exile and his decision to take up residence in another country. Therefore I am not sure the comparison to Rushdie is a correct one either.

[Darranar]

62. You misunderstood my post...

"the state of Israel" is a continuation of the subject line.

[Tinoire]

57. Were they that blanket? When I read the article-

because of your reaction Darranar, I will bear that in mind because I have so much respect for your position and your real desire to know and defend the truth and to support peace, that when you say that, I have to stop and think, stop and look because you've ALWAYS been fair and never once posted anything with even a tinge apologetics.

Thanks for keeping people like me in line.

[QuietStorm]

59. In line of what

might I ask?

[Tinoire]

106. In light of my respect for Darranar's integrity

I'm not saying I always or always will agree with him but he has my utmost respect so anytime he says he saw something I or others didn't, I take him seriously and want to see where. I've never seen him/her be an apologist or stubborn if he/she was wrong, had misunderstood, or had been mistaken. Very important qualities when you're trying to discuss something.

He could be mistaken and you two might hash this out to both your satisfaction/// Understanding and all that good stuff, you know?

Stick around... You'll see for yourself. Nothing but utmost honesty and sincerity from Darranar. Quest for knowledge and truth too...

Peace

[QuietStorm]

107. I am not one for snap judgement

nor is my crust thin when it comes to convictions either. I appeciate the article has insulted. I just wonder if it might be due to a defense mechanism as no one has yet made any reference to mistatement of fact or misinterpretation of zionism as the author criticizes it. Most comments are based on the use of his words, which I feel the author might have intended, in speaking directly to the leftists that he feels may be too apathetic for his particular tastes.

The content or context of fact has yet to be discussed.

[Darranar]

63. Here is the statement that offended me most...

"a. Israelis and Zionists aren't genuinely concerned about the injustices done against their people in the past; they are simply motivated by greed, by political enthusiasm or both.
b. Israelis and Zionists are very unusual creatures that do not follow any recognized human pattern of empathy, therefore we shouldn't expect them to feel any sensation of compassion or guilt regarding their own crimes against gentiles in general and Palestinian people in particular."

It sounds like something I would see on Stormfront or David Duke's website. As Quietstorm has eloquently pointed out, however, the author could have been exxagerating due to exasperation from his personal experience. It is possible as well that I am being too sensitive to this.

[QuietStorm]

64. but as I said Darranar that is the kind of blanket statement

one would expect from an expatriot. An expatriot would be harshly critical of that that he or she rejected in leaving ones country of birth. Expatriots would be blanketly critical going as far as to make stereotypical comments along that line. My point is he is not an outsider speaking off the top of his head. He was once an insider who was gravely disappointed by the hypocrasy with which he grew up in, and clearly expounds upon in this article however harsh it may be.

Unlike you, those statements you pulled, do not inform me that ALL ISRAELIS are guilty of this, but that there is an aspect of zionism that is. Very much like there is as an aspect of imperalism that is guilty of the same, or an aspect of republican captilism. Gilad seems to feel this aspect has taken over the whole. To what degree that is true perhaps should have been the heart of this discussion RATHER THAN whether or not he was an anti-Semite.

Oh I just read your last sentence. Yes, sometimes when people become disappointed with their own kind to the point of leaving the nation of the their birth THEY ARE THE MOST CRITICAL. While those statements do suggest ALL ISRAEL'S AND ALL ZIONISTS, knowing what I have come to know thus far, I did not take it as an across the board criticism to be applied to the all. Gilad speaks for the most militant and nationalistic form of zionism which does exist, we are watching it at this very moment, it no different than any fanatical form of any ideology.

well I am just repeating myself, but I think I am doing this as almost immediately the anti-Semitic card came out which when it does, the tendency is always to confuse the messenger with the message. This is Gilad's message, which I did not interpret in the same way you did, as I censored out the generality of his indictment, due to my frame of referance. The generality of his indictment then made even more sense once I found out he is an expatriot.

He is entitled to his own experience Darranar. He is an Israeli, he served in the military and he left for the reasons he states. Perhap yes his indictment is too general, but there are aspects of his criticism that ring true and he IS entitled to his opinion. I do not feel he is an anti-Semite, or a David Dukes, nor do I feel that counterpunch can be relegated to that dung heap either.

[Darranar]

66. I understand your position here...

but the way he said it made it seem like the Israelis and Zionists were a seperate, evil, species. THAT is racist, regardless of who says it. It is possible, however, that he did not mean it that way. I will give him the benefit of the doubt this time, though.

[QuietStorm]

67. Yes I agree (all by itself) THAT is racist

an indictment of a whole as evil based on an aspect, I agree. However I do not believe he is a racist, but more so a disgruntled Israeli, who draws our attention NOT ONLY TO THAT ASPECT OF ZIONISM that has displeased him, NOT ONLY TO THAT ASPECT OF ZIONISM that it is clear he feels is guilty of greed and racism, and/or separatism, but also he DRAWS OUR ATTENTION to the indoctrination that was a part of the nationalist movement, which he feels was deceptive as it negates the fact, as he states for example, that telaviv is situated on some of what was Palestinian land, for instance. What he names self deception is a symptom of the zionist campaigns of nationalism to which he alludes and which had both it's advantages and it's disadvantages.

However, yes removed from the circumstances and the nationality of the horse's mouth (that being Gilad in this instance), I agree the statements you pulled can be rightfully interpreted as racist. I censored that part out as there did exist IMHO aspects of his criticism of the more militant forms of Zionism practiced by the fringe that are debatable in that the criticism is relevant (not the part about ALL ZIONISTS OR ALL ISRAELI'S).

Again that part did not bother me because at one point I ran down to the bottom of the article to check out his bio, as at one point I thought he was an Arab, so I wanted to undertand from what perspective the criticism was coming. At that time, I was surprised to find he was not, but that he was an Israeli. at the time I read the bio, I did not question the verity of his bio (which you can see so far it is true he is an Israeli, a Jewish refugee, an exile, as he names himself, an expatriot. All very important information to situate his criticism within it's proper perspective.)

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newyorican]

47. This sounds more like an internal squabble

between an Israeli expatriot and Israelis and their suppporters.

Not so sure the best response is labeling him as anti-semitic and dismissing the rest based on that. There are plenty of ways to debate these points without resorting to that cop-out. And believe me, calling an ex-IDF soldier a self-hating, anti-semite sounds like a cop-out, even if it happens to be true.

:shrug:

[Tinoire]

56. QuietStorm, Don't be sorry. I'm glad you posted this

There are going to be many more such articles brought to us by the Israeli Left which is horrified at the things that were done and are being done in their name. I haven't read the entire article but I read the snippets and all the comments above. I'm not Jewish but I've lived among Jews all my life, from the Orthodox Jews, who will never step foot in Israel until the Messiah arrives and for whom I was the Shabbat Goy, to my current neighborhood at the opposite end of the spectrum which is crawling with Jews for Peace who are denouncing the way, emotions, religious sensibility, the terror of the Holocaust, words such as Zionism, and tools such as anti-Semitism are used to confuse the issue and prevent any meaningful discussion of the real problem while the Occupation, death and destruction keep marching on.

The Israeli Left is the key to resolving this conflict and I implicitly trust that they will get their message out and make so much noise that people will start realizing that with all that smoke, there must be a fire.

Israeli and Palestinian lives hang on this. World Peace hangs on this. It's time to stop burying our heads in the sand on this one- just as it's time to stop burying our heads in the sand about the war against Yugoslavia or the current war against the Middle East.

When Ami Isseroff, Director of MidEast Web and founder of Ariga who is, by the way, a tried and true Zionist, (he told me that if his sons are ever called up, he would hope that unlike the Refusniks, they would go serve but honorably) wrote the following:

It is long past time for Israeli Zionists, like myself, to apologize. The Israeli government has never apologized for the massacre of Deir Yassin, though the Jewish Agency apologized to King Abdullah in April 1948. The perpetrators of the massacre at Deir Yassin were never punished, though there was a great hue and cry at the time. Victims were never offered compensation. Therefore, and as long as this is true, the massacre at Deir Yassin has become the dubious moral property of all Zionists. We cannot sit back and say 'this was the fault of the revisionists.' The massacre at Deir Yassin may have set the pattern for much similar behavior throughout the War of Independence. A similar massacre, by dissident troops incorporated in the IDF, occurred later at Al-Dawayima, near Hebron. Other massacres by the IDF are well documented as well. If we Israelis believe that we are a moral society, then we owe it to ourselves to face the past. http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/

he was immediately barraged by US and Canadian Jews

Collection, evaluation and and examination of evidence regarding the massacre at Deir Yassin site took a great deal of time and effort. The time and effort are a labor of peace done out of love of my country and respect for the feelings of our Palestinian neighbors, with who we must learn to live in peace. I have been reviled almost equally by Zionists who either do not know the facts or do not want to know them. <snip>

I find people who live in Canada, in the U.S. and elsewhere insist that I am an anti-Zionist, or try to "educate" me regarding the background of Deir Yassin - the Arab seige of Jerusalem, the ambush of the convoy at Nebi Daniel, the murder of every member of a previous convoy (the "Lamed Heh"). All of these are part of the folklore of Palestine and Israel on which I was raised. The Jewish community of Palestine had a right to defend itself in the most effective way possible. But that is no excuse for what happened at Deir Yassin or, sadly, in some other instances in the War of Independence. These acts hindered the defence rather than helping it. Even if we can understand the emotions of some of the attackers - we cannot excuse terror and murder of civilians or justify it in any way, just as I believe it is wrong to justify Palestinian terror on the basis of wrongs done by the Israeli government.

I have equally been reviled by anti-Zionists for not concluding that all of Israeli Jews are war criminals or worse, and that Deir Yassin is representative of all of the glorious history of the return of the Jews to Israel. To those who think that the only way to achieve peace is by destroying us, I must respectfully submit that that approach has been tried and found wanting.

http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/dy/

On the Eve of Passover 2002, Assaf Oron, an Israeli Refusnik wrote the following letter:

A few days ago I was informed of an interesting phenomenon: a peace-supporting Jewish organization, named the Tikkun Community, published an ad in favor of us—the Israeli reservist refuseniks—and was immediately bombarded with hate mail and phone calls from other American Jews. What's more interesting is that even other Jews considering themselves supporters of peace have denounced the ad. This has so saddened, alarmed, and angered me, that I find myself writing this open letter to you all.

It is clear that there is a general theme behind these attacks: the tribal theme. A very loud voice (and in Israel nowadays, it is the only voice that is allowed to be fully heard) keeps shouting that we are in the midst of a war between two tribes: a tribe of human beings, of pure good—the Israelis—and a tribe of sub-human beings, of pure evil—the Palestinians. This voice is so loud, that it has even found its way to the op-ed pages of The New York Times (William Safire, March 25). To those who find this black-and-white picture a bit hard to believe, the same voice shouts that this is also a war of life and death. Only one tribe will survive, so even if we are not purely good, we must lay morality and conscience to sleep, shut up, and fight to kill—or else, the Palestinians will throw us into the sea. Does this ring a bell to you? It does to me.

<snip>

But the throw-us-into-the-sea paradigm just shifted elsewhere. There was an inconvenient reality on the Northern border, and even though the forces on the other side (Palestinians! Ick!) had strictly adhered to a secret cease-fire for about a year, they were Arabs and therefore could not be trusted. So we talked ourselves into invading Lebanon and setting up a friendlier regime there. The mastermind of the invasion was defense minister Ariel Sharon, and Shimon Peres, then head of opposition, voted together with his party in favor of the invasion. For me at sixteen, it was a turning point. When I understood that the government had lied to me in order to sell me this war, I turned from "center-rightist" to "leftist." Sadly enough, it has taken me almost twenty more years, in a slow and painful process, to understand how deeply lies and self-delusion are rooted in our collective perception of reality.

<snip>

But what about the existential threat, you may ask? Well I ask you, have you not eyes? Don't you see our tanks strolling in Palestinian streets every other day? Don't you see our helicopters hovering over their neighborhoods choosing which window to shoot a missile into? What type of existential need are we answering in trampling over the Palestinians?

Prevention of terror, I hear you say. Let me use the wonderful words of my friend Ishay Rosen-Zvi: "You are 'fighting against terror'? What a joke. The Israeli government, in its policies of Occupation, has turned the Territories into a nursery for terror!!!"

We have sown the seeds, grown them, nurtured them—and then our blood is spilled, and the centrist-right-wing politicians reap the benefits. Indeed, terror is the right-wing politician's best friend.

<snip>
In the meanwhile, I refuse to be a terrorist in my tribe's name. Because that's what it is: not a "war against terror," as our propaganda machine tries to sell it. This is a war of terror, a war in which, in return for Palestinian terror and guerrilla attacks, we employ the IDF in two forms of terror. The more visible form is the violent acts of killing and destruction, those which some people still try to explain away as "surgical acts of defense." But even worse is the silent terror, which has continued unabated since 1967 and through the entire Oslo process. It is the daily terror of Occupation, of humiliation on a personal and collective basis, of deprivation and legalized robbery, of alternating exploitation and starvation. Together, these two types of terror provoke and encourage the Palestinian terror, and so the cycle goes on, pushed even harder now by our current prime minister, whose clear goal seems to be to subdue the Palestinian people once and for all—or even worse if they resist.

I have a tremendous fear, that the moment our government senses that the lights are out and that no one in the world sees or cares—say, after a huge terror attack, or during an American attack on Iraq—there will be a horrible bloodbath in the Territories, that will make this past year and a half seem like a picnic. This moment may have already arrived.

<snip>

I have very little hope that the Israeli public will wake up to prevent this from happening. In its fear and confusion, it has made a decision (aided by the politicians and mass media) to go to sleep and wake up only "after it is all over." Will you join the hypocrite mobs that sing lullabies to Israel, and pounce upon people like us who try to wake Israel up? Or will you finally take responsibility and be the true friends that Israel needs now? True friends, who know when it's time to stop being "nice?"

As you go about your lives, please remember the twenty or so refuseniks who are currently in military jail. More importantly, please remember the thousand or so people, three-quarters Palestinian and one-quarter Israeli, who were here with us a year ago and have been murdered. Most of them could have been here with us, if you and we had acted sooner. We have now acted, done what little we can do. Please think of the many thousands that may be doomed soon, if you continue sitting on the fence.

Please help us struggle free from fear, racism, hatred, and the deaths they produce.

Assaf Oron
Moshav Nehora, Israel

http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0205/article/020501a.html No copyright. The Refusniks have requested dissemination of all their material.

We are the Chinese young man standing in front of the tank. And you? If you are nowhere to be seen, you are probably inside the tank, advising the driver.

http://www.refuseniks.org/index.htm

and more from their amazing original site
http://seruv.org.il/linksEng.asp

[QuietStorm]

60. My God

you posted a tome! I do feel there will be a rise of propaganda from both sides as the roadmap continues to be relegated to the sidelines. I have noticed from the Palestinian side (not here but in press) bolder statements are being made, as I have noticed the hardline RW foxesque propaganda strengthen 10 fold since the Jerusalem bombing. I am grateful I have what i believe to be a strong foundation and understanding of much of the history here, although I still read avidly.

I do think criticism is warranted of this peace process if that is what it can be called, and in the case of this particular article, like with all articles, it is important to understand the source, as in the horses mouth. This kind of criticism can not just be pushed aside with blanket statements. The man however scathing did service in the Israeli military and spent his forumative years growing up in Israel. I can not imagine that he stands as solely and only a propagandist. If that is the case one will have to show me examples of other such propagandists such as Gilad, because I get the feeling that I have done something wrong by posting the article, and have run the risk of digging perhaps an even deeper hole remaining in discussion. In esssence I feel as if I should apologize, but I am not sure what I should apologize for.

[QuietStorm]

61. BTW

I am familar with the stance of all the organizations you have posted. I read Rabbi Lerner's publication. I tend to fall left of left in both American politics as well as Israeli politics, so I am not sure what you mean by the things being done in the name of the left. What things can you be more specific?

[Tinoire]

104. My sentence wasn't clear

I didn't mean in the name as members of the Left, but in their name as Jews or Zionists.

I'm on the left of Lerner also. I would say Jews for Peace also is because they get into it with him often over the one-state solution which is anathema to him and the right of return. That's the group I most feel at home with in this country.

The Refusniks are simply heros for having a conscience. Wherever they stand, I'm happy to be close-by simply in awe of their courage.

Peace

[QuietStorm]

105. why then do I feel badly

that I have posted this article even though as you might have noticed I am being equally as stubborn at this particular expatriot's right to criticize in the way he as chosen to criticize, even though at the very same time, I can see that in choosing to criticize in the manner he has, he is sure to turn away a percentage of an audience that he might feel he might like to reach most? If my question makes sense.

[Tinoire]

108. Because, IMO

1. that article had so much truth in it that it hurts.

2. he did generalize but, having lived as an ex-pat, all over the world, I second you in saying that this is nothing more than the way ex-pats talk.

3. many truths are just too ugly for us to face and the author didn't do anything to tone down the shock of his message. Personally I'm glad because these are his thoughts and they're sincere and only come from a place of love for Israel and its people- but sometimes love needs shock therapy so that there is no misunderstanding about what is being said.

4. because some people want you to feel badly for giving creedence to
an Israeli who contradicts what they want to believe and what they want you to believe. If you feel badly enough about it, you won't share such stuff again and we can go back to pretending whatever it is we want to pretend.

Some bones I have:

The Israeli left doesn't try to make them equal players
There are certainly movements and people on the Israeli Left which do! Generally, generally speaking he's right- because too many on the Israeli Left are still stuck in the "so yesterday" two-state solution which is even worse than the separate but equal philosophy we had in this country- but when he doesn't say SOME he totally negates the tremendous work that people like Uri Avnery, Israel Shamir and Amira Hess have been doing to bring give support to the one-state idea.


even the left-wing Israeli organizations such as Peace Now, Women in Black and Gush Shalom, who fight courageously for Palestinian rights, support the unacceptable 'two states solution'. Thinking about those 'Israeli left' movements in categorical terms reveals the devastating fact that their political agenda is not at all ideologically far from Sharon's. As sad as it is to admit, there is no such thing as an 'Israeli left'.

Excluding the last sentence, I'm with him in spirit but only generally speaking because Gush Shalom not only supports but advocates the one-state solution. Women in Black doesn't even have an official stand because they're so diverse and their main purpose is to mourn all the continuing blood-shed just to get people to stop and think. And the last sentence is plain wrong- definitely because of Gush Shalom, Uri Avnery but also because of all the good, individual people who don't necessarily belong to a group but are posting away on message boards screaming their hearts out because they feel so alone out there on the Left. It does exist... It's tiny in its purist form just like in this country, but it does exist and if you extend that term to include organizations like B'Tselem who ARE trying so hard to do the right thing but just haven't declared one way or another because the concept is "officially" so new...well that's unfair. ((Just added a snippet at the end of this post that ties in and explains why I'm with him in spirit on this one))

I also think this is extremely harsh and broad and

Many of those thinkers also agreed that Jewish people suffered from severe social malfunctioning, referring to traditional Jewish occupations as non-productive. The Zionist assumption at the time was that this form of unhealthy social condition was a result of living in a ghetto in a foreign land for too long. Zionism was regarded as a remedy for the many different 'traditional Jewish sicknesses'. It aimed to create a new Jew: a secular, civilized and productive man that lives and cultivates his own land while communicating in his own language (Hebrew), very much the opposite of the eastern European ghetto character.

I think the proper word is ills. This guy is an Israeli living in Europe... take no offense because, imo, he means the devastating psychological consequences of the Holocaust and the fact that people are indoctrinated, especially in this country, that only Zionism can save Jewishness and Jews, so that anytime someone criticizes Israel or Zionism, hordes descend on the poor helpless person accusing him/her of anti-Semitism and of wanting to destroy the state of Israel, Judaism and the Jewish people. And you see this daily.

I'd also be curious about what "ghetto character" he's talking about. Maybe he explains, I'm too tired to re-read the article... But yeah, there were ghettos- too many of them and there's probably a grain of truth in what he says. I don't think he's saying that all Jews lived in ghettos but based on years of restrictive laws, progroms, and just plain hatred of anyone different, Jews weren't treated as welcomed, equal people ((except, ironically, mostly in Germany where they were invited and welcomed with open arms)) and I imagine this does take a toll on your collective psyche.

In retrospect, it would be hard to point out any major cultural Hebraic rebirth except of some barbarian habits that naturally developed during many decades of sadistic oppression.

This is rather cruelly put but after thought, I've erased my criticism of this and search for an example of a major
cultural rebirth. The sentence itself is so sad that I don't know exactly what to think of it. Does he mean that the oppressed have become the oppressor? If so, I unfortunately don't disagree. His terminology is extremely strong but it's effective. Sadistic oppression is how many see what was done and what is still being done to non-Jews in Israel. I'm sorry but as a Black person, I don't know what else to call Institutionalized racism.

Whooa in the new Jewmerica dominated world that's just down-right mean. He could at least have narrowed it down to Likud which makes perfect sense when you think of our PNAC friends because they have no more right to call themselves Jewish than Ralph Reed or George Bush have to call themselves Christian. This is slamming an entire religion for the political actions of a few but what can one expect when a religion and a poltical movement are deliberately confused to prevent any close examination of the politics? It happens in this forum all the time and its only now that enough Jews are beginning to speak out against this practice.

I think you feel bad because summation of this article takes us right back to the "Zionism = Racism' talks that were supposed to take place at Durban years ago and because the Jewish Right has done such a good job of preventing any meaningful discussion of the horrors perpetrated under the guise of "Zionism = just a simple little return to the homeland" that with such undefined terms, this article can easily be misconstrued as calling all Israelis and Jews racists.

I hope all of that made sense. It's late and I'm tired so it might not.

I also have a feeling that like you, I will feel bad for expressing my thoughts from reading this article but those are my thoughts and anyone who has a problem with them should politely tell me where they think I went wrong instead of thinly veiling accusations because I just tried my damndest to express myself about a very difficult article and honestly at that. It would be nice if more people would do the same. Even if it hurts. This is an article everyone in I/P should think about and wonder why more and more Israelis, why more and more Jews are saying these things. Are they all self-hating?

------

On the Israeli left, there is a growing awareness of the danger posed by the one-state idea and a sense that the road map may be a last chance to avoid demographic disaster. Some say that urgency ensures the road map a better chance of success than previous peace plans.

"This is really our last opportunity for a two-state solution," says Yossi Beilin, a dovish former justice minister. "In a few years' time, it's a solution the Palestinians might simply reject. If they do, it's a big problem for the Zionist dream."

<snip>

While the one-state idea is still on the fringes of Palestinian thought, some Israelis worry that it will take off as more Arabs grasp the implications of demography. "It's only a matter of a year or two before it becomes mainstream," says former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. "So we need to establish a border in which we'll have a Jewish majority for generations to come. It might be our last chance."

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=2262&CategoryId=5

[QuietStorm]

122. Yes I see where he has gone over the top

I tend to agree with him in regard to his criticism regarding the Left. My example would be Mr. Avnery waiting so long to outline Mofaz's Plan. It is a plan that has been executed in the OT's and has been ongoing since 9/11. It contradicts any hope of a roadmap, and if I knew it was being employed, Uri most certainly must have known, and he waited till the plan has been enacted almost entirely to bring it to the public eye. Is he not the director of Gush Shalom? Leader of the new coalition of Israeli and Palestinian Peace activists which was kicked off in June (I have forgetten the name of the coalition)? He has a duty to expose. It is a baton he himself seems to have chosen to carry. In the regard I mentioned IMHO he failed as miserably as any pulpit who reports news for the war propagandists in the Pentagon.


As to the one state threat. That would hardly be as much of a threat if Israel had any intention of addressing the Original Sin. She doesn't. This Gilad made clear, not that I needed him to inform me of this. Right to Return is on final status again. This is a mistake. This keeps the passions of one state and return to Irsael proper alive. If there was talk of Israeli reparation, rather than the same denial, it would not be the thorn that it is. Sharon can not even bring himself to dismantle outposts or outline some kind of solution for moving settlements. No, instead he built that wall, which to some does vibrate in the universe in just the way Gilad described it. Is that the full picture? Is that a definitive description? No, of course not. I would have thought people here know the issue well enough to understand that is not the end all be all description (nor the whys and wherefores) of how that wall resounds. We understand the reasoning for the wall, security, but Gilad's metaphor has it's place.

Right to Return looms in the way it does because it is an old wound that has been ignored and has been left to fester. How in the world would anyone expect it would just resolve itself? That is a ridiculous expectation. It requires attention, the proper negotitation, but instead once again it is on final status. That is not the place for it. Unfortunately, if Israel addresses the grievance that Right to Return is based on, they must also lift the veil that is covering their denial of atrocities they committed. They seem unwilling to do this and IMHO the doctrine that Gilad speaks upon is the reason.

I have even conversed with some of the refuseniks, who have argued the "spoils of war" argument, insisting that Palestinians are just losers. I would assume the refuseniks situate left of center. The "spoils of war" is an argument from the right embedded in Israeli doctrine. A doctrine that has permeated US doctrine on the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Which brings me to the cruelty of Gilad's comment "Jewmerica". Harsh as well as stereotypical, I agree, but for the power we see has been exhurted by the small percent that make up the Pro Israel Lobby. I am informed, so I certainly did not interpret Gilad's comment to mean ALL JEWS in American. What I have found for all the concern about anti-Semitism, is from the very start of a discussion on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, 8 out of 10 of the American Jews I might attempt to discuss this with (who rightfully consider themselves fair people) will end the debate. How is the debate ended? At almost the beginning, upon mention of the Palestinians right to statehood will follow bigoted comments, about how all the Palestinians are terrorists.

The majority of those that I have spoken with in passing exhibit no tolerance to hear of the pains and struggles of those innocent. The general concensus seems to be there are no innocent Palestinians. That concensus is communicated by way of sweeping stereotypes or a kinder restatement of the propaganda we have all become familiar with. I am not making this up, this has been my experience. I am convinced those that recount this sweeping generality are not aware of their own bigotry, or at the very least, they are not aware that they too are guilty of lumping all Palestinians togther in a very stereotypical way, in the very same way they do not want to be lumped together and falsely painted by stereotypes that are the result of ignorance and hate. An here again is another example of the self deception Gilad attempt to shed light upon in this article.

That is generally my cue to not push the discussion, because that take is so convoluted by what I call doctrine by ommision, I realise it is not worth my time to pursue any further discussion so I will change the subject in an effort not to make waves in public with people that I have just met in passing. There is a tenure of truth about what Gilad states regarding "self deception".

That was the title of the article was it not? I take that to mean duped by an indoctrination based upon very important ommisions, that has even refusniks telling me the Palestinians are "Losers", arguing that there was no tantura, that pappe is left of left, that while there was Deir Yassin, it is diminished by their constant insistence that it is solely Arab hostility that is fully to blame for this conflict. I do not tell you lies I have heard the arguments myself. They too aborting debate with the anti-Semitic card. Gilad while over the top with yes, what I do recognize are, sweeping generalization, has touched upon truth in perhaps a very uncouth way.

Back to one state and Right to Return, it will never resolve itself if yet another Israeli leader and yet another attempt at a US brokering choose to ignore the grievance. It will loom ever stronger. It is the heart of the Palestinian cause, which I have yet to hear even a refusenik articulate correctly. Gilad seems to understand the meaning of the Palestinian Cause. Their grievance based on the orginal cause of their plight has been ignore too long. I have read a great deal of history concerning this original sin. In fact I might argue that if it were addressed and the warpath would be replaced by actual diplomacy with Right to Return taken off final status, much of the violence would defray, as too would the suicide bombing.

That is if the covert assassination policies and the demolitions would stop. But they haven't have they, not even through the Hudna, the collapse of which the average American is being led to believe Hamas is solely to blame. So there it is more insult to injury. More deception. Gilad is not spinning yarns here. He has chosen a crude way of representing some truth. Does this mean all Israeli's lack empathy, If one judges them by their leaders one might draw that conclusion, but of course that would be foolish.

Is the left willing to acknowledge the grievance more so than the right at the helm here? Yes they are but the language of the arguments I have heard, for some reason, still fall short of the admittance and acknowledgement required that would solve Right to Return. Instead the choice seems to be continued misrepresentation of that cause. Look now Israel seeks reparation for the Iraqi Jewish refugees as if to say Look, what was done to us. Our pains and our claims so much worthier, many claims which they HAVE received acknowledgement for, as well as reparation for, and now we have ANOTHER CLAIM requiring reparation, with NOT EVEN A DISCUSSION spent on Palestinian reparation. Their reparation more so valid than reparation for the Palestinians. What an insult that is. Just based in that ever restated constant insult, from a purely psychological level, it certainly is not a good motivational force to persuade the Palestinains who advocate right of return to let go that fight. Reparation would be the way to go. From Israel, none seems forthcoming, not even a dialogue. Talk about a stick in the snout. It remains on final status.

My point: Gilad's critical thoughts regarding the left are viable as well. It is as if there is a conflict of loyality on the left between mother country and morality. One could see the struggle within Danny Seaman in the Naylor documentary. Gilad attributes this to the indocrination, the symptom is self deception. If he is an anti-Semitic Jew, it will have to be proven to me. I can not take that accusation just at face value. He may be, but instead I rather think it is his writing style. And as an expatriot I am not all to surprised that would be his style. It masks his own pain of exile. I can not imagine it was an easy choice for him to leave. I grapple with similar thoughts myself, and laugh to think that if I were to leave and then publish (for example), that my comments about "Americans" might not sting with a similar uncouthness?

Did he go over the top with his rhetoric, clearly we can see he did, to the point that many have not heard his message. His style defies pragmatism, which is how we are all encouraged to think. Pragmatically. Because I too have been known to go overboard in an effort to overstate what does not seem to be obvious to others, but what should be. I agree it can backfires generally, so I have worked to express myself more pragmatically, even though I believe pragmatism to be also the tool of the status quo. The quest for pragmatism serves to keep the status quo in place. It is not the quest for truth.

I can go on, but I would rather be rid of this thread, it is a hotbed for further misunderstanding.

[Tinoire]

139. Correction to my post. Uri Avnery is not in support of One-State

Thank you Alex 88 for correcting mt via PM. You can correct me anytime publicly... My pride can take it ;) even if it is embarrassing to have made such a mistake. Sadly, your correction only weakens my constestation and reinforces the author's. I am taking the liberty of pasting part of your PM below. Thanks

* * * * * * * * * * *

First, Uri Avnery, as his recent CounterPunch article titled "The Wolf Shall Dwell with the Lamb" linked below indicates, is much against the One-state solution. Also in the recent Haaretz article "Cry, the beloved two-state solution" linked below, Meron Benvenisti describes his experience with Gush Shalom and Uri Avnery and their opposition to the the One-State solution. He had to leave Gush Shalom because of his support for the One-state solution. Israel Sharon has also been critical of Uri Avnery's opposition to the One-state solution.

Lastly, in the event you're not aware of it, there's fine website "One-state.org" with a collection of much material related to the One-state solution.

http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery07152003.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=326324&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

[QuietStorm]

143. thanks for the links

Not to discount the work of the Peace organizations in Israel, but even when you go back to Oslo which was as flawed a peace plan as our current roadmap , which is merely a redress of peace plans aimed at creating a state vassal to Israeli. For god sakes they want to deprive the state, IF we ever get there, of a military. Israel does not wish to relinquish it's control and clearly when analyzing the underlying aims of our war in Iraq, Israel is to play the role of manager, once recontruction is completed (which I do not see happening before a long protracted war), but I have digressed.

The left fights for the peace via a flawed means and will become as ornery as the Israeli right if that process is critized as experienced by Edward Said in his outward criticisms of the flawed Oslo, renowned by Peace Now activists who reviled Said himself. I guess even Palestinains could not possible know what their rightful grievances are to dare to criticize Oslo. Such was the stance of a percent of Israeli's on the left and Peace Now during Oslo.

So while to one degree they are the best Israel has to offer in regard to being palestinian sympathetic, it can be argued the left as represented by Uri Avnery, for example, do not necessarily proceed always in the best interest of the Palestinian cause. That cause works against the deception, Gilad refers to in this article, a spell many remain under, a spell some are not aware of to the degree that if attention is drawn to it as has Gilad, the messenger is reviled his message bearly taken in.

As Edward Said has written numerous times, it is as if the so called left feels the Palestinians should just be grateful even if that means moving along on a process that is not set to address their cause or serve it in a way where the long overdue needed resolve and reconcilation will occur. As if Israel has done or is doing them great favors. Even the Left in Israel seeks to control the Palestinian history so that it reconciles in a way that pleases Israel and does not bring too much ire upon her. And to be clear I am speaking of the left as a WHOLE (and I as Gilad am painting in broad strokes as within those strokes does reside some truth).

If you are interested in the criticisms of Said, many of his essays can be obtained from this sight.

http://www.edwardsaid.org/

He is a prolific and thoughtful scholar, hardly an anti-Semite. Where have we come when a Palestinian American scholar has no license to speak with dignity of his own people? The problem is to address the palestinain history one can not get around the harm done by what Said refers to as the Zionist project. Just the mention of the Zionist entity that guided the transfer and ethnic cleansing that virtually blessed the state of Israel herself is considered anti-Semitic it seems, yet that criticism of that aspect of the zionist project that was harmful to those indigenious should not be negated just to keep Israeli's as a whole comfortable in their ill conceived misinterpretations of their own history. Within all healing processes there is discomfort, but it is part of the process toward reconciliaiton, without the discomfort there will come no geniune reconciliation. And it is in this area that empathy is lacking (as a whole).

In that regard there is little difference between Israel's misinterpretations of history and the Average white American's misinterpretation of history, both histories have exclused the part of the story wherein they persecuted indigenous people and in America's case that what we now call Black history. History written out does not make it any less true.

If a palestinian scholar is not allowed to address the ills and cause of his own people with dignity, as Said is spoken down upon, there is little hope of Peace in any near future. And too it is worth reiterating, both sides have sufficient leadership problems, but those leaders that might prove worthier contenders to negotiate more strongly against Israel's desire to undermine the peace efforts, are offed in one way or another by the Israel right. And what has the Israeli doctrine done but blame the victim. How ironic victims blaming victims, and for what was revenge exacted upon the Palestinians? NEVER FORGET-REMEMBER THE HOLOCAUST.

I encountered a young Palestinian woman on line over the time I have participated on various forums. At one point her and I communicated via e-mail. One of the last things she said in her last e-mail to me is that Israel has to stop treating Palestinians like nazi's from Germany. The Palestinians did not persecute the Jews of Europe. Instead the Eastern European Zionists behind British Authority, like the British refused to see the Arabs of Mandate at eye level...What right had the mufti to demand Jewish immigration be suspended during the peel commission, says a one Israeli anti-occupationalist. Herein lays one of many problems the Arab Palestinains are not equal even within the eye of some of those most conscientious. As Said has written more than once it is as if Israel does the Palestinians great favors. Bantanstan. What a great favor that was.

What a very deep and complex topic and yet what could resolve it so simple if it were but on the agenda.

[Resistance]

73. taking notes ...

Both Darranar and Magistrate lost a good deal of respect from me in this thread. To suggest that Atzmon should write for the Jew-hating White-Supremacist Stormfront website is offensive and an insult to the intelligence of those who would take you two seriously.

The sad thing is that both of you are smart enough to know that the suggestion is ridiculous, yet you continue to try to 'persuade' the rest of us that you actually have a case. Stop insulting us with this nonsense please.

[Darranar]

74. Oh, sorry...

when he stops talking about Zionists and Israelis as seperate species, I'll stop thinking that he should write for Stormfront. All I've heard so far is defense of the indefensable. It is my personal belief that VERY FEW could write this junk without being racists themselves.

I certainly agree that the author makes good points, but can't we find articles that don't have racist junk in them that make that point themselves?

[QuietStorm]

77. well apparently

it appears my points were lost somewhere. He can not be considered a racist. You are not taking into consideration the heart of his message, instead you prefer he be waved away. Which he was and quite successfully, as the discussion never really made it to the heart of his criticism. Perhaps you should write him directly and let him know what a racist you feel he is and how his racism renders his message impotent, if not completely irrelevant. It would be interesting to see how he would respond.

My guess he made the sweeping comment consciously, and for very specific reasons. His indictment is directed to the kind of apathy that would have people defending all of zionism (even those aspects that warrant criticism) while pointing the finger at the anti-Semitic nature of the blanket statements he chose to make. So once again the anti-Semitic card wins. Clearly he is at odds with those that would prefer to defend the indefensible aspects of zionism so easily trumped instead by having to give much voice to the so called racist nature which AN ISRAELI has chosen to frame his message.

Just a thought. You see if I thought the article WAS RACIST I would not have posted it. I posted it because I felt he did have some worthy points to make. I had no idea the discussion would center instead around anti-Semitism and a lecture upon what is best posted on the subject. I will be most careful in the future to chose materials with more wisdom. I fear that would narrow the field of criticism against zionism quite considerably as my guess is it is not a subject that is allowed much criticism. That is at least my interpretation of the tenure of this thread. I see the criticism has to be framed a certain way. It is not enough that the author himself is an Israeli coming from his own relevant frame of reference. Duly noted.

[Darranar]

79. Once again...

I will repeat the point I have made below. He makes several good and relevant points, but I think articles can be found that make such relevant points without the side comments demonizing Israelis and Zionists.

[QuietStorm]

84. He makes several good and relevant points

what would those good and relevant points be? this is the first I am hearing that he made any. Most of your posts have had to do with how racist you thought he and counterpunch.

[Darranar]

87. Well, you can't call counterpunch racist...

because different authors write different stuff there. Several of the articles are borderline, but nothing until this one struck me as outright racist.

Anyway, the relevant points, as you mentioned, have to do with the fact that there are ignorant, right-wing, fools on the Israeli side-many of whom are racist. It also has to do with the fact that like in America, Israelis need to wake up and see what rightwingers are hijacking their country.

[QuietStorm]

90. which just might be his point

I say that only because I do not believe the author is a racist himself, but that in being pointedly stereotypic his point might just be that because the country has now been hijacked by the most racist fringe, that if defended (or if the usual defense mechanisms kick in upon hearing his criticisms) and those negative aspects are not revealed for its harm, it is the kind of zionism that has come or can come to represent Israel and it's people. In that the representation of the Right IS racist, it runs the risk of drawing the kind of sweeping generalities to Israeli's and zionism that Gilad has made, in an effort to make the point clear.

The man is calling for the appropraite criticism of that aspect of zionism which he seems to feel has placed even leftists under a spell of apathy, that enables the Right in Israel to thrive. He stand very left of left.

That said, if you can find at some point the article which is representative of a jewish anti-semite I would like to see it, even if you have to send it to me via a PM.

My apologies for upsetting you. I will be most careful of posts in the future as I believe I also got a lesson in just how sensitive the topic of zionism is.

[QuietStorm]

91. that said of course now I must also add

that this also applies to the majority of Americans (all americans) who stand apathetic and complicit in the face of the very same right wing hardline republicanism that has hijacked our government. It is not always wise to defend America right or wrong in the light of our current administration. Not speaking out enables this adminstration to thrive. Oh sure we say it will not be elected in next election, but none of us know that for sure while most American's that I know will also not allow very relevant criticism as duped by the indocrination of American ideology that is not really being practiced but is just more weightless hyperbole.

[Darranar]

114. No, it doesn't...

because ignorance - which exists strongly in American culture and exasperates a lot of people, including myself and you - doesn't transfer to greed. Most Americans, though perhaps ignorant, aren't ignorant because they're greedy.

[Darranar]

75. And btw...

what if a former Palestinian wrote something like this:

a: Palestinians and those who support a Palestinian state have no compassion and only care about greed.

b: Palestinians and those that support a Palestinian state are unable to have empathy with anyone else in a logical manner.

Of course, it would be decried-rightfully-as a racist statement, regardless of the other stuff in the article. And some on this forum - I won't name any names - might well defend it using the same arguments that you are using.

There was a self-hating Jew a while ago who wrote an article about Jews that was plainly and obviously anti-semitic. It happens, unfortunately, for every race, nationality, and religion.

[QuietStorm]

81. well

Edward Said has made indictments of the Arab world and it's leaders that Arabs might consider to be racist as well.

As for self hating jews, some of the most astute criticism has been written by authors that are regularly called self hating Jews. Chomsky comes to mind as does Michael Lerner. Those kinds of accusations can be construed as racist in and of themselves, and do serve to muddy criticisms of the kind you have stated, because of the frequency of which these calls are made. IT becomes difficult to work oneself around the frequent misuse of that label as well.

[Darranar]

83. I'm talking about an obvious one...

Give me a second, and I'll post a link.

[QuietStorm]

85. I don't know this seems to be moving into what can be a very

counterproductive realm, perhaps the mods should just lock the thread.

[Darranar]

86. No, actually I think that there's a real issue here...

and that is: Where is the line between exxageration and racism? What factors can move that line?

I couldn't find a link to what i wanted; my stomach started to squirm from all the racist junk I was reading.

[newyorican]

89. "the real issue"

Is the points made in the article have been lost in a deliberate ploy of throwing the "anti-semite" card on the table to derail and squelch the discussion.

Bravo to all contributors of this enlightening discourse on the content in the article. A big "boo-hiss" to all those engaged in obsessing on the style rather than the substance.

[Cassandra]

94. When Rush or Coulter...

go on one of their "let's kill all the Liberals to scare them" rants, I look forward to hearing you discoursing on the substance of their arguments rather than obsessing over the style.
When someone talks about Jewmerica and asking when Israelis are going to rejoin the human race, as though only Israelis have done something so awful that separates them from being human, they shouldn't be surprised when I give their "substance" a pass. If someone would like to communicate to me their disagreements about Israeli policy without insulting me or my friends and family, that would be worth listening to. If you think the author's style is an appropriate way to speak about Jews or Israel, then I really have to wonder about you. When the Nazis spoke of Jews as rats and vermin, it would have been nice if non-Jews had spoken out, rather than telling them, essentially, to just get over it.

[QuietStorm]

96. he is an israeli

he is an expatriot this gives him license to speak of his own kind in scathing terms. I speak of the psychopathic aspects of my own culture to the utter chagrin of my parents, but the MAFIA should not be defended either, EVEN THOUGH IT JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE EMBEDDED IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.

Perhaps he would have been better off expressing his sentiment in a Jewish paper amongst other Jews rather than to air laundry in this matter. What I hear here is that even those within the Jewish culture are not allowed to air their thoughts. Even they must mince their words. This is exactly what this author is taking about. This is exactly why he is riled by the left. Of course apparently this is my opinion exclusively, and he too should mind his every word. He apparently finds something abhorent as practiced in the right within hardline zionism. He left Israel so as not to have to cater to Israel right or wrong. Perhaps he should now be hunted down and killed for his opinions.

I don't know. Those find it so easy to be scathing and highly critical of the PA as if they own it and yet have no tolerance for criticism of the Israel government in comparison. No in that regard even Israeli expatriots must mind their peas and carrots because well he decides perhaps to not pull his punches.

The point has been made. By focusing only and completely on his potential racism and anti-Semitism it is clear the kind of material that will create a stir in IP. Duly noted. I will make sure that phrases like ALL ZIONISTS or ALL ISRAELI'S are not used regardless of what other points are made. He is criticizing the RIGHT and the lefts political correctness, but while even you might find it fun to criticize the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN AMERICA, you can not bring yourself to do it of the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT in Israel. Yes I have inferred, but I have read through much criticism of the PA and the so called palestinian innocence that some spout off with great ease, but show no criticism of the Fundamental fanatism at the helm in Israel, not with the flippancy that is saved for the PA and Arafat and the so called innocent palestinian children. IDF defended at all costs.

Perhaps I can not speak with acuity here as I am not Jewish. Perhaps that is what this all boils down to if even a man who has served in the Israeli military can not speak in bold terms.

[Cassandra]

100. Does anyone have license to speak as a bigot?

Some African-Americans use the N word with each other, I suppose to feel cool, but I cringe when I hear that. There is some language that has not only caused others pain but has helped to kill them. If few believe me when I say that this has crossed over the line, what will you say when someone posts something worse? As someone noted above, if you replaced all references to Israelis and Jews with Palestinians and Arabs, those who quietly mull over the author's points would be screaming bloody murder and racism, even if the piece was written by a Palestinian ex-pat. Speaking about Israelis as uniformly greedy and cruel is not "pulling one's punches", it is racist, and there is no excuse for it. If he were more extreme and said that all Jews should be killed, would it be OK with you, just because he's Jewish?
"while even you might find it fun to criticize the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN AMERICA, you can not bring yourself to do it of the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT in Israel. "
I assume you know you are not speaking of me here as I do criticize Sharon's government. I just don't feel the need to insult everyone in the country to do so.

[QuietStorm]

102. well that is their perogative

the way it was always explained to me is that they use it with such regularity so to take the sting out of it. and of course while they can use it amongst each other, none would take too kindly to it being used by those outside of their race.

If someone were to place on site out right anti-jewish propaganda the likes of some of the white supremists sites. The kind that speaks in no uncertain terms about the taking over the world and the mud people, and so forth, I would be the first to call it what it was. I do not place this in that category, even though white supremists might eat it up, because this man is not a white supremist he is an Israel expatriot, who was put off by his own country, in that context his words have value.

IF instead the article had been comments upon Islamic fundamentalism which outwardly called for the slaughter and ethnic cleansing all jews YES I would find it offensive, but that is not what the author is calling for in this article, he is calling for criticism of an aspect of zionist policy that is a detriment to israel, zionists, israeli's and even thoe of Jewish faith AND BASED UPON the pro israel likud lobbies that make up a very small percentage of the Jews in this country.

I knew that fact going in. In my mind this is who and what he is critical of and the harm it has caused both palestinians and Judaism, as well as the poor reflection it can be on those of Jewish faith as a whole for those not making the important delineations. He did not write the article to inform people of the apropriate delineations, while perhaps he was as mindful the readership as he might have well been wise to be, he seems to be speaking to those he terms leftists.

And in conclusion, no I was not really speaking specifically to you when I made that comment regarding the fundmental right in america, I am not altogether familiar with your posts to have been, I had other posters in mind, whose position I have some problems with, however it is best not to discuss that at this time, if at any time.

[QuietStorm]

103. Cassandra I think the problem here

lies in the fact that no one spoke in specific terms when the thread was first openned, instead it was made clear it was a topic that should be best left to lay, based on the opinion of one of the posters. The reasons were general and based on accusations of the author being potentially racist and anti-semitic, before I was even sure posters knew that the author was an expatriot who had served in the IDF.

My reaction is based on having heard the accusations of anti-Semitism being used with such frequency and against authors that I would never consider antiSemitism. It was not until we got to the 80th post or so that posters began getting more specific. pulling out the same two lines, which my eyes wasn't enough to discredit the authors credibility or some of the points he had made.

Now has come other points which you yourself have made wherein I finally come to understand it was how the author chose to express himself, which I do understand could have the effect they had IF THE POSTER WAS NON-JEWISH. Yet still no one has yet articulated how or where the author has gone astray as to facts or his interpretation of the negative aspects of zionism has he has experienced.

At this stage of the game what I might suggest, if I may, that just accusations of anti-Semitism is not enough, only because the card has been used with too much frequency, in the media, in print, on more than one message board, whether israeli or american, etc. It requires more eloquence than to just dismiss someone soley on the grounds of anti-semitism, particularly in this context wherein the author is Israeli, has given us his interpretation of that aspect of zionism he finds detrimental, and has stated this in what are unsavvory terms.

Nothing has yet been said regarding how this author has strayed from fact, or where his interpretation of facts run askew. All statements are based on the words he has chosen to articulate his points, which in my eyes are words that another person of Jewish faith or another Israeli would have more right to use words of this nature than I would. Very much how I would never use the N word, however much it is thrown around within the afr american culture itself.

do I understand that his chose of wording has insulted? Yes I do. I always understood that he exaggerated his points, however I took that within the context of his circumstance, as too running askew of fact or his interpretation being out of the ballpark entirely, nothing was said with regard to content, all comments had to do with use of words, or polemics. Perhaps I beat I dead horse here, considering it was suggest it best to be left lay 60 or more posts ago.

[Darranar]

112. Newyorican...

Some of the content in the article I agreed with. What I couldn't abide were the RACIST STATEMENTS - and they were racist statements, regardless of the intention of the author - about Zionists and Israelis. And though the person cannot be called an anti-semite because of the racist nature of the statements, the majority of others who write such blatant exxagerations in their work about Israelis and Zionists are also anti-semitic - David Duke or Pat Buchanan, for instance.

[Tinoire]

111. Yeah - that would be like asking me to go through a KKK site

to find a specific example. I know what you're talking about and it does exist. There are self-hating people in all groups.

Tell me what you're looking for and I'll find it for you. Better yet, how about I just vouch for you that you're unfortunately correct. If you really want and tell me what you're looking for, I'll go fetch it. I have a stomache of iron these days... Though I think people should just take your word for it.

A lot of people, from all groups, usually with inferiority concepts, have written some pretty self-hating things. I can drag up some horrible things Black people have said and written.

[QuietStorm]

126. the question is

not whether self hating exists. The question is: is GILAD a self hating jewish anti-semite? Just because they exist does not make GILAD one. And too, the Jewish people I have heard categorized as self hating are as follows thus far:

Noam Chomsky
woody allen
barbara striesand
Michael Lerner.

We now know Perle considers Sy Hersh a threatening terrorist for his article in the New York

I have also seen good sources be vilified solely because white supremist groups have embraced the truthful and thougthful writings of some in an effort to manipulate them toward their own hateful end.

Noam Chomsky has been vilified in this manner, merely because a white supremist group has taken some of his writings and utlized them within their biased message. That also does not serve as adequate reason to discredit Noam Chomsky's work.

Do you see what I am getting at? I have yet heard the expression selfing hating Jew applied to an author or personality I would consider an anti-Semite. Unless of course you feel those listed above are in fact anti-Semitic?

[Darranar]

128. I guess i do need to find the article I was looking for...

Good bye for a while. I hope I don't end up :puke:ing.

[QuietStorm]

129. the point Darranar

is how often is the expression used accurately vs how often is it used merely because the author waxes a bit more critically than is considered political correct, perhaps to even the point of being stinging?

I am not question the existence of Jewish Anti-Semites, I am aware a good number of Jews fought as SS officers during WWII, and even there I am not sure they can all be categorized as anti-Semites.

The point is most generally as I have observed it's use it has been thrown around frovilously to the point of having little meaning.

that is unless of course YOU DO feel the names I listed are Jewish anti-Semites? Do you understand the confusion here, which might also be interpreted as resistance?

[Darranar]

131. Yes, its been thrown around frovilously...

so has the term "anti-semitic" and other things. That doesn't mean that there is no case when such a term is correct.

Anyway, here's the article I was looking for:

A Jewish Defector Warns America
By Benjamin H. Freedman

http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/freedman.html

[QuietStorm]

136. okay I will read the Freedman

I must say his introductory sentence raises my eyebrow a bit. So I will read it thoroughly rather than skim it. And get back to you with my comments later on today or tomorrow. I must not get pulled into debate here today I have too many chores lined up for today.

[Tinoire]

137. No I don't

and I could list many, many more who are vilified as self-hating Jews.

Josephus
Karl Marx
Freud
Starpass
Amira Hess
Adman Shapiro
Israel Shamir

The first time I ever heard that term was when an American visitor hurled it at one of my friends, Leon Uris' nephew, because he had had the temerity to shatter one of her myths about Israel's founding.

No, I don't consider any of these people that. Rather I consider the people who hurl that epiteph at them to be that. Why else would one insult the Cassandras of our day? Israel is in grave danger and being abandoned be every single ally. It is already Israel and America against the world and both countries are on the brink of collapse. Both countries have fools blinded by hate and greed at their helm. The horror is that both countries have the ability to take the rest of the world down with them as they go.

No... I did not offer it like that. I offered it because I know what racist, hurtful cartoons you can find on some of those sites as you navigate the swill to find what you're looking for.

I've seen some of the White Supremacist sites with their cartoons of lynchings and I understand what Darranar is talking about. So find them on another site you might say... Yes, afterwards... After you've dived in that swill to find something, then you can google it and find it from a more respectable site but those sites are the most time-efficient. That's all.

[The Magistrate]

98. Insult To The Author Was Meant, Mr. Resistance

His statements are swill, and are clearly meant to do nothing but inflame. They would, indeed, sit well on any of a number of hate sites. There is nothing to debate, when the tone is so clearly meant to be hateful. How would you, pray, answer the charge that Zionists lack normal human empathy? The proper reply, Sir, in my view, is a stick across the snout.

Asked whether evil ought to be repaid with good, the Master said: "With what, then, do I repay good? Repay good with good, repay evil with correction."

[QuietStorm]

99. I have a question Magistrate

The article to one side for the moment, and the nationality of its author, the fundamental right of zionism in it's alignment with the fundamental right fanatism in America is indicative of the politics of empathy?

[QuietStorm]

101. although I must also include a

qualifier for the question. In your last post it becomes very clear why this article has inflamed, although I remain curious of your answer of my question above. (and then will wash my hands of this thread and do hope I will never again be the one to post flame of this nature again).

The points are not worth the insult that was felt by some in this thread. although I must also admit I am not sure the points would have been well taken even if written in a more appropriate style and fashion. I say, I am not sure, perhaps they would have been, but I am not sure.

[The Magistrate]

116. The Peoples Of Israel And Arab Palestine, Sir

Exist in a state of war, and have done for longer than the lives of all but the most elderly among them. War might well be defined as the institutionalizing of a lack of, or as a suspension of, empathy between the parties involved, as its distinguishing characteristic is the willingness to kill and maim the enemy. In war, people come, as a matter of necessity, to fear, hate, and loathe the enemy, the business itself requires such emotions. When a war has been long continued, these things make securing a peace rather difficult, as they color all perceptions of the enemy, and thus feelers for peace from the enemy tend to be regarded as mere crafty ruses, and even those from one's own side to be feared by many as a mere sign of weakness, and hence impending defeat.

The behavior of persons in war is not the best ground for judging them as people: absent that forcing strain, they very likely would behave in different wise.

[seventhson]

117. Quiet Storm --- Fear Not

This is hot stuff here and Atzmon's rhetoric is over the top, possibly, on a few issues.


But generally as an Israeli in exile and a critic of his government he is very much like a Gore Vidal or other critics of America.

I may not agree with all he says and have actually emailed him to get a clearer understanding -- BUT I am very grateful that you put this online and urge you NOT to fear putting another one on/

One problem with this forum is that it is not mainstream and that only people with real deep feelings who want to jumpo into this fray even come here.

I have been very trepidatious about speaking out here as I agree with Avraham Burg and Atzmon on many many points -- and think most Americans would tend to agree with them in many respects. You are not alone.

But the fact that these Israelis criticize Israel in ways which, if done by a gentile, would be considered antiSemitic -- this clarifies the issues and the fact that criticism of Israel in and of itself is NOT antiSemitic.

I suppose the claim of people being "self-hating" Jews or even antiSemitic Jews will be raised by some. But I think that is a cheap shot and a poor alternative for debating the actual issues involved.

I can understand any Israeli or Jew who would be pissed at this column just as I "understand" a Christian Fundies desire for ten commandments in the court room or some Americans view of my country right or wrong. I just don't agree with it.

Atzmon's column is well worth the debate.

[Darranar]

118. I don't understand you...

do you deny that there are self-hating Jews who write anti-semitic material? His nationality does not change the racist nature of some of his statements.

[The Magistrate]

119. Whatever Means Are Necessary, Sir

To smuggle such items into the discourse, some will avail themselves of.

The phenomenon you speak of is hardly unusual. In Black radical discourse, there is a whole vocabulary, from "Uncle Tom" through "Oreo" to use of "Negro" as a scornful slur, to express it, and exemplars of it ranging from Walter Williams to Clarence Thomas.

There are several well publicized instances of Jews prominently involved in Anti-Semitic hate groups: a local Nazi leader, who led the march into Skokie some years ago, and who's name mercifully escapes immediate recollection, was later found to be of Jewish parentage; in a recent issue of The Atlantic, there was a long article on a fellow once prominent among Neo-Nazis, jailed for planning a demolition, who was similarly exposed as having been born a Jew.

To take a similar thing directly from this forum: you may recall Mr. Quilp's recent statement that Arab Palestinians were collectively deranged; viewed harshly, that is an expression of bigotry beyond many for which, during my service as moderator here, it was my duty to expell several supporters of Israel over.

[seventhson]

123. I think that namecalling and such casting of aspersions is a cheap

alternative to debating the issues.

I do NOT call Clarence Thomas a racist, for example, due to his oppressive votes that harm African Americans. An Oreo or an Uncle Tom are commonly used , but you almost never - if ever - hear him called a racist.

Calling a Jewish Israeli antiJewish or antiSemitic, especially in this context, is both inaccurate and a poor argument for rebutting his arguments.

Calling him antiIsrael is perhaps a more accurate reflection, although I suspect that his criticism is borne out of a great love for Israel just as many might call me antiAmerican for opposing Bush and the BFEE Wars -- but it would still be kind of ridiculous.


Self-hating Jew is also a cheap shot at those Jews who criticize the extreme rightists and fascist Israelis.

I know that this writer criticizes Peres as well as Sharon and is really an expatriot from Israel --- but I think expatriots in exile (like Americans who have fled the US in shame at our policies) MUST be at least listened to.

I think the term, though, "self hating Jews" is abused and overused and fundamentally a nasty argument against Jews who do not tow the line for the rightists.

This term was used for Hannah Arendt who was an incredible writer unjustifiably in my opinion.

[QuietStorm]

124. I have always wanted to ask

what does BFEE stand for? I see the anagram regularly and have never asked.

I agree with your post btw.

[Alex88]

125. (Unofficial)information Glossary (Dictionary

DDemocraticunderground.com (Unofficial)information Glossary (Dictionary


http://www.seattleactivist.org/DiG.html

[seventhson]

130. BFEE= Bush Family Evil Empire

It is kind of a Simpsons funny to me --- and it is easier to use than my old terms: BushNazis or or Bushzis.

I don't know which DUer (or other) made it up.

Anyone know?


There is a DU glossary here somewhere too that has it.

[Darranar]

127. That's not true in the slightest...

How can he love Israel when he acccuses all of its inhabitants of being subhuman and uncompassionate? I am not attacking him for anything but his truly racist statements.

Self-hating jews is overused, as is anti-semitic. But that doesn't mean that no usage of it is ever justified.

[seventhson]

132. I read this quite differently

First, the term "racist" is inapplicable here.

Essentially th author is criticizing Israelis and Zionists. And yes, he paints with too broad a brush.

But a careful reading, at least to me, makes it clear that he is not criticizing every single Israeli. He is criticizing Israelis as a whole.

He uses terms like "most Israelis" and "Israelis" interchangeably.

I will be honest with you here about my feelings: It is extremely distasteful for me to read an author who blames EVERY Israeli for the sins of the few. It bothers me when Arabs blame EVERY American for the crimes of Bush. It botheres me that we massacred tens of thousands of Iraqis for the crimes of one BFEE puppet: Saddam.

Sop I share your distaste for the authors' use of the term Israelis to paint ALL Israelis with the same brush.

BUT - I believe the point he makes is in many ways valid.

Like Americans -- who have become (in the majority) lazy and uninformed and apathetic and even banal when it comes to the crimes of our president and our own history --- his criticism of Israelis has some validity: It IS as if when dealing with the Palestinians they have lost all their humanity. The sdame may be said, I suppose, collectively of the Palestinians.

This is NOT to say that every Israeli has lost their humanity (just as the fact that the US is at war on Iraq means that every one of us Americans has lost our humanity) -- but that IN GENERAL his oibservations ring true to many of us. BUT I AGREE that his OVERGENERALIZATION diminshes the validity of his argument. Perhaps it is poor use of language. Perhaps his anger and frustration with his own compatriot Israelis makes him feel his indictments NEED to be scathing and addressed to ALL Israelis.

Just as we Americans must own up to a collective guilt for Bush and his lunatic actions (after all -- we did NOT rise up and protect our democracy from these fascists in 2000 -- and we bear therefore some responsibility for the genocides that have followed( I think his point is that ALL Israelis need to accept the inhumanity of the situation and their collective responsibility for it.

I am not sure his solutions are anywhere near workable or even necessarily wise proposals: but I believe, based on his conclusion, that what he wants is for Israel and Israelis to recognize their own guilt and responsibility for their share of the current situation and to reject the inhumanity of Israel's current direction.

In that way Israel can become whole again in his eyes and, ultimately, abandon a suicidal and self-hating system.

THAT is why I think he ultimately LOVES Israel. He WANTS it be truly righteous and true to its spiritual roots so he can embrace it again.

That;s my reading of it.

I identify with it completely as an Angry American. I feel the same way about America in many respects. We have been corrupt. Our predominant religions have warped us into racist idealogues. We are lazy and uninformed and preconditioned to accept our fascist leaders. We justify our corruption and comfort and we deny the suffering others endure or die from in order that we may have our "democracy" our SUVs, DVD's and our MTV's and road trips.

I don't think he is antisemtic or self hating at all.

I think what he expresses is in many ways the ultimate in humanism: he is not bound by his ethnic, national or religious heritage to justify the inhumanity and excesses of a nation.

[QuietStorm]

133. I identify with it completely as an Angry American

Wow you are on the same wave length with me on this.

This article I place below typifies American's as a whole completely duped by American doctrine, in the same way I believe Gilad speaks of Israeli's as a whole having been duped by Zionist doctrine. Both are doctrine that hinge upon nationalism which from one degree to another is nationalism at the exclusion of the world outside themselves (us vs them) as is the case with nationalism especially during war. I believe Israel more so than American is guilty of a different type of exclusion within what they inaccurately describe as their democracy, as today Israel in law does seem to be saying "Jewish Only". American's have a similar exclusivity, but it only appears to be multicultural until, of course, we break down the hierarchy of power here. It's sense of supremacy subtler than Israel's which of late seems obvious, in light of it's double standard and some of the new laws it has proposed if not enacted already.

snip

But of course that never happened. The myths live on. There is however, a brighter side to the amount of energy and money that the establishment pours into the business of "managing" public opinion. It suggests a very real fear of public opinion. It suggests a persistent and valid worry that if people were to discover (and fully comprehend) the real nature of the things that are done in their name, they might act upon that knowledge. Powerful people know that ordinary people are not always reflexively ruthless and selfish. (When ordinary people weigh costs and benefits, something like an uneasy conscience could easily tip the scales.) For this reason, they must be guarded against reality, reared in a controlled climate, in an altered reality, like broiler chickens or pigs in a pen.

Those of us who have managed to escape this fate and are scratching about in the backyard, no longer believe everything we read in the papers and watch on TV. We put our ears to the ground and look for other ways of making sense of the world. We search for the untold story, the mentioned-in-passing military coup, the unreported genocide, the civil war in an African country written up in a one-column-inch story next to a full-page advertisement for lace underwear.

We don't always remember, and many don't even know, that this way of thinking, this easy acuity, this instinctive mistrust of the mass media, would at best be a political hunch and at worst a loose accusation, if it were not for the relentless and unswerving media analysis of one of the world's greatest minds. And this is only one of the ways in which Noam Chomsky has radically altered our understanding of the society in which we live. Or should I say, our understanding of the elaborate rules of the lunatic asylum in which we are all voluntary inmates?

Speaking about the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington, President George W. Bush called the enemies of the United States "enemies of freedom". "Americans are asking why do they hate us?" he said. "They hate our freedoms, our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

If people in the United States want a real answer to that question (as opposed to the ones in the Idiot's Guide to Anti-Americanism, that is: "Because they're jealous of us," "Because they hate freedom," "Because they're losers," "Because we're good and they're evil"), I'd say, read Chomsky. Read Chomsky on U.S. military interventions in Indochina, Latin America, Iraq, Bosnia, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. If ordinary people in the United States read Chomsky, perhaps their questions would be framed a little differently. Perhaps it would be: "Why don't they hate us more than they do?" or "Isn't it surprising that September 11 didn't happen earlier?"

Unfortunately, in these nationalistic times, words like "us" and "them" are used loosely. The line between citizens and the state is being deliberately and successfully blurred, not just by governments, but also by terrorists. The underlying logic of terrorist attacks, as well as "retaliatory" wars against governments that "support terrorism", is the same: both punish citizens for the actions of their governments.

It is in THE MEDIA FORUM: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=109&topic_id=1141

It is an essay by Arundhatti Roy based on the writings of Noam Chomsky. America has done far more damage on a larger scale due to this concept of "self deception" that Gilad expounds upon here. I read it as I have read the piece above. The difference perhaps is Gilad does not offer as much of a disclaimer as Roy does in her indictment of American self deception. Gilad perhaps might need to clear it up a bit more the that it is the doctrine itself that has created a kind of blindess or apathy in thought a complacency even evident within the Israeli left. Not across the board, but from one degree to another. It is grossly apparent in the lefts complacency with Oslo, their resistance to revealing it for the sham it was. The nature of the State of Israel is of course different than the "discovery" of the American dream.

[QuietStorm]

145. In addition to my earlier post wherein I placed the ROY article...

Roy utilized a buffer to the sting of her criticism of America and American's duped by the haze of American doctrine. Gilad does not. Why would Roy offer a buffer? Quite simply Roy was born in India. Gilad did not feel a buffer necessary, I guess because as you say he speaks as an Israeli from a self inflicted exile.

When I consider my stance in criticism against America and the apathy I observe; a kind of brainwashing the result of ideological conditioning that makes whatever America choices to do morally sound whatever the horrific consequence to others outside America (as expounded upon in the Roy essay), I come from a great love of country as I believe on the blood sweat and tears of America's foes, that blood sweat and tears of the faceless (many innocent) has bought us our comfort. The argument to silence criticism always being AMERICA IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY- IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT GO LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. Yes America seems a great, perhaps the greatest country in the world, and it is our constitution that keeps government in line, a constitution that this administration seeks to dismantle in their effort to rule and dominate alla the PNAC, absolutely.

I find the corruption abhorent and the more I come to understand the atrocities committed upon those cultures we will not see at eye level I wave of disgust overtakes me because it was my country after all that impressed upon me that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL UNDER GOD. To witness the racism of my country abroad is an affront to the very ideals America stand for. Yes do we live in a kind of ease that many countries only dream of? Yes we do, but when is the price to humanity too high?

There is a place for criticism the likes of Gilad, Malcolm X, Roy, Chomsky etal. For those who do not take it personally as these authors touch upon enough of the underlying truth regardless of the styles they choose to utilize in relaying their criticisms.

[The Magistrate]

142. Thomas' Votes, Mr. Son

In almost all instances might as well be cast as proxy for a Grand Wizard of the Ku-Klux. You may exercise whatever scruples you wish in describing him, and may expect me to do as seems best to me.

If the points of this fellow who's scurrillous efforts were cited to ignite this wrangle are to be rebutted, he may phrase them in tones other than those of racist polemic: till he does, the proper reply is a stick; words will not suffice. If he finds he cannot make those points without the atmospherics, as is likely, then he has no points, only spleen, and is more part of the problem than of any solution to it, whatever side he may range himself upon.

Nor, Sir, does a profound distaste for one's native people, land, or the policies of its government, endow any person with any especial expertise or authority. How much attention should be paid to persons who depart this country in disgust at how the wealthy are taxed, or because President Clinton was in charge, for example?

[Gimel]

151. Totally ignorant

Each statement is radical and accuses Israel of the very concepts they have maintained for the Arab "Palestinians".

Like this one:
The idea of a state based on racial purity

In fact racial purity is a totally false and unJewish concept. Jews accept devout converts from any race.

This article is prue BS.

[StandWatie]

152. Orthodox conversions anyway

Reform and Conservative conversions have no weight and ironically make Israel the only state with laws on it's books discriminatory toward Jews.

[Gimel]

153. Conversions

As a matter of fact, conversions performed abroad by Conservative Rabbis are recognized in Israel. You are talking about religious law, not the state laws. It is a complicated subject.

What about the Arab states? They don't allow Jews entry. Does that make them non-descriminatory by non-recognition?

[StandWatie]

154. as far as Arab states..

I don't believe that is true, as a matter of fact Perle has been doing business in Saudi Arabia and Egypt for aeons and I know American Jews who have been to both places.

As for the rest..

In a rare moment of cross-denomination solidarity, Reform and Conservative rabbis in Israel are joining their Orthodox colleagues in opposing an Interior Ministry move to end automatic citizenship for those who convert to Judaism in Israel.

The Interior Ministry, led by the anti-clerical Shinui Party, announced plans this week to allow the expiration of a policy that confers citizenship immediately on anyone who completes a conversion in Israel. The policy is based on the Law of Return and in practice grants citizenship only to those who underwent Orthodox-sanctioned conversions.

The non-Orthodox movements, whose converts were never privy to the citizenship concession to begin with, initially lauded the move as an important step toward granting equal rights to Israel's liberal religious streams. But they turned against the liberal interior minister, Avraham Poraz, after he stated that he also was against automatically approving temporary residency for converts while they wait to become citizens.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.05.23/news13.html

[Gimel]

155. Israeli Jews only barred

Not only Israeli jews that are barred (those travelling on Israeli passports) but anyone who visits Israel prior to attempting entry into Saudi Arabia is denied entry. Unless the American individuals you've mentioned is identified by religion on his/her passport, there is no test for determinining that fact. As for Richard Perl, he may do business in Egypt (Israelis are allowed travel to Egypt, but not Syria or Saudi Arabia) but do you know for a fact that he has traveled to Saudi Arabia and has contracts with Saudi businessmen? That sounds rather far fetched.

As for the laws about converts becoming automatic citizens, this could apply to some cases. It doesn't seem to relate to the case that you mentioned in your earlier post, where an Israeli Jew marries a Palestinian Arab. Non-Jews who are married to a Jew (in say Russia or US) or a child or grandchild of a Jew is granted citizenship rights (due to Jewish lineage but not on religious grounds).

[StandWatie]

157. about Perle..

At the peak of his deal-making activities, in the nineteen-seventies, the Saudi-born businessman Adnan Khashoggi brokered billions of dollars in arms and aircraft sales for the Saudi royal family, earning hundreds of millions in commissions and fees. Though never convicted of wrongdoing, he was repeatedly involved in disputes with federal prosecutors and with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and in recent years he has been in litigation in Thailand and Los Angeles, among other places, concerning allegations of stock manipulation and fraud. During the Reagan Administration, Khashoggi was one of the middlemen between Oliver North, in the White House, and the mullahs in Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. Khashoggi subsequently claimed that he lost ten million dollars that he had put up to obtain embargoed weapons for Iran which were to be bartered (with Presidential approval) for American hostages. The scandals of those times seemed to feed off each other: a congressional investigation revealed that Khashoggi had borrowed much of the money for the weapons from the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (B.C.C.I.), whose collapse, in 1991, defrauded thousands of depositors and led to years of inquiry and litigation.

Khashoggi is still brokering. In January of this year, he arranged a private lunch, in France, to bring together Harb Saleh al-Zuhair, a Saudi industrialist whose family fortune includes extensive holdings in construction, electronics, and engineering companies throughout the Middle East, and Richard N. Perle, the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, who is one of the most outspoken and influential American advocates of war with Iraq.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030317fa_fact

You are starting to split hairs here, the US has laws regarding people coming from Cuba and since Israel doesn't allow passenger overflights originating from any of the Arab countries (to the point of blowing them up if they venture in accidentally) it becomes sort of a moot point.

There is also the fact that non-Jews who marry Israeli Jews are granted citizenship (they can't get married in Israel) but that they will be ineligble for most social programs and never granted a permit to build anything without an orthodox conversion.

[The Magistrate]

158. Thank You For A Fascinating Article, Mr. Watie

That lunch, however, would seem to have been eaten in Marsielles, rather distant from the Arabian peninsula. There is no reason to believe Perle has ever set foot in the latter. It is certainly true that no Jew would be allowed to become a naturalized citizen of Saudi Arabia, unless first converting to Islam, and this wrangle seems to have blown up over immigration policies, not tourist visas.

[StandWatie]

159. no one becomes a naturalized citizen of Saudi Arabia

and to be honest I can't think of any reason a non-Muslim would ever want to set foot in the place or what they would do once they got there.

I did see something when I was poking around that if you have an Israeli stamp on your passport you are denyed entry so I guess that would leave Perle out of visiting in country :shrug: