Beinart Opens Back Door on US Jewish Establishment

-

peter beinart.jpgMy colleague Peter Beinart has just published in the New York Review of Books what will be for his career a “defining piece” that challenges key Israel-focused institutions to change up their game or face a bleak future.
In “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,” Beinart works through data that show that the American Jewish community has become increasingly divided, that the younger generation is more open and tolerant about Israel-Palestine possibilities than their parents, but more disconcerting — those affiliated with the leading institutions of Zionism are more illiberal and intolerant of those possibilities.
Beinart paints a compelling picture of the problems in the Jewish establishment today and challenges leading Zionist institutions to recreate themselves and to work to balance their increasingly inflexible, strident membership with younger American, tolerant liberals.
Here is a clip of his piece, which should be read in full:

Among American Jews today, there are a great many Zionists, especially in the Orthodox world, people deeply devoted to the State of Israel. And there are a great many liberals, especially in the secular Jewish world, people deeply devoted to human rights for all people, Palestinians included. But the two groups are increasingly distinct. Particularly in the younger generations, fewer and fewer American Jewish liberals are Zionists; fewer and fewer American Jewish Zionists are liberal. One reason is that the leading institutions of American Jewry have refused to foster–indeed, have actively opposed–a Zionism that challenges Israel’s behavior in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and toward its own Arab citizens. For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.
Morally, American Zionism is in a downward spiral. If the leaders of groups like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations do not change course, they will wake up one day to find a younger, Orthodox-dominated, Zionist leadership whose naked hostility to Arabs and Palestinians scares even them, and a mass of secular American Jews who range from apathetic to appalled. Saving liberal Zionism in the United States–so that American Jews can help save liberal Zionism in Israel–is the great American Jewish challenge of our age. And it starts where Luntz’s students wanted it to start: by talking frankly about Israel’s current government, by no longer averting our eyes.
Since the 1990s, journalists and scholars have been describing a bifurcation in Israeli society. In the words of Hebrew University political scientist Yaron Ezrahi, “After decades of what came to be called a national consensus, the Zionist narrative of liberation [has] dissolved into openly contesting versions.” One version, “founded on a long memory of persecution, genocide, and a bitter struggle for survival, is pessimistic, distrustful of non-Jews, and believing only in Jewish power and solidarity.” Another, “nourished by secularized versions of messianism as well as the Enlightenment idea of progress,” articulates “a deep sense of the limits of military force, and a commitment to liberal-democratic values.” Every country manifests some kind of ideological divide. But in contemporary Israel, the gulf is among the widest on earth.

This article will no doubt create a storm of debate in the field. Let’s hope that it stays civil and reasonable.
– Steve Clemons

Comments

109 comments on “Beinart Opens Back Door on US Jewish Establishment

  1. nadine says:

    Interesting exchange between Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic and Peter Beinart, over several posts at
    http://www.theatlantic.com/jeffrey-goldberg
    Goldberg keeps trying to get Beinart to look at recent history not just in terms of Israel, but to look at the bigger picture: Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria, Iran, all of whom read Israeli compromises as Israeli weakness. Beinart says he sees them, but doesn’t really seem to think they matter, or that Israel has to adjust its own behavior to take them into account for the sake of its own survival.
    It seems to be a pattern with the Left: every once in a while, they’ll clear their throats and hastily say they disapprove of Hamas or Hizbullah, but they don’t want to spend any time at all to listen to these organizations or review the the threat they pose; next minute it’s back to “oh my Gawd! those awful Israeli settlers!” where they are obviously far more comfortable.
    This one-sided focus renders them objectively pro-Hamas and pro-Hizbullah (just like Orwell noted pacifists were objectively pro-fascist), but they don’t really seem to mind.

    Reply

  2. Paul Norheim says:

    “Paul, you are making excuses and finding justifications for Nazi
    propaganda that was used to pave the way for one genocide, and
    is being promulgated today by those who hope to achieve a
    second genocide.”
    Nadine, thanks for the illuminating vampire discussion. You`re
    almost as charming as the footwear & handbag spammers at The
    Washington Note. Now I’m off to Casablanca.

    Reply

  3. nadine says:

    Jonathan Chait, of all people, corrects his left-wing blogsphere colleague Josh Marshall (and indirectly, Peter Beinart) by actually reading the results of a poll of Israelis and Palestinians before sounding off about how one side is just like the other:
    “This is where the whole parallel-ist view of the conflict starts to lose touch with reality…. Palestinian rejectionism is the heart of the problem. Palestinians are reluctant to make peace because they don’t want Israel to exist. Israelis are reluctant to make peace because Palestinians don’t want Israel to exist….
    I think the point is crucial because it gets to the heart of my disagreement with many liberals over this question. The mistaken equation between Israeli rejectionism and Palestinian rejectionism produces the frequent mistaken conclusion that Palestinian rejectionism results from various Israeli misdeeds. If Palestinians are hijacking planes or embracing suicide attacks or launching rockets in the random direction of Israeli towns, it must be a response to this or that Israeli action. The reality is that Palestinian rejectionism is a authentic expression of Palestinian belief with a long history that has manifested itself in numerous ways, starting from the Palestinian rejection of the 1947 U.N. partition of Palestine into two states, running through the establishment of the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1964 (before Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza), and continuing through various tactics of killing Israeli civilians as an end in and of itself.”
    http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/interesting-israelpalestine-poll

    Reply

  4. nadine says:

    Paul, you are making excuses and finding justifications for Nazi propaganda that was used to pave the way for one genocide, and is being promulgated today by those who hope to achieve a second genocide. When anybody points this out to you, you call them a liar and bigot. The operative word for you is: fool. Supericilious, morally preening, fool.

    Reply

  5. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Enlightenment”, in Nadine’s world, comes when one finally feels the sheer ecstacy to be had in experiencing the sound of sizzling Palestinian flesh, melting off the bones of children being subjected to a rainstorm of Israeli white phosphorous bombs.

    Reply

  6. Paul Norheim says:

    You’re a simple liar, Nadine.
    Anyone reading this thread, or anything else I’ve written at TWN,
    will see that I don’t condone Arab anti-Semitism. My sin on this
    thread is that I suggested a pro-quid-pro climate.
    As for your hatred, it is well documented.
    As for your accusations of “Casablanca statements”, targeting
    critics of Israel, your method resembles the Stalinist methods
    against those they arrested and put in jail. There is no defense
    available for those accused of a Casablanca statement.
    Is that your definition of Enlightenment?

    Reply

  7. nadine says:

    “Mary Robinson simply acknowledged a fact that WigWag is not
    sure if she has ever acknowledged before (neither am I) until
    she admitted the obvious fact above on this thread: Israel’s
    increased racism both within it’s population and its institutions.”
    So that’s your excuse for turning the Durban conference into a festival of Jew-hatred? Some Israeli racism exists, so it’s okay to sell The Protocols and Mein Kampf and show how the Jews control the world? Some racism among Israelis justifies Nazi-level incitement against Israel?
    There is nothing liberal about your value system at all. You are thoroughly in bed with the most illiberal people around. True Arab reformers, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, can expect no help from you. You won’t ever criticize the barbarians who are trying to kill her.

    Reply

  8. nadine says:

    It’s not a “violent eviction”, susan, it’s a court-ordered eviction. As for the Arabs who have land claims in West Jerusalem, let them sue. The Israeli High Court, as it happens, is quite far to the left, and has often ruled against the government. The Jewish Turks, like Jews from the rest of the Muslim world, don’t have that option to recover their lost property. It’s just lost.
    It’s not as if you don’t have these property disputes all over Europe and every place in the world that had a war in the last 60 years. Can the Greeks of Northern Cyprus sue to recover their property?
    These are precisely the kind of land claims that are negotiated and settled in a PEACE TREATY, you know that thing the Arab states all refused to negotiate with Israel in 1949? If you refuse to recognize or negotiate with the other side, you leave this sort of issue hanging.
    What is wearying is that you ignore the issue absolutely everywhere else, to the point of pretending it doesn’t exist, but scream, “Look! the Jews are doing it! the Jews are doing it! The horror! The injustice!” when it’s the Israelis.
    A: Jews steal.
    B: But other people steal too.
    A: Ah! But we were talking about the Jews.
    If the shoe fits, wear it.

    Reply

  9. David says:

    Talk about a picture being worth a thousand words, Susan…

    Reply

  10. Paul Norheim says:

    “Just so, Durban I operated under Mary Robinson’s oversight,
    and had become a festival of Israel-bashing and Jew-hatred
    with her willing connivance. That is the context. Mary Robinson
    was IN CHARGE of that conference.” (Nadine)
    Mary Robinson simply acknowledged a fact that WigWag is not
    sure if she has ever acknowledged before (neither am I) until
    she admitted the obvious fact above on this thread: Israel’s
    increased racism both within it’s population and its institutions.
    The Durban context: Arab hypocrites accusing Israel of racism?
    Sure, that was part of the context. But Mary Robinson explicitly
    addressed that. If you had been fair and honest, you would have
    highlighted the fact that Mary Robinson was outraged by Arab
    anti-Semitism, instead of comparing her with, in WigWag’s
    words, “the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan presiding over a
    Klan meeting or Torquemada presiding over the Spanish
    Inquisition.”
    Any informed and intelligent reader of this blog can detect the
    moral and intellectual dishonesty of this remark, in the light of
    the facts I documented above on this thread regarding the
    conduct of the honorable Mary Robinson within the context of
    the Durban conference she presided over.

    Reply

  11. susan says:

    Nadine, you defend the Jewish Israeli settlers violent evictions of Palestinians from their homes in the Sheikh Jaraah neighborhood of East Jerusalem by writing, “Before 1948, Sheik Jarrah was a Jewish neighborhood; the Jordanians drove off the Jews and gave the property to Jordanians.”
    The topic of Sheikh Jarrah raises an interesting question. Here it is:
    “If Jewish Israelis can claim property in East Jerusalem based on land deeds that predate 1948, why can

    Reply

  12. Paul Norheim says:

    “It is YOU who are a disgrace to the values of the Enlightenment”.
    (Nadine)
    You’ve already noted several times before that I’m a moron. Now
    I’m even a disgrace to the values of Enlightenment.
    I would be grateful if you elaborated a bit on that point (and also
    on the moron part). Don’t be shy.
    I would also highly appreciate it if you provided your definition of
    the Enlightenment. Franklin? Diderot? Or perhaps Robespierre?

    Reply

  13. nadine says:

    Paul, what made the original Casabalanca statement a ‘Casablanca statement’? It was because the Claude Rains character hadn’t just wandered into Rick’s for the first time. Rick’s operated under his legal oversight, and had flourished as a gambling den with his willing connivance.
    Just so, Durban I operated under Mary Robinson’s oversight, and had become a festival of Israel-bashing and Jew-hatred with her willing connivance. That is the context. Mary Robinson was IN CHARGE of that conference. That is why her theatrical declaration of Jewish solidarity when presented with the evidence is a true example of a Casablanca statement: “I’m shocked, shocked!”
    “Nadine being more on the
    xenophobic, paranoid and hateful side, ”
    And Paul tending to the arrogant assumption of moral superiority, so easily assumed by leftists, who know they are moral and their opponents immoral, so they don’t need no stinkin’ evidence.
    Once and for all, it is not xenophobic, hateful or paranoid IF IT IS TRUE. It is TRUE that that most of the Arab world, including the governments of Egypt and Syria, speak of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as FACT (as Zawi Hawass did), and teach them to their children, and put them in the showcase of their libraries (as the Librarian of Alexandria did), and put them on government-controlled TV as Ramadan mini-series (like both Egypt and Syria did).
    Ayaan Ali Hirsi is not xenophobic, hateful or paranoid for telling what she was taught, NOR AM I for citing other examples of the “comforting wall of lies”, to use Fouad Ajami’s phrase, which the Arab world has constructed around itself.
    It is YOU who are a disgrace to the values of the Enlightenment, which prefer facts to wishful thinking or political correctness of whatever stripe.

    Reply

  14. nadine says:

    For example, you seem to feel that the Muslim world gets “a
    pass” from liberals. There may be some of that. But mostly, it’s
    a reaction to the right who would use the Muslim world’s failings
    as a reason to take draconian measures, e.g., invading Iraq,
    bombing Iran. (sweetness)
    No, sweetness, it long predates 2003 or 2001. Read Berman’s Flight of the Intellectuals. Look up the history of multi-culturalism, the influence of Edward Said’s Orientalism, which essentially declared western scholars who had dedicated their lives to studying the Mideast guilty of patronizing colonialism.
    This has been a long time brewing. It predates 2001 or even Gulf War 1. The reaction to the Iraq war just sharpened the political polarization.

    Reply

  15. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag,
    somewhere above you said to me:
    “As for your remark about apartheid, it is made by both Israel
    critics and Israel supporters; it’s even made by Israeli
    Government officials. None of this means it isn’t a dimwitted
    remark.”
    Now, we are familiar with your general criteria regarding what is
    intelligent and what is just dumb or dimwitted. (I’ll give you
    credit though, for not employing the same criteria while
    discussing directly with commenters at the TWN like Dan and
    myself, who often disagree with you). But what, precisely,
    makes you think that the apartheid remark is dimwitted?
    Could it be that you somehow agree with apartheid policies as a
    palatable option?
    You have several times suggested that the IDF should use the
    tactics of US civil war General Sherman – the “Scorched Earth
    Tactics – against the Arabs. Do you agree with Effi Eitam and
    Avigdor Lieberman when they also suggest to “remove the
    Israeli Arabs from the political system”?
    That would certainly clarify your remark regarding the
    “dimwittedness” of your opponents on the apartheid issue.
    Here is a quote from Beinart’s article – useful as a reminder of
    the core issues:
    “But in Israel today, this humane, universalistic Zionism does
    not wield power. To the contrary, it is gasping for air. To
    understand how deeply antithetical its values are to those of
    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

    Reply

  16. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    Csrroll…thanks for the Philip Weiss piece…appreciate being reminded of what our positions were on the critical issues back when this all began….I say get back to the hard line of financial sactions, if Israel doesn’t comply with UN resolutions.

    Reply

  17. Paul Norheim says:

    I think Sweeetness nails it in his last comment.
    And to me, at least, it’s sometimes difficult to distinguish -
    while reading WigWag’s and Nadine’s frequent derogatory
    comments about the “Arab world” and “Muslims” – between old
    fashioned racism and paranoia – and old fashioned imperial
    arrogance that literally comes with the territory – akin to the
    contempt for Arabs among Brits before they lost their empire.
    Perhaps it’s a lethal mix of both – Nadine being more on the
    xenophobic, paranoid and hateful side, and WigWag tilting more
    towards US arrogance and contempt. What makes this witch
    brew particularly dangerous (and maybe Sweetness doesn’t
    agree with me on this point) is the identification with a tiny
    country in a hostile environment (Israel) while being a citizen of
    a huge, powerful semi-empire (the US) surrounded by vast
    oceans.
    In my view, the mixture of these two components (“I am big and
    powerful but I often feel small and insecure and persecuted”) is
    also what – beyond two anonymous commenters on a blog -
    made (and still make) the neocon attitude so dangerous, and
    explains some of the seemingly absurd mixture of paranoia and
    aggression within large parts of the DC establishment in the last
    decade. This is also one of the factors that makes the US
    mentality very different from, and more complicated than the
    mentality of the Brits in those days.
    When Dan suggested to make Israel a US state, he mentioned
    that it would calm down the fears of the Israelis, but forgot to
    mention that it could also calm down the absurd fear and
    paranoia of hawkish Jewish Americans safely residing on the
    North American continent. It would not cure their arrogance,
    though.

    Reply

  18. Paul Norheim says:

    “Ever see the movie Casablanca, Paul?
    “I am shocked, shocked! to find that gambling is going on in
    this establishment.”" (Nadine)
    But how do you distinguish between a Casablanca statement
    and a sincere statement (even when the expression is
    theatrical)?
    You’re making a fool of yourself if you merely insist that A
    essentially claims X although she claims Y.
    WigWag says KKK, and you agree. Then I provide a quote
    documenting the opposite, and the only thing you two have to
    say is: “Theatrical!” and “Casablanca!”. Unless you provide some
    additional info or context, you can turn anything into its
    opposite, which you frequently also do.

    Reply

  19. Sweetness says:

    Nadine writes: “Ironic, rather. All Paul has described is a swing
    from one form of blindness into another. After all, no people
    can, merely by their own efforts, get themselves seen as saints
    by another; there has to be some process of identification going
    on in the mind of the beholder. If at some future point, he flips
    from seeing them as saints to seeing them as devils, the change
    is likely to be far more in his own mind than in anything they
    did.”
    Yes, there is this. In general, the IP conversation flips back and
    forth from one extreme to another.
    For example, you seem to feel that the Muslim world gets “a
    pass” from liberals. There may be some of that. But mostly, it’s
    a reaction to the right who would use the Muslim world’s failings
    as a reason to take draconian measures, e.g., invading Iraq,
    bombing Iran. So liberals, to stave off this draconian response,
    end up defending the Muslim world and specific regimes–not
    because they think the Muslim world lacks serious problems, but
    because they think those problems don’t justify or call for the
    draconian measures being threatened.
    And it gets worse from there…

    Reply

  20. nadine says:

    If the Sheikh Jarrah incident is the one I’m thinking of, the property wasn’t bought by “settlers”, it was reclaimed by the original Jewish owners after a thirty year court battle. Before 1948, Sheik Jarrah was a Jewish neighborhood; the Jordanians drove off the Jews and gave the property to Jordanians. I don’t know if this woman was one of the new Jordanian owners, more likely she is a tenant, who like tenants everywhere has to move when a building is sold, except in Jerusalem it because an international crisis.
    How does that fit with your easy morality, susan?

    Reply

  21. susan says:

    Andrew Sullivan has posted a picture that conveys what many of our words have attempted yet failed to express:
    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
    Here is the caption:
    A Palestinian woman whose house has been occupied by Jewish settlers argues with Israelis who came to celebrate Jerusalem Day on May 12, 2010 in front of her disputed house in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. Israel recently celebrating the anniversary of the ‘unification’ of Jerusalem, marking 43 years since it captured mainly Arab east Jerusalem during the 1967 Middle East war.

    Reply

  22. Paul Norheim says:

    Sweetness: “And here I had a memory that the NYRB was Midge
    Decter’s pub-:)”
    WigWag: “The politics of the people who write regularly for
    NYRB are so imbecilic that it is hard to imagine…As bad as
    Burama [sic] and Garton-Ash are, the single dumbest regular at
    NYRB is Tony Judt”.
    There is no other way to interpret WigWag’s IQ criteria than that
    the intelligence of Podhoretz, Kristol sr. etc skyrocketed when
    they converted from their former radical/liberal views to their
    neocon views, while the younger Elliott Abrams, Podhoretz
    junior and Bill Kristol have been geniuses since Bar Mitzvah.
    But who knows: perhaps even Buruma’s and Garton-Asch’s
    intelligence may skyrocket in the future, miraculously
    transforming them into paranoid hawks and Arab-haters?

    Reply

  23. David says:

    Midge Decter…ah, Midge Decter.
    Trying to remember any political entity with power not running roughshod over any powerless entity or group which was in the way of something they wanted. Where I think any charges of ant-semitism against critics of Israel stems from is a failure to take into account that those of us who are very disturbed by what our special-relationship ally in the Middle East is doing are primarily varyingly idealist folk who cannot abide the ruthless mistreatment of the essentially powerless by the powerful. That it is the current government of Israel is a matter of chance. That the pattern is both all too common and utterly repugnant is the issue.

    Reply

  24. susan says:

    Perhaps a final comment on this subject:
    The View From Masaryk Street
    http://agonist.org

    Reply

  25. Sweetness says:

    And here I had a memory that the NYRB was Midge Decter’s pub-:)
    But if I’m not mistaken Elizabeth Hardwick is no lefty…

    Reply

  26. Neo Controll says:

    “Interesting that you bring this up, Nadine. You are really on a roll; many of your comments on this thread have been fascinating.” (Wig Wag)
    Only the best propaganda that hasbara headquarters can provide.
    Wig Wag and Nadine engage in character assassination ping pong, massaging each other’s twisted Israel First bile. As expected.

    Reply

  27. WigWag says:

    “Rosenbaum recalls that he advised Berman to reorganize his volume to place up front his denunciation of two Western authors, Ian Buruma and Timothy Garton Ash. Berman eviscerated both for having cut Ramadan too much slack in articles for leading American publications and for having taken a sneering view of Dutch-Somali writer and politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali because of her condemnations of Islam and what they referred to as her Enlightenment fundamentalism.” (Cited by Nadine)
    Interesting that you bring this up, Nadine. You are really on a roll; many of your comments on this thread have been fascinating.
    Burama and Garton Ash are little more than poseurs. Where do they appear regularly? Of course on the pages of the New York Review of Books; the same place that Beinart decided to place his article.
    I admit that I read the New York Review of Books every month because it is the only place to get in-depth book reviews (the book review section of the New York Times has just been dumbed down too much). I can’t stand the thought of putting money into the pockets of the publsihers so I go and read it at my local Barnes and Noble while I drink a nice iced decaf quad espresso. After I’ve read it I put it back on the shelf.
    The politics of the people who write regularly for NYRB are so imbecilic that it is hard to imagine. About the only regular comentator about politics who ever has anything interesting to say at the NYRB is Gary Wills, though I didn’t find his new book on presidential power and nuclear weapons very convincing.
    As bad as Burama and Garton-Ash are, the single dumbest regular at NYRB is Tony Judt, but I don’t want to say too much about Professor Judt because he is so gravely ill.
    But yes, Robinson would fit in perfectly on the editorial board at the New York Review of Books. Just as their regular writers are intellectuals devoid of intellect; she’s a humanitarian devoid of human decency.

    Reply

  28. nadine says:

    “UN High Commissioner Mary
    Robinson – in a dramatic act of identification with the Jews
    vilified in the pamphlet – declared “I am a Jew” at an NGO dinner
    there Wednesday night.” (paul norheim)
    Ever see the movie Casablanca, Paul?
    “I am shocked, shocked! to find that gambling is going on in this establishment.”

    Reply

  29. nadine says:

    “What do you think, Nadine, do you think we might live to see the day that one of Hirsi Ali’s articles are featured in a post at the Washington Note the way the Beinhart article was?” (Wigwag)
    Not until liberals recover their intellectual capacities around the various spokesmen coming out of the Muslim world. The current position is servile and flattering. This, they call “engagement”. Engagement is permitted. But taking their ideas seriously, pointing out their flaws, arguing with them? Not permitted. Why, that would be “Orientalism”.
    This is Paul Berman’s subject in “Flight of the Intellectuals,” reviewed here by Michael Young of the Beirut Daily Star:
    Reading Paul Berman in Beirut
    What does it mean to be a liberal in the West and in the Arab world?
    By Michael Young
    Posted Thursday, May 13, 2010, at 10:09 AM ET
    Paul Berman’s The Flight of the Intellectuals.It’s surprising, even a little disturbing, that Paul Berman, whose books have generally covered what we can call “foreign” topics, has thus far been kept the prisoner of a domestic American conversation.
    Take Ron Rosenbaum’s recent preview of Berman’s latest book, The Flight of the Intellectuals. Berman’s work is an expanded version of an essay he wrote for the New Republic about Muslim activist and writer Tariq Ramadan, who is seen by many people as an authoritative Muslim voice in Europe. Rosenbaum recalls that he advised Berman to reorganize his volume to place up front his denunciation of two Western authors, Ian Buruma and Timothy Garton Ash. Berman eviscerated both for having cut Ramadan too much slack in articles for leading American publications and for having taken a sneering view of Dutch-Somali writer and politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali because of her condemnations of Islam and what they referred to as her “Enlightenment fundamentalism.”
    Thank goodness Berman didn’t listen. The unease felt by Western intellectuals toward their Enlightenment is an important theme in his book. However, Berman is more interested in moving beyond that parochial discussion to say something meaningful about the Middle East, political Islam, and the relationship of the two with liberalism

    Reply

  30. nadine says:

    “PN writes: “The Jews, the Africans, and the Arabs have been seen this way in our recent history (and they still are) – and this glorification of entire groups of people is not less dangerous than the
    demonization of the same groups, because it is precisely this attempt to portrait someone as saints, and defend or excuse all their actions, that contributes to the often surprising resentment and demonization at a later stage, when the
    pendulum swings – often provoked by actions committed by members of the group previously defined as saints.
    Sweetness “Astute.”
    Ironic, rather. All Paul has described is a swing from one form of blindness into another. After all, no people can, merely by their own efforts, get themselves seen as saints by another; there has to be some process of identification going on in the mind of the beholder. If at some future point, he flips from seeing them as saints to seeing them as devils, the change is likely to be far more in his own mind than in anything they did.

    Reply

  31. Sweetness says:

    PN writes: “The Jews, the Africans, and the Arabs have been seen this way in our recent history (and they still are) – and this glorification of entire groups of people is not less dangerous than the
    demonization of the same groups, because it is precisely this attempt to portrait someone as saints, and defend or excuse all their actions, that contributes to the often surprising resentment and demonization at a later stage, when the
    pendulum swings – often provoked by actions committed by members of the group previously defined as saints.
    Astute.

    Reply

  32. WigWag says:

    Sorry for spelling Beinart’s name incorrectly in my recent comment of May 19 2010, 11:03PM.
    I apologize to Beinart and to his whole meshpucha!

    Reply

  33. WigWag says:

    “Waving a book of anti-Semitic cartoons distributed at the anti-racism conference in Durban, UN High Commissioner Mary Robinson – in a dramatic act of identification with the Jews vilified in the pamphlet – declared “I am a Jew” at an NGO dinner there Wednesday night.” (As cited by Paul Norheim)
    Wow, she sure is brave! I just can’t believe how dramatic her act of identification with the Jews was. That sure counteracts her willingness to chair a conference that she knew would be a cesspool of anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and hypocrisy.
    The truth, Paul, is that while Robinson does enough to insure that she’s accepted in polite company, she exposed exactly who she is with her willingness to associate herself with the Durban I conference.
    The woman is precisely the type of bigot that she pretends to abhor. It’s no wonder that Obama decided to give her the Medal of Freedom. My guess is that if and when he’s safely reelected we will see him pinning the Medal of Freedom on Robinson’s doppelganger, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
    The Spanish Inquisition; a Ku Klux Klan rally; they are excellent metaphors for Durban I. Robinson chose to lead that pogrom; in doing so she exposed exactly who she was.
    It may or may not do any good, but the people I know don’t plan to forgive Mary Robinson and we are sure to remember who it was who thought this is a woman whose life was worth celebrating.

    Reply

  34. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag or Nadine:
    do you have the mail address to the KKK?
    If these guys talk and act like Mary Robinson, I would like to apply
    for membership.

    Reply

  35. WigWag says:

    Nadine, thanks for the great link to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article in the Los Angeles Times. She is certainly a brave woman. The quote from her article that really struck me is this one,
    “For generations, the leaders of these so-called Muslim countries have been spoon-feeding their populations a constant diet of propaganda similar to the one that generations of Germans (and other Europeans) were fed

    Reply

  36. Paul Norheim says:

    Just a small episode from the life of the Wizard of KKK, aka
    Mary Robinson:
    “Waving a book of anti-Semitic cartoons distributed at the anti-
    racism conference in Durban, UN High Commissioner Mary
    Robinson – in a dramatic act of identification with the Jews
    vilified in the pamphlet – declared “I am a Jew” at an NGO dinner
    there Wednesday night.
    Shimon Samuels, of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Paris, said
    that after he showed Robinson the booklet, she stood up, waved
    it and said, “This conference is aimed at achieving human
    dignity. My husband is a cartoonist, I love political cartoons, but
    when I see the racism in this cartoon booklet, of the Arab
    Lawyers’ Union, I must say that I am a Jew – for those victims
    are hurting.”
    http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=1025
    ———————————————-
    KKK?
    Yeah, WigWag and Nadine. Sure. If you say so.

    Reply

  37. nadine says:

    “To me it looks like the journalist had a
    good hunch, but failed with respect to his journalistic craft, not
    providing evidence and sufficient facts while walking into a
    minefield. ” (Paul Norheim)
    Far more than that, since he doesn’t accuse a criminal of the actions, but using every insinuation and guilt-by-association he can reach, widely accuses the Israeli government, base on rumor without evidence. That’s not a good hunch, that’s slander. I’m sure there are criminals in Norway, Paul. How would you like it if every paper in Europe said they committed crimes at the order of the Norwegian PM? Would that be a “good hunch” too?
    A: Jews steal.
    B: But other people steal too.
    A: Ah, but we are talking about the Jews!
    That’s the anti-Semitic trope, and it’s an old one.

    Reply

  38. nadine says:

    WW: “Unless I’m mistaken, I believe that I have remarked at the
    Washington Note that racism in Israel is indeed on the rise…”
    PN: “Not sure? Me neither. But Mary Robinson KNOWS that she has
    made such remarks. And that of course makes it appropriate to
    compare her with “a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan”, right?”
    WW: “In fact, the attitude about Arabs in Israel is becoming more
    like the attitudes about Jews that are ubiquitous in the Arab
    world. Fortunately the racism of Jews doesn’t even approach the
    racism of Arabs, but over time it easily could.”
    PN: “Now we are talking.”
    Now we are talking? Why? Because we have left the unacceptable subject of Arab racism and turned to the highly acceptable subject of Israeli racism?
    If Mary Robinson has made remarks about Israeli racism without making remarks about the far more dire, widespread, and religiously-sanctioned Arab racism against Jews, then I should think comparisons to the KKK are not that far off the mark. Wizards of the KKK were quite fond of remarking about the crimes of blacks against whites, without mentioning the far worse crimes of whites against blacks.

    Reply

  39. nadine says:

    Does your sister-in-law know whether teachers have any trouble teaching about the Holocaust in Danish schools because Muslim students deny it? I have heard such reports from England.
    Ayaan Hirsi Ali explained how growing up in East Africa, the (Saudi-funded) mosque always taught her to to curse the Jews and never mentioned the Holocaust. She first learned about it the Netherlands:
    “In order for me to be admitted to the university I wanted to attend, I needed to pass three courses: a language course, a civics course and a history course. It was in the preparatory history course that I, for the first time, heard of the Holocaust. …
    I learned that innocent men, women and children were separated from each other. Stars pinned to their shoulders, transported by train to camps, they were gassed for no other reason than for being Jewish.
    I saw pictures of masses of skeletons, even of kids. I heard horrifying accounts of some of the people who had survived the terror of Auschwitz and Sobibor. I told my half-sister all this and showed her the pictures in my history book. What she said was as awful as the information in my book.
    With great conviction, my half-sister cried: “It’s a lie! Jews have a way of blinding people. They were not killed, gassed or massacred. But I pray to Allah that one day all the Jews in the world will be destroyed.”
    She was not saying anything new. As a child growing up in Saudi Arabia, I remember my teachers, my mom and our neighbors telling us practically on a daily basis that Jews are evil, the sworn enemies of Muslims, and that their only goal was to destroy Islam. We were never informed about the Holocaust.
    Later, as a teenager in Kenya, when Saudi and other Persian Gulf philanthropy reached us, I remember that the building of mosques and donations to hospitals and the poor went hand in hand with the cursing of Jews. Jews were said to be responsible for the deaths of babies and for epidemics such as AIDS, and they were believed to be the cause of wars. They were greedy and would do absolutely anything to kill us Muslims. If we ever wanted to know peace and stability, and if we didn’t want to be wiped out, we would have to destroy the Jews. For those of us who were not in a position to take up arms against them, it was enough for us to cup our hands, raise our eyes heavenward and pray to Allah to destroy them.”
    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ali16dec16,0,2351518.story?coll=la-home-commentary

    Reply

  40. Paul Norheim says:

    Thanks WigWag. I have personally noticed some more openly
    hostile remarks among pundits recently, but claiming that racism
    is “skyrocketing” in Norway seems like an exaggeration.
    My sister-in-law is Danish, and a teacher in world religions and
    writer of school books on this subject. According to her, the
    Muslim community in general is much more moderate in Norway
    than in Denmark: they have a much stronger element of
    extremists in certain mosques than we do. There is also much
    cooperation between the Christian Church and the mosques here
    on many issues.
    I have the impression that the potential for conflict is much
    smaller here than in our neighboring countries, but this could of
    course change in the future.

    Reply

  41. WigWag says:

    “Any evidence for this claim? As far as I know, there is no clear evidence of increased racism in Norway during the last decade or so.” (Paul Norheim)
    European Commission Against Racism and Intolerence: Fourth Report on Norway, February 24, 2009, page 29.
    “Civil society actors agree that Islamophobia has been on the rise since ECRI

    Reply

  42. Paul Norheim says:

    Correction – where I said:
    “The democratic principle of not allowing the government to
    interfere in editorial principles is far more important than the
    actual cases here…”
    I of course meant to say:
    “to interfere with the editorial DECISIONS…” (in newspapers etc.)

    Reply

  43. Paul Norheim says:

    Nadine,
    somewhere above you said:
    “I think it’s quite fair to ask, what was the atmosphere in the
    Swedish media that made Aftonbladet think that this would be
    acceptable?”
    Let me repete a quote (from Wikipedia) that seems to answer
    your question:
    “The Swedish and Israeli media were highly critical of the
    article,[13][14] and all cultural editors of other major Swedish
    newspapers argued that the article, based on old hearsay and
    rumors, should never have been published.[15]”
    This is also in accordance with my impression reading Swedish
    newspapers during this controversy. Which means that the
    atmosphere in the Swedish media was generally quite healthy,
    don’t you think?
    The reaction came from “all” cultural editors of other major
    newspapers, in addition to intellectuals, journalists, authors,
    priests, members of several organizations – in short: from the
    civil society.
    And that is exactly how it should be in a healthy democracy. It is
    similar to the lively debates in Scandinavia after the Danish
    cartoons were published in several Danish and Norwegian
    newspapers. Interference from the government was entirely
    unnecessary, and would have distorted and disturbed a healthy
    debate.
    The democratic principle of not allowing the government to
    interfere in editorial principles is far more important than the
    actual cases here, and would only have done damage. Freedom
    of expression is not such a bad thing, Nadine.
    And BTW, if Wikipedia is factually correct here, the issue is more
    complicated than I originally thought:
    “In December 2009, a 2000 interview with Hiss was released, in
    which he had admitted taking organs from other corpses,
    including from Palestinians, without the families’ permission.
    Israeli health officials confirmed Hiss’ confession but stated that
    such incidents had ended in the 1990s and noted that Hiss had
    been removed from his post.[23][24][25] The report appeared to
    confirm Palestinians’ allegations that Israel returned their
    relatives bodies with their chests sewn up, having harvested
    their organs.”
    It looks like there was more substance in that article in
    Aftonbladet than I previously thought. Are these facts anti-
    Semtic, or was it perhaps anti-Semtic to raise those suspicions
    publicly? I’m not sure. To me it looks like the journalist had a
    good hunch, but failed with respect to his journalistic craft, not
    providing evidence and sufficient facts while walking into a
    minefield. The same could be said about his editors. But that’s
    not anti-Semitism.
    A lousy journalist with good instincts, perhaps?

    Reply

  44. nadine says:

    Paul, perception of bias turns on perception of reality.
    If you really do believe that a shadowy Jewish cabal controls the world, then you see no bias in treating the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact or making televions miniseries out of it.
    If, on the other hand, you believe that the Protocols is a Tsarist forgery imported by the Nazis into the Arab world, and that cabals-who-control-the-world are examples of irrational conspiracy-thinking, then you perceive bias in treating the Protocols as fact.

    Reply

  45. nadine says:

    Susan, surely even you can perceive the difference between a protest and a suicide bomber?

    Reply

  46. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag said:
    “As for religious fanaticism in Israel, I think I’ve mentioned it
    several times on this blog.”
    Yes, WigWag, while Nadine belittled this fact above on this
    thread, you have acknowledged it several times here.
    “Unless I’m mistaken, I believe that I have remarked at the
    Washington Note that racism in Israel is indeed on the rise…”
    Not sure? Me neither. But Mary Robinson KNOWS that she has
    made such remarks. And that of course makes it appropriate to
    compare her with “a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan”, right?
    ” In fact, the attitude about Arabs in Israel is becoming more
    like the attitudes about Jews that are ubiquitous in the Arab
    world. Fortunately the racism of Jews doesn’t even approach the
    racism of Arabs, but over time it easily could.”
    Now we are talking.
    BTW, sorry for not responding to your reply one week ago on
    another thread, on a related subject. I spent a week in Oslo,
    offline, and also went to a reunion event at a Christian
    Evangelical College. Nice to meet former students and teachers
    that I haven’t seen for 30 years. One of the former students was
    now working for a pro-Zionist Christian organization – a
    position shared by the teachers of that school (and also my
    parents).
    “Two other points, Paul; once again you are conflating decent
    Christians with what you call extremist Christians.”
    I think you have a label for people like me, WigWag: A self-
    hating Christian.
    “After all, racism against Muslims is skyrocketing in your
    country”.
    Any evidence for this claim? As far as I know, there is no clear
    evidence of increased racism in Norway during the last decade
    or so.
    “When it comes to the way Israel deals with Hamas and
    Hezbollah, Americans, for the most part, like what they see.”
    But what exactly do they see, WigWag? Are they perhaps familiar
    with some of the findings in the Goldstone Report? As for the
    Armageddon-believers, I assume that the evidence documented
    there would not make a lasting impression – but perhaps
    among ordinary Americans if the report had not been dismissed
    for political reasons?
    “In fact, American Christians like what they see in significantly
    higher percentages than American Jews.”
    I have no doubt that this is correct. As you know, I prefer the
    views of the skeptical and enlightened American Jew.
    —————————————
    As for your question about the Denmark-Norway Union last
    week, I’ll let Wikipedia answer:
    “After Sweden broke out of the Kalmar Union in 1521, Norway
    remained with Denmark until 1814, a total of 436 years. During
    the national romanticism of the 19th century, this period was by
    some referred to as the “400-Year Night”, since all of the
    kingdom’s royal, intellectual, and administrative power was
    centered in Copenhagen in Denmark.”
    During the union with Sweden (1814-1905), we got more
    domestic autonomy, while the foreign policy was decided in
    Stockholm, Sweden. With independence in 1905, we got our
    own king, ironically a Dane, BTW, within the European royal
    family. The king has always been a mere symbol, with no real
    political power.

    Reply

  47. susan says:

    I find it interesting that Jews who threaten to “blow up” people are described as “activists” while violent Muslims are almost always branded terrorists.
    From ThinkProgress:
    http://thinkprogress.org
    Right-wing Israeli activists threaten to protest Rahm Emanuel

    Reply

  48. ... says:

    wigwag quote “The Arabs can have their state in Palestine”… that is awfully generous of you wigwag and if chomsky wants to go talk their will it be okay with you too? i love your constant attempts here at civility… what a mask!!

    Reply

  49. WigWag says:

    “Do all of you regard the increasing influence of orthodox religious fanaticism in Israel as a minor issue? Is the increasing racism and contempt for “the Arabs” within Israel not a worrying sign? The behavior of the settlers towards the Palestinians? Isn’t there an inch of truth in the claim that Israel in the past, in the present, and likely even more in the future has some worrying similarities with apartheid?” (Paul Norheim)
    I’m not sure what to make of your comment, Paul. My remarks were, I think, pretty responsive to the Beinart article.
    As for religious fanaticism in Israel, I think I’ve mentioned it several times on this blog. I’ve suggested that the greatest demographic threat facing Israel is not the fecundity of Palestinians but the extraordinary fecundity of the Haredim. I’ve also mentioned that if a two-state solution could be arrived at that genuinely protects Israeli security, I would be happy to see the settlers who refused to abandon the settlements live like a small minority in a Palestinian State. I have also said that I would be happy if many of the settlers were forcibly repatriated to Brooklyn (which is where many of them came from in the first place).
    Unless I’m mistaken, I believe that I have remarked at the Washington Note that racism in Israel is indeed on the rise primarily because of the intransigence of the Arab world. I mention this not to excuse racist attitudes but to explain them. In fact, the attitude about Arabs in Israel is becoming more like the attitudes about Jews that are ubiquitous in the Arab world. Fortunately the racism of Jews doesn’t even approach the racism of Arabs, but over time it easily could. After all, racism against Muslims is skyrocketing in your country and in the rest of Europe. Why shouldn’t we expect it to increase in Israel?
    “Is an open admission that these developments are worrisome so hard to admit, that you prefer to praise and put your trust in extreme Evangelical Protestants who at one time demonize you as a Jew (like Martin Luther), and at other times suddenly worship you hysterically as a crucial element in the divine plot leading to Armageddon?” (Paul Norheim)
    It’s not about “putting my trust” or “praising” Evangelical Protestants, Paul, it’s about stating things as they really are. The dramatic support for Israel in the United States has always been primarily a Christian phenomenon. American Christians supported Zionism before Jews were as politically organized as they are now and they supported Zionism before Hitler took power. Israel’s military behavior reminds Americans of American military behavior; which is after all, conducted by American politicians who are elected by a majority of Americans. When it comes to the way Israel deals with Hamas and Hezbollah, Americans, for the most part, like what they see. In fact, American Christians like what they see in significantly higher percentages than American Jews.
    Now that American Jews are politically organized and do take full advantage of the rights granted to citizens by the American Constitution, it is not surprising that already high levels of support for Zionism are going even higher.
    What American Jews don’t feel entitled to do is tell Israelis who to elect, or how to protect their own security. What most American Jews want is to support Israel regardless of what government Israelis elect. What Beinart doesn’t get is that even if American Jews were inclined to alter Israeli behavior by pushing the American Government to be harder on Israel; it simply wouldn’t work. Nor should it.
    Two other points, Paul; once again you are conflating decent Christians with what you call extremist Christians. The decent Christians are the ones who think that God didn’t break his covenant with Jews in order to establish a new covenant with Christians. Decent Christians don’t believe that Jews killed Christ. Decent Christians believe that Jews might have a shot at redemption too. Dispensationalists are certainly part of the family of decent Christians.
    Remember, Paul, there were few if any dispensationalist Protestants living on your continent when the Christians there decided to eradicate their Jewish neighbors. You need to rethink who the good guys and the bad guys are; you’re confused.
    As for your remark about apartheid, it is made by both Israel critics and Israel supporters; it’s even made by Israeli Government officials. None of this means it isn’t a dimwitted remark. The Arabs can have their state in Palestine but the borders of that state may simply have to be less than they desire. A Palestinian State in less than the pre-1967 borders still gives Arabs self-government; just in a smaller area than they would like.

    Reply

  50. DonS says:

    “Beinart is mistaken in his belief that the Israel electorate is especially interested in the political opinions of American Jews . . . ” (wigwag)
    Somewhat cavalier statement, don’t you think, in that if the ‘political opinion’ of American Jews were to reject propping up right wing Israeli governments sending massive amounts of aid to Israel in times of US need, US (!) politicians would listen, maybe even influence shifts in American policy. The Israeli electorate might well be interested in the trickle down effect of withdrawing Uncle Sugar’s special attention and largess. Not saying this will happen anytime soon, but what wigwag’s assertion really points out is the two faced arrogance of Israelis; eager to take; eager to snub.

    Reply

  51. Paul Norheim says:

    WigWag against Robinson: “In my opinion and the opinion of
    many American Jews, Robinson

    Reply

  52. nadine says:

    Carroll, are you seriously trying to convince anyone that the Arab states wouldn’t negotiate a peace treaty in 1949 because they were so f’ing concerned with the conditions of the Arab refugees from Palestine? Go on, pull the other one! You have to be very ignorant indeed to buy such swill. The Arab regimes, humanitarians! Oh yeah, they have been SUCH humanitarians to their “brother Arabs” since then! No work permits, no citizenship, no travel permits, stuck in Dickensian slums — and they got the UN to pay for it all. The only multi-generational refugees on the planet on permanent UN dole!
    Nobody outdoes the Arabs in their hypocrisy.
    Except maybe you and your fellow travelers.

    Reply

  53. Carroll says:

    I keep trying to think of a group more hypocritical than the zionist holocuast people and the Jewish State.
    Other than the US congress I can’t think of a comparable body or group.
    Didn’t take Truman long to learn did it? Too bad he didn’t listen to his State Department and military commanders, they told him what the zionist would do.
    Truman administration threatened sanctions against

    Reply

  54. Paul Norheim says:

    I guess the Swedish PM wanted to avoid being perceived as
    condemning an expression due to direct political or ideological
    pressure from organizations or foreign governments – just like in
    the cartoon case. I can understand this position.

    Reply

  55. nadine says:

    “Israel demanded of the Swedish PM to condemn the article in
    Aftonbladet, which he refused to do because that would imply
    governmental interference with the free press.” (Paul Norheim)
    Are you trying to tell me that it is the position of the Swedish PM that he must never criticize anything that appears in print anywhere, no matter the content? You mean I can print any falsehood I like, no matter how incendiary, maybe even about him, and he won’t comment? I rather doubt that.
    Freedom of the press does not equal freedom from criticism. Excuse me, this sounds like a cop-out.

    Reply

  56. nadine says:

    “These three mistakes by Beinart are excusable. Like many journalists, and bloggers, Beinart is smart but his writing and his opinions tend to be superficial. He can

    Reply

  57. WigWag says:

    Beinart

    Reply

  58. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “To give credit where due, Paul, I have seen you occasionally address the overt anti-Semitism in TWN comments. I have never seen Steve Clemons address it. If he ever has, I didn’t see it”
    Steve has condemned anti-semitism here, and removed anti-semitic posts. And he has done so in protest of anti-semitism that was far less blatant than your or Marcus’ open and prolifically displayed bigotry.
    And just because someone like YOU says a statement or opinion is “overt anti-semitism”, doesn’t mean its so. In fact, it probably just means you are losing yet one more argument, unable to use actual FACTS to support or buttress your hasbarist fantasies and fairy tales.

    Reply

  59. Paul Norheim says:

    Israel demanded of the Swedish PM to condemn the article in
    Aftonbladet, which he refused to do because that would imply
    governmental interference with the free press. A similar
    situation happened when some Muslim leaders demanded of
    Scandinavian governments to condemn the cartoons when they
    were printed in Danish and Norwegian newspapers. The Prime
    Ministers and Foreign Ministers refused to do so with reference
    to the same principle as in the Aftonbladet controversy.
    And the Jewish community in Sweden was clearly provoked by
    the Israeli demands, which according to them showed that
    Netanyahu lacked basic knowledge about how the Swedish
    democracy functioned (as far as I remember from reading about
    the case at the time.)
    Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia about the controversy (if the
    quotes are correct, this issue is more complicated than I
    previously thought):
    “The Aftonbladet-Israel controversy refers to the controversy
    that followed the publication of a 17 August 2009 article in the
    Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet alleging that Israeli troops
    harvested organs from Palestinians that died in their custody.
    The article sparked a fierce debate in Sweden and abroad, and
    created a rift between the Swedish and Israeli
    governments.[1][2] Israeli officials denounced the report at the
    time, labeling it “anti-Semitic,” but did not comment on the
    specific allegations[3]. It led to an acknowledgment from Israel
    in December 2009 that organs had been taken at the Abu Kabir
    Forensic Institute without the families’ permission, from
    Palestinians, foreign workers, and Israelis.[4][5]
    (…)
    The article was written by Swedish freelance[2] photojournalist
    Donald Bostr

    Reply

  60. nadine says:

    “There is no globalized problem with Orthodox Jews because the total population is a few million.
    Cherry-picking is not the issue. The disgusting behavior of some Jewish zealots can’t be papered over.
    Benny Goldstein is a hero to many of these people today, and probably Amir too.” (MarkL)
    The ‘zealots’ are a very small percentage even of the Orthodox Jews. They would be a bigger problem if their numbers approached those of Salafi or Deobandi or Shia Twelver Muslims, or if they controlled states.

    Reply

  61. nadine says:

    “In any critical dangerous conflict the first thing one has to know is one

    Reply

  62. MarkL says:

    Nadine,
    There is no globalized problem with Orthodox Jews because the total population is a few million.
    Cherry-picking is not the issue. The disgusting behavior of some Jewish zealots can’t be papered over.
    Benny Goldstein is a hero to many of these people today, and probably Amir too.

    Reply

  63. nadine says:

    “Nadine, I am familiar with the Aftonbladet case. By the way, the
    Jewish community in Sweden understandably didn’t like the
    article, but also expressed publicly that the Israeli reaction from
    Liberman and Netanyahu was an extreme overreaction – they
    were not happy about that either. ” (Paul Norheim)
    Lieberman and Netanyahu were reacting in a different, Israeli context. They knew that Arafat and the PLO had tried on these slanders many times before, but they had usually been ignored in the West, not repeated. This knowledge made them react more harshly than the local community, who I suspect were reacting the story as an single incident, not a worrisome extension of a long-standing pattern of systematic anti-Semitism. Also, the local community has to live in the local community, so a lower-profile stance is not surprising.
    “I doubt that you are completely oblivious to the fact that your
    frequently expressed contempt and hostility towards “the Arabs”
    and “the Muslims” – en bloc – also go into a much larger
    historical and ideological context than any running discussion
    on this blog – regardless of your personal intentions or motives.”
    Usually, I use “the Arabs” as a shorthand for “the Arab regimes”, similarly to the Palestinians. As for the rest, I don’t even know what you mean. You’ll have to show me quotes.

    Reply

  64. Paul Norheim says:

    Nadine, I am familiar with the Aftonbladet case. By the way, the
    Jewish community in Sweden understandably didn’t like the
    article, but also expressed publicly that the Israeli reaction from
    Liberman and Netanyahu was an extreme overreaction – they
    were not happy about that either.
    I doubt that you are completely oblivious to the fact that your
    frequently expressed contempt and hostility towards “the Arabs”
    and “the Muslims” – en bloc – also go into a much larger
    historical and ideological context than any running discussion
    on this blog – regardless of your personal intentions or motives.
    These atavistic expressions are not innocent. “Nice
    distinctions”? Isn’t it analogous to a climate were one would
    routinely refer to “The Jews” while criticizing the Israeli settlers
    or a particular statement by an Israeli politician? Every Jew
    would feel that the generalization would transcend the actual
    discussion on a blog – just like every Arab senses that any
    expressed hostility against “The Arabs” is directed against him
    or her – within a larger ideology targeting them en bloc.

    Reply

  65. Kathleen Grasso Andersen says:

    I was pleased to see J Street come into being because I think a divide in Jewsih opinion was necessary to shake things up and perhaps bring about a change of course.
    It is understandable to me that older Jews who lived through the holocaust would be more fearful and want to protect themselves from perceived enemies. Sadly, Isrealis now sound more like pre-war Germans than enlightened intellectuals who care about human rights.
    Clearly younger American Jews think of themselves as Americans first don’t just support Israel no matter what just because it is a Jewish State. This takes courage and committment to humsn rights for all.
    I’m encouraged…liked this piece.

    Reply

  66. nadine says:

    “When you claim that Europe can/will go back to “their old
    pleasures” of “kicking Jewish ass”, are you referring to such
    things as criticizing the Netanyahu/Lieberman government, the
    bombardment of Gaza, the treatment of Palestinians, etc – or
    are you referring to what was generally understood as anti-
    Semitism before people like Netanyahu and his friends started
    to reinterpret that word?” (Paul Norheim)
    Paul, the “oldest hatred” didn’t get that way without being adaptable. Nowadays, it takes forms like printing as front page news the report that Israelis are shooting Palestinians to harvest their organs for the organ trade, as the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet did not too long ago, based entirely on rumors and insinuations. I think it’s quite fair to ask, what was the atmosphere in the Swedish media that made Aftonbladet think that this would be acceptable?
    One could also ask, how is it that various Palestinian spokesman have made dozens or hundreds of such accusations against Israel that turned out to be completely baseless, e.g. the “massacre in Jenin,” dropping poisoned chocolates, using female strippers on tanks, shooting Palestinians for their organs (Arafat himself said that one) and yet never they manage to lose credibility? Whatever they say tomorrow will be printed credulously.
    Background on the Aftonbladet article here:
    http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=3327&TTL=The_Aftonbladet_Organ-Trafficking_Accusations_against_Israel:_A_Case_Study

    Reply

  67. nadine says:

    susan, the answer is that a) the conduct of some Haredi groups in Jerusalem IS a problem in Israel, but b) you’re cherry-picking. A localized problem is not the same as a state-run problem, and a state-run problem is not the same as a globalized problem. Go to Tel Aviv or Haifa, you won’t find such problems.
    Now, if Israel were run along the lines of Saudi Arabia, these same Haredi groups would be running the Ministry of Vice and Virtue and would have an ultra-Orthodox man with a stick stationed on every street corner in Israel, ready to beat any women who wore pants or wasn’t covered head to toe in suitably modest clothing. That’s what they do in Saudi Arabia. (The other day, one woman beat the cop up, to cheers across the Kingdom).
    Not only do they do that, but Saudi Arabia funds most of the mosques and the world and actively proselytizes Wahabbi Islam, where the message is that not only should every Muslim community behave the same way, but they should institute sharia in their country and force the same behavior on non-Muslims.

    Reply

  68. nadine says:

    “On the other hand, some of us here do not accept anti-
    Semitism – either in the form of attacks on Jews in general, or
    Arabs in general. Most of the time we try to address it when it
    happens. ” (Paul Norheim)
    To give credit where due, Paul, I have seen you occasionally address the overt anti-Semitism in TWN comments. I have never seen Steve Clemons address it. If he ever has, I didn’t see it.
    Blog comments are not the place for spelling out nice distinctions; one should try to judge comments in the context of the running discussion. I have mentioned more than once that when I say “Palestinians” for example, I refer by default to the political decision-making entities, and not the will of the people, who don’t have much input into what are not democratic systems. It would be nice if you could remember that, and not accuse me of conflating everybody into “one hostile monolith” the next time I use the word “Palestinian.”

    Reply

  69. Paul Norheim says:

    Thanks downtown,
    and also for addressing Pansceptic’s unreasonable insult of the
    host of TWN. Some people here don’t realize, or they
    intentionally overlook the fact that Steve is a very tolerant and
    generous editor of his blog, allowing both extreme anti-Zionists
    and militant Zionists to express their views. What he doesn’t
    accept is spam, and extreme ad hominem insults, although
    some of the latter slips through sometimes.
    On the other hand, some of us here do not accept anti-
    Semitism – either in the form of attacks on Jews in general, or
    Arabs in general. Most of the time we try to address it when it
    happens.
    And of course it is impossible to accept the dangerous attempts
    by militant pro-Israeli groups to redefine anti-Semitism as
    synonymous with criticism of the Israeli government, the IDF or
    Zionism as a concept – or the tendency by some anti-Semites to
    combine their harsh criticism of Israel with explicit attacks on
    Jews as a group.
    On the other hand we witness even more frequent attempts not
    only to combine criticism of Islam with explicit attacks and
    expressions of contempt for Arabs in general, but also
    deliberate attempts to conflate ordinary, decent Muslims and
    militant Jihadists into one hostile monolith, thus both
    demonizing a world religion and more than one billion people -
    an act that is not less dangerous and disgusting than the most
    virulent old fashioned anti-Semitism seen in Europe in the first
    half of the 20th century.
    To a certain degree, the generalizations can be blamed on a
    lack of precision in our political discourse. For example, most of
    us usually speak of “the French”, “the Americans”, “the Chinese”,
    and “the Arabs” when we address issues concerning the
    governments of the respective countries. This is a habit inherent
    in our language that encourages generalizations, and could
    easily be avoided if we instead said, say, Paris, Washington,
    Beijing and Riyadh – referring to the capitals instead of the
    populations. Even in democracies, one should be careful to
    distinguish between the governments and the general
    population, even when the leaders were elected by a majority of
    the people.
    Another factor is the role guilt plays, not only while searching
    for scapegoats, but also while defending certain groups. There
    is a strong tendency on both sides of the political spectrum to
    define whole populations solely as victims, incapable of doing
    anything wrong; as saints; as innocent children – and those who
    are defined this way are understandably more than happy to
    play that role.
    The Jews, the Africans, and the Arabs have been seen this way
    in our recent history (and they still are) – and this glorification
    of entire groups of people is not less dangerous than the
    demonization of the same groups, because it is precisely this
    attempt to portrait someone as saints, and defend or excuse all
    their actions, that contributes to the often surprising
    resentment and demonization at a later stage, when the
    pendulum swings – often provoked by actions committed by
    members of the group previously defined as saints.
    I guess most of us, regardless of our political affiliations, to a
    certain extent are involved in these dialectics, one way or
    another, and we would all be better off if we realized that there
    are assholes in every group, and made stronger efforts to be
    more precise while blaming and defending friend and foe.

    Reply

  70. susan says:

    Susan writes:
    “Again, please tell me why Jews are so offended by Muslim fanaticism and repression yet remain blind to their own?”
    I should have said some Jews. Clearly, many Jews are deeply offended over the inequality and injustice they witness.

    Reply

  71. susan says:

    Nadine writes:
    “…the Jews only want to make laws for themselves, which they don’t enforce even on other Jews. The Muslims want to impose sharia and make laws for everybody, and enforce them by violence and by law.”
    Nadine, I think you are uninformed. In Israel intolerant Jews impose their beliefs on others every day. Again, please tell me why Jews are so offended by Muslim fanaticism and repression yet remain blind to their own?
    Here are three examples:
    American-Israeli Miriam Shear was brutally beaten, kicked, spat on, and shouted at by ultra-Orthodox men for refusing to give up her seat in the front of the bus. (In some Israeli buses, women must ride in the rear.) Shear had been riding the Egged No. 2 bus to pray at the Western Wall every morning, and had experienced several run-ins about her choice of seating before one haredi man decided to take action. He spat in her face and when she responded by refusing to stand up, he threw her down and began beating her. While Shear was being beaten, other riders yelled at her for being a stupid American and having no common sense.
    An Israeli women who rides those buses daily commented, “Sadly its normal in Israel for the violence of the few to dictate policy for the many.
    From Haaretz:
    Police: Woman arrested for violating High Court ruling obligating visitors to abide by dress code.
    By Nir Hasson and Liel Kyzer Tags: Western Wall Israel news
    Police on Wednesday arrested a woman who was praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, due to the fact that she was wrapped in a prayer shawl (tallit).
    The woman was visiting the site with the religious women’s group “Women of the Wall” to take part in the monthly Rosh Hodesh prayer.
    Police were called to the area after the group asked to read aloud from a Torah scroll.
    Police said they arrested the women in the wake of a High Court ruling, which states that the public visiting the Western Wall is obligated to dress in accordance with the site’s dress code.
    Western Wall Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz said the act was a provocation meant to turn the wall into a fighting ground. “We must distance politics and disagreement from this sacred place,” Rabinowitz said.
    Chairman of the women’s group, Anat Hoffman, said that this is the first time in the history of Israel that a woman has been arrested because she wrapped herself in a tallit and read from the Torah.
    Rabbi Gilad Kariv, associate director of Israel’s reform movement, said that all over the world women are entitled to wear the tallit, and only in the land of the Jews are they excluded from the social custom and even arrested for praying.
    “Israeli police should be ashamed of themselves,” Kariv said.
    Last week Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the Shas party’s spiritual leader, said during his weekly sermon that the women in the feminist movement are “stupid” and act the way they do out of a selfish desire for equality, not “for heavens’ sake.”
    Rabbi Ovadia also said about the groups’ custom to pray at the Western Wall that “there are stupid women who come to the Western Wall, put on a tallit (prayer shawl), and pray,” and added that they should be condemned.
    Jerusalem Haredim protest Shabbat opening of plant, despite agreements reached between Intel and rabbis.
    By Nir Hasson and The Associated Press Tags:
    Israel news
    Hundreds of Ultra-Orthodox demonstrators violently clashed with police in Jerusalem on Saturday, as they held a fresh protest against the computer chip manufacturer Intel for employing workers on Shabbat.
    Protestors at the entrance to the factory on Har Hotzvim in Jerusalem hurled verbal abuse at police and journalists, calling them “Nazis” and chanting “Shabbes,” the Yiddish word for the Sabbath. Security personnel at the plant used hoses to spray water at the Haredim in an attempt to disperse the protest.
    Unlike last week’s protest at the plant, a large contingent of police was on the scene. They eventually succeeded in moving the protestors away from the plant, although clashes between protestors and police continued.
    Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby put the total number of Saturday’s protesters at 3,000.
    The clashes came despite agreements reached this week between Intel and the Committee of Rabbis for the Sanctity of Shabbat.
    Unlike the mainstream ultra-Orthodox factions, extremist elements in the Haredi community began preparations Thursday to resume demonstrations near the Intel facility because of the company’s intentions to run the factory seven days a week.
    Earlier in the week, the company had agreed to only allow production at the factory over the weekend with non-Jewish workers.

    Reply

  72. downtown says:

    “Posted by Paul Norheim, May 17 2010, 11:49PM”
    Mister Norheim, Sir,
    I salute you for your honest attempts to engage someone in discourse who is not the least bit interested in it. Sadly, it’s become an American disease…
    I’m looking forward to reading many more of your thoughtful contributions to this blog.

    Reply

  73. JohnH says:

    kotzabasis–how do you determine if an enemy is irreconcilable, if you only made one lame attempt to reconcile, ever (Oslo)?
    There are plenty of instance where “irreconcilable” enemies reconciled. Germans and French were irreconcilable enemies, but the reconciled. European Protestants and Catholics were irreconcilable enemies, but they reconciled.
    Kota–your theory of “irreconcilable” enemies is a load of crap. It is a product of Zionist ideology, not an analysis of the actual enemy.
    It was Herzl who theorized the Iron Wall and Likud who made it an absolute article of faith.
    The key party dreading reconciliation is Likud, backed by the “religious” nationalists who control the Israeli government. And their hasbara projects their own resolute intransigence onto their enemy.
    Hope I didn’t use too many big words for you…

    Reply

  74. Carroll says:

    Posted by kotzabasis, May 18 2010, 12:17AM – Link
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    Well, you are in deep doodoo if you are depending on Israel being able to use Sun Tzu as a guide to winning their wars.
    Israel’s only strategy has been deception, assassinations, whining to the US for protection and money, lying, rattling their cages like a bunch of monkeys and braying like donkeys.
    All of which are old, worn out and well known by everyone.
    And oh yea ..the threat to take to take the world down with them..doubt if that will work either. Before the first nuke they launch lands anywhere Israel would be obliterated.

    Reply

  75. kotzabasis says:

    Peter Beirnart has the courage of ignorance!
    In any critical dangerous conflict the first thing one has to know is one

    Reply

  76. downtown says:

    …. No politician has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to electoral math like that. Lots of potential Muslim voters vs. a vestigial Jewish population. It’s an easy demographic imperative, exacerbated by the granola factor in the European Parliament….
    Crunchy Granola??
    Why not acquaint yourself with some basic facts before spouting idiocy. Ever hear of the Anti-Minaret initiative in Switzerland…The anti-Burqa dress ban in Belgium….The French anti-Burqa law…Or do these countries not qualify in your definition of Europe? And, whatever you do, it’s extremely bad form to insult the host of this formidable website.
    Gee Steve…..blah blah blah does not pass for dialectic.

    Reply

  77. Carroll says:

    Well, tell us nadine honey…since you promote the belief that because there are some radical elements among Islam all Muslims are violent dogs…shouldn’t it be equally true that since some radicals of Judaism want to kill gentiles all religious Jews must want to kill gentiles?
    Desertpeace
    UPDATED VERSION OF

    Reply

  78. Carroll says:

    Well, tell us nadine honey…since you promote the belief that because there are some radical elements among Islam all Muslims are violent dogs…shouldn’t it be equally true that since some radicals of Judaism want to kill gentiles all Jews must also want to kill gentiles?
    Desertpeace
    UPDATED VERSION OF

    Reply

  79. Paul Norheim says:

    Pansceptic,
    could you please explain the link between anti-Semitism and
    issues like “governmental friendship” (or lack thereof)?
    When you claim that Europe can/will go back to “their old
    pleasures” of “kicking Jewish ass”, are you referring to such
    things as criticizing the Netanyahu/Lieberman government, the
    bombardment of Gaza, the treatment of Palestinians, etc – or
    are you referring to what was generally understood as anti-
    Semitism before people like Netanyahu and his friends started
    to reinterpret that word?
    If a politician in Europe criticizes the Burmese junta, would that
    automatically make him an anti-Bamarese, an anti-Shanese, or
    an anti-Kayinese?
    If not, why do you think governmental friendship or lack thereof
    with regard to the Israeli state is necessarily related to hostility
    towards Jews?

    Reply

  80. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “If Beinart doesn’t have a psychiatrist, marcus would surely be willing to refer him to his own one…”
    I think its safe to say that Marcus has NOT sought the help of a mental health proffessional.

    Reply

  81. Panskeptic says:

    Let’s try to distinguish among Israeli’s, as the cited article specifically talks about a divide within Israel’s political culture. Also, let’s fix the failure to distinguish between Israeli’s and American Jews. Also, let’s eliminate the desire to link the behavior of a few Jews who work for Goldman Sachs with the rest of the American Jewish population. All in all, so far we’ve scored a catastrophic failure to keep distinctions in the headlong rush to point fingers.
    There certainly is discernible Anti-Semitism on the Right. According to Armageddon theology, any Jew who doesn’t convert to Christianity is condemned to hellfire everlasting. With friends like that…..Let us remember that the definition of “Hebe” is a Jew who’s just left a room full of Republicans.
    As far as Europe is concerned, it is the first duty of any politician to be able to count. Looking at the growing Islamic population of Europe, it is vain to hope for any governmental friendship for Israel now or in the future. No politician has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to electoral math like that. Lots of potential Muslim voters vs. a vestigial Jewish population. It’s an easy demographic imperative, exacerbated by the granola factor in the European Parliament.
    For 1500 years, Europe exulted in kicking Jewish ass. Now that the 50-year Holocaust moratorium has expired, they can go back to their old pleasures. Israel should sort out the Palestinian problem for the sake of its own virtue, not with the idea of pleasing Europe, because that will never happen.
    Gee Steve, you’re on a roll here. Do you actually read these comment columns, or are you just an addicted pot-stirrer?

    Reply

  82. Carroll says:

    Posted by Sweetness, May 17 2010, 1:40PM – Link
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually I meant to respond to nadine….so you keep half and give her the other half.
    And you’re right, you haven’t demonized the ‘others” like nadine and wig have….you just have a mental missing link about jewish eternal innocence and your own identity.
    And just remember, when you spew your slurs and personal unrelated insults…I’am the one who knows your weakness, what makes you do it…who knows where it comes from.
    I give you a pass on most of it but don’t push your luck.

    Reply

  83. Carroll says:

    Posted by Sweetness, May 17 2010, 1:40PM – Link
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually I meant to respond to nadine….so you keep half and give her the other half.
    And you’re right, you haven’t demonized the ‘others” like nadine and wig have….you just have a mental missing link about jewish eternal innocence and your own identity.
    And just remember, when you spew your slurs and personal unrelated insults…I’am the one who knows your weakness, what makes you do it…who knows where it comes from.
    I give you a pass on most of it but don’t push your luck.

    Reply

  84. JohnH says:

    “Today there is no discernible anti-Semitism on the Right,” but that could change in an instant if the United States economy collapses because of Israeli instigated misadventure. The Right, where xenophobia is endemic, has muzzled its anti-Semitism for now, but it will re-emerge with virulence given the right circumstances, which AIPAC seems driven to precipitate.
    The Left has its share of closet bigots, too, but tolerance and fair play are much more entrenched values on the Left than on the Right.

    Reply

  85. nadine says:

    “Yeah, I think I have shifted, not only on this issue. Anyone who reads my new book will clearly see a shift. But I also didn

    Reply

  86. downtown says:

    “Today there is no discernible anti-Semitism on the Right and a good deal of philo-Semitism”
    This has to be one of the all-time TWN classics. Some day I may introduce you to my Uncle Al. He and his cronies always fall silent when “your kind” show up. Just saying….
    Philo-semitically Yours

    Reply

  87. susan says:

    Beinart Speaks to Tablet
    Defends NYRB piece, which was originally for NYT Magazine:
    http://tinyurl.com/2cyl4n9

    Reply

  88. Neo Controll says:

    “Today there is no discernible anti-Semitism on the Right and a good deal of philo-Semitism; while on the Left it’s become perfectly acceptable to be openly anti-Semitic, like Carroll is here, with others not far behind. Steve never says boo to her.”
    While Nadine’s virulent anti-Arab, anti-Islamic hate receives stern warnings from the blogmeister. Not.
    Nadine’s opening volley, attacking both message and messenger, in her scattershot right wing diatribe demonizing any political view not firmly in the neocon camp.

    Reply

  89. Brian B says:

    For this very reason, Yitzak Rabin chose to engage the PLO in 1993. That engagement was popular amoungst the younger electorate. However, since nothing came to fruition from that engagement series one would have to ask if that generation, now 17 years older, has every reason to be suspicious of engagement. Could it be that Mr. Beinart reporting on a cyclical domestic event in Israeli politics?

    Reply

  90. nadine says:

    “American Jews should be alarmed, for it’s easy to see how the current policies hold the seeds of widespread anti-Semitism.
    It begins with a few super wealthy Jews hijacking government policy to pursue their own agenda, not something unknown to any wealthy person. Then they begin to abuse their power, leading to outcomes which are clearly contrary to the national interest and harmful to people’s well being.” (JohnH)
    Like George Soros you mean, one of the chief funders of the New American Foundation, I believe?

    Reply

  91. nadine says:

    Beinart’s summary of Israeli politics

    Reply

  92. nadine says:

    susan, you ask a good question: what’s the difference between Jewish head-scarves and Muslim hijab?
    There’s a good answer to it: the Jews only want to make laws for themselves, which they don’t enforce even on other Jews. The Muslims want to impose sharia and make laws for everybody, and enforce them by violence and by law. Where Islamists rule, Christian women are forced to wear hijab too, before they are terrorized into moving. Check out the recent treatment of Iraqi, Egyptian and Palestinian Christian communities if you doubt that.

    Reply

  93. susan says:

    “What does a Daniel Pipes know about women?”
    I have never understood why people like Pipes are offended over Muslim head coverings, yet have no problem with the snoods, tiechels, sheitels, bandanas and head scarves orthodox Jewish women wear.
    What’s the difference?

    Reply

  94. downtown says:

    “Ah yeas, yet another manifestation of American liberal antipathy toward Jews and what Israel does to defend its right to exist.”
    Did you think of this yourself or did you engage in “copy and paste”?

    Reply

  95. downtown says:

    What does a Daniel Pipes know about women? Have you ever seen a picture of this guy?

    Reply

  96. susan says:

    Wow! Five Muslims in five years; I see a dangerous trend developing.
    Neocon Pundit: What’s With All These Muslims Winning Beauty Pageants?
    “A new Miss USA was crowned last night, the first time a Muslim, Arab-American woman won the honor. But for Daniel Pipes, a neocon pundit who writes for the National Review and was a Bush appointee to the Peace Institute, that’s one too many.
    On his blog yesterday, Pipes pointed out five other Muslim women who’ve won beauty contests in the U.S., Britain and France over the last five years.
    “They are all attractive, but this surprising frequency of Muslims winning beauty pageants makes me suspect an odd form of affirmative action,” he wrote.
    That “suspicion is borne out,” he wrote, because of one pageant winner at North Carolina A&T University who wore a hijab under her crown.
    Pipes does not explain why Miss A&T’s hijab proves his suspicion that a handful of Muslim beauty pageant winners are the result of some ‘odd form of affirmative action.’”

    Reply

  97. Tom says:

    Ah yeas, yet another manifestation of American liberal antipathy toward Jews and what Israel does to defend its right to exist.

    Reply

  98. susan says:

    Obama knows that the “other” view of Israel is becoming acceptable; that is why he makes the Zionists so nervous.
    Here is yet another example:

    Reply

  99. Sweetness says:

    Carroll: Yep, people do generally get what they give and yep I do
    think that attitudes similar to today’s zionism created some of
    the Jewish problems thruout history.
    SN: I guess that explains what the Palestinians are getting.
    Thanks for clearing that up.
    Carroll: As for Jew hatred or anti semitism, it works the same
    with any society or group..it’s called ‘collective punishment”
    ….you know what collective punishment is don’t you?
    SN: You mean, like what white North Carolinians did to black
    North Carolinians up until…what?…yesterday. I will grant that
    you have much more first-hand experience meteing out
    collective punishment than I do.
    Carroll: I had a bad experience with a few Jews so I gas them
    ‘all’…I had a bad experience with a few Palestines and Arabs so I
    bomb them ‘all’….that’s how it works.
    SN: Carroll, the whole idea behind collective punishment is that
    people get what they did NOT give. As an old segregationist,
    you ought to know that. But for you, the Jews are an exception
    to this principle: What they get is what they gave.
    BTW, you’ll have to show me where I heaped “collective hate” on
    Arabs or Muslims. Otherwise, I’ll have to assume you’re having a
    flashback.

    Reply

  100. Carroll says:

    Posted by Sweetness, May 17 2010, 11:40AM – Link
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Yep, people do generally get what they give and yep I do think that attitudes similar to today’s zionism created some of the Jewish problems thruout history.
    As for Jew hatred or anti semitism, it works the same with any society or group..it’s called ‘collective punishment”….you know what collective punishment is don’t you?
    I had a bad experience with a few Jews so I gas them ‘all’…I had a bad experience with a few Palestines and Arabs so I bomb them ‘all’….that’s how it works.
    After all the ‘collective hate’ you and wig have heaped on the vile, dumb, and what else was it?..oh yea…backward Arabs ‘collectively’ ( and Europeans and Turks and etc.etc.) I am surprised you would make a peep about people disliking Jews ‘collectively’ because of their association with Israel…but then you aren’t exactly the brightest bulb on the board.
    If I were a Jew and you were claiming to speak for me I would tell you and Israel to go fuck yourselves. Lucky for me I am not a jew and all the zionist and Israeli world wide shit stirring won’t have any affect on me in the end. Jews out there can have a choice of telling you to fuck off or not…their call.
    I am wondering if you have a PHD from Hypocritics R’US or Zionist R’US?

    Reply

  101. Carroll says:

    Posted by downtown, May 17 2010, 12:14PM – Link
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    As an ardent realist I have to unequivocally state my opposition to downtown’s lack of historical understanding. He just emptied his hand.

    Reply

  102. DonS says:

    A very well documented and reasoned article that fleshes out and corroborates many of the arguments that have been seen in comments here at TWN.
    In particular, the generational differences and resultant attitudes of American Jews coming of age before and/or after the 6 day war; the overworn culture of victimhood that does not resonate with young American Jews; the undermining of Israeli Jewish diversity by American Jewish organizations blindly endorsing Israeli right wing policies; the rising influence of ultra-orthodox views, supported by clergy, that scapegoats Palestinians and endangers the already weakened Israeli democracy; the betrayal of liberal Jewish humanitarian tradition for isolationist, exclusionist, exceptionalist obsession; the similarity of current right wing Israeli thinking and behavior to facist behavior last seen in Europe in Franco’s Spain; demonizing and deligitimizing the ‘other’, especially Arabs, in Yeshiva indocrination.
    Beinart shows a comprehensive understanding the the forces in play, especially in American Jewery. He clearly identifies an calls out all those who see such criticism and analysis as his ‘self-hating’. And he frames his piece as a warning call to the fast fading best interests of Israel and an identification with humanist Jewish tadition.
    Essentially, Beinart documents the big lie that continues to grow which has been ignored, squelched actually, in America. And the resident TWN right wing Zionist commentators are checking with their script writers right now to discredit Beinart in ways large and small. Nay, to destroy him.

    Reply

  103. downtown says:

    As an ardent Non-Zionist, I have to unequivocally state my opposition to Carroll’s un(der)-informed comment posted above. She just tilted her hand.

    Reply

  104. JohnH says:

    American Jews should be alarmed, for it’s easy to see how the current policies hold the seeds of widespread anti-Semitism.
    It begins with a few super wealthy Jews hijacking government policy to pursue their own agenda, not something unknown to any wealthy person. Then they begin to abuse their power, leading to outcomes which are clearly contrary to the national interest and harmful to people’s well being.
    The current example is of course Israel. But the real abuse of power arose with the disastrous war in Iraq, whose advocacy is closely identified with the largely Jewish neocon movement, most likely funded by Jewish billionaires, but also others such as defense contractors. Though the case has yet to become conventional wisdom, that war led to the looting of the Social Security Trust Fund, putting Americans’ retirement security in jeopardy.
    Yet the neocons continue to push, this time on Iran. If the US were to attack Iran, and the world economy collapsed as a likely consequence, Israel and Jewish neocons would be identified with that debacle. Opportunistic politicians might well chose to find a scapegoat for peoples economic problems, it would not be hard to guess who they would single out as proximate causes.
    Of course, people would not hear the neocon part, nor would they be interested in the other, more covert promoters of the debacle. But they would hear the Jewish part.
    Jews have good reason to be concerned about the Jewish Establishment, for it is failing them.

    Reply

  105. Sweetness says:

    Carroll always keen to show her colors: “People generally get what they give…will the zionist once again exile the jews from civilization.”
    Again? When was the first time, Carroll? How about the second or third time? Your separate and unequal education is showing…again.

    Reply

  106. Carroll says:

    “One version, “founded on a long memory of persecution, genocide, and a bitter struggle for survival, is pessimistic, distrustful of non-Jews, and believing only in Jewish power and solidarity.”
    People generally get what they give…will the zionist once again exile the jews from civilization.
    http://coteret.com/2010/05/16/maariv-minister-ben-eliezer-shaken-by-hostility-to-israel-in-eu-oecd-membership-notwithstanding
    Maariv: Minister Ben Eliezer shaken by hostility to Israel in EU, OECD membership notwithstanding
    May 16, 2010 Didi Remez
    They just hate
    Excerpt from column, Ben Caspit, Maariv Friday Political Supplement, May 14 2010 [page 2]
    Speaking of bulldozers, [Benyamin] Fuad Ben Eliezer was in Brussels last week, on a one-day working trip, including meetings with many senior European officials from the EU and the European Parliament. Fuad was shocked. On the outside, everything is fine. The OECD, which decided to admit Israel into its ranks, the agreement Fuad signed with the EU Commission about selling Israeli pharmaceuticals in the continent and more. But beneath the surface, the situation is bad.
    A senior EU official told Fuad, in a private conversation, the following:

    Reply

  107. John Waring says:

    Kudos to one courageous man.

    Reply

  108. David says:

    Thank you, Peter Beinart, for finally saying what desperately needed to be said, especially given that what you say does get read and heard.
    Very important to me is that secular Judaism, which in my experience is the most broadly humane and progressive expression of Jewishness, is central to the well being of Jews. Judaism is much, much bigger and much, much nobler than what we are seeing acted out by Likud, AIPAC, and the ultra-orthodox Israelis who are ruthlessly colonizing the Occupied Territories.
    I wish more folk like Peter Beinart had spoken up sooner, but J-Street, Peter, and like-minded people are finally getting things out there in the general discussion that have been desperately needed for far too long.
    And Peter’s message needs to resonate through the halls of congress and in the White House. The status quo is not sustainable, and no one who genuinely cares about the future of the Middle East has any business turning aside Peter’s commentary.
    The debate will not remain civil, any more than current Israeli behavior in the Occupied Territories or suicide attacks are civil. War is the most uncivilized of human behaviors.
    But no matter how vitriolic the reaction, either Peter’s perspective carries the day or Israel and Palestine will both be condemned to future unworthy of Judaic, Islamic, Christian, or humanistic ideals.

    Reply

Add your comment

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