Showing posts with label Mondoweiss. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mondoweiss. Show all posts

Wednesday, 3 February 2010

Some of My Best Friends Are Antisemites

Some of My Best Friends Are Antisemites

Have I ever mentioned that Phil Weiss of Mondoweiss is a narcissist? Well anyway, even if he is, this demonstration of the fact is pretty funny.

Oddly revealing tho.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Friday, 29 January 2010

Love of the Land: Rights Against Safety

Rights Against Safety


Yaacov Lozowick
Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
28 January "10

My first post this morning favorably compared Jessica Montell of B'tselem with the rank antisemites who congregate at Mondoweiss, CiF and elsewhere. Well, here's some balance: a demonstration of the weakness in the thinking of Israel's radicals - in this case, Hamoked, Center for the Protection of the Individual.

Hamoked is not a very important organization, but it does have some presence. It's thesis is that Israel is unjust to Palestinian individuals and this must be corrected - so far, so reasonable. When you note that they have no problem criticizing the Supreme Court (High Court of Justice, HCJ, which I have recently mentioned as Bagatz) you begin to see that they're well off the mainstream. Israelis criticize the High Court sometimes, but carefully. The Left, rarely. The far Left, however, don't feel inhibited.

The reason I'm mentioning Hamoked is an e-mail they've sent out. It wasn't meant for me, but e-mails have the habit of washing up at strange shores. This one is an attempt to recruit a writer for their website. They've got eight lines of necessary qualifications, most of them just what you'd expect (English and Hebrew writing abilities, legal background, that sort of thing). Yet it's the first qualification which is telling:

מחויבות מוצקה לנושא זכויות אדם, לרבות במצבים של התנגשות בין זכויות אדם לצרכי ביטחון
High commitment to human rights, especially in cases of conflicts between human rights and security issues (needs).

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Rights Against Safety

Being Antisemitic is Hard Work

Being Antisemitic is Hard Work

Jessica Montell, boss of B'tselem, has written Mondoweis to say that she's not certain there was an explicit Israeli intention to harm the populace of Gaza, but that an independent investigation would tell us more than we presently know. And of course, intention or not, Israel did all sorts of awful things in Gaza.

The readers of Mondoweiss don't like this line of reasoning, ultimately saying that no Israeli investigation will ever tell the truth, and Montell herself is too Israeli for their taste, and too squeamish (I'm paraphrasing).

I've got my issues with Montell and her small corner of Israeli society. Yet they are rational, facts matter to them, and they wish Israel would do better according to their lights. While the result of their actions is too often to supply false fodder to Israel's enemies, that's not their putative goal.

This means there are fundamental differences between them and the Mondoweiss part of humanity. The Mondoweiss gang imbibes a diet of untruths, outright lies, warped interpretations and malice. It's not possible to argue with them, because their assumptions, methods and frames of references are constructed so as to strengthen their opinions, irrespective of reality. They're so far out that a radical Israeli such as Montell is ultimately unacceptable to them, since she does care about facts, and does think that Israel can be saved from itself. The Mondoweiss gang don't think Israel can be saved from anything because in their minds, Israel is the problem. The root cause of Israel's evil is that Israel is evil.

The Mondoweiss community puts daily efforts into maintaining their edifice of malice. They've got a detailed narrative of Israeli evil, and they're constantly tinkering with it, bolstering it, adding new layers, incorporating events as they happen (or rather, incorporating a false version as reality does something else). They work hard at it. For these people, hating the Jewish state isn't a passing interest or an idle whim. It's a passion; it's a collective effort; it's a cult.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Monday, 11 January 2010

See Only What You Intend to See

See Only What You Intend to See

Phil Weiss is back home from a very quick trip to Israel. Israel is "the world's worst country", he says (twice).

During his trip he managed to see only the things he intended to see: Palestinians who hate Israel's occupation, but none who hate Jews. Israelis who demonstrate against the occupation, but none who see complexity. Masses of Israelis (he seems not to have talked with any of them beyond a passing grunt) who are blind to reality and can't see the Truth, but none with a feeling of history. He saw cardboard figures galore, as he and his readership always do, but no real people. He is fully bereft of compassion for real people, but full of derision for the caricatures he imagines them to be. And he came away greatly heartened, because a handful of Jews, some Israeli and some American, see the world as he does, and this vindicated his conviction that the Zionist project is ending. He's a contemporary of the greatest moment in millennia of Jewish existence, and all he can generate is spite.

Somewhere deep down I feel for him. A bit. It can't be pleasant to be Phil Weiss.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Saturday, 9 January 2010

10,000 Detained Palestinians Every Month

10,000 Detained Palestinians Every Month

Alice Rothchild at Mondoweiss has a report which is so totally dishonest I wouldn't know where to start disproving it. Or rather, I could imagine how to do it but lack the time and the inclination; it's not as if anything I might say could change her mind.

There is however one little nugget that's worth recording, because it's part of a new trope we're going to be hearing a lot of.

Ala Joradat, the program manager of Adameer, a Palestinian human rights organization that focuses primarily on prisoners, legal aid, and monitoring, meets with our delegation and tries to unravel the complex civil and human rights issues that face Palestinians, particularly those who choose to protest the conditions of the Israeli occupation. He explains that the prisoners are both a product of the conflict and a cause for the conflict. Since 1967, 800,000 Palestinians have experienced detention, representing more than 53% of the population over 18. Because mostly Palestinian males are targeted for arrest, 60-70% of adult males have been to prison.

This is an interesting number, because back in September 2009, when the Goldstone Report trotted out the number of detained Palestinians, it was 750,000. I wrote about this in my analysis of the Goldstone Report, and explained why it was wrong. What we're now being requested to believe is that since late summer 2009, Israel has arrested an additional 50,000 Palestinians, or 10,000 each month, that's 333 daily, every day with no respite.

This is a flat lie. It's also so blatant as to be ridiculous, childish, even. What does it tell you about educated and seemingly intelligent adults who believe in and disseminate extravagant lies about Jews? Isn't there a name for them?

Just in case you wish to see some real numbers, B'Tselem has them.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Friday, 8 January 2010

The Egyptians? Why?

The Egyptians? Why?

Yesterday there was a bloody clash on the Egyptian-Gaza border. An Egyptian policeman was killed, and there were a number of injured people on both sides- it's not clear how many. These are straightforward facts, as far as they are.

How should they be explained? What's going on? That's harder to know, first, because much of the data isn't accessible. So far as I can tell, no one - that means, NO ONE - has any access to the decision making process of the relevant Egyptians and Palestinians, nor can they even say who made any decision. A man was killed when both sides were using real firearms, and no-one has anything whatsoever to say about who gave which orders, what they thought they were doing, how they understood their situation, or any other part of the story. These things are of course crucial, and no explanation can even begin to approach accuracy without them, but hey, we've not got them, it would be too much of a bother to try, and anyway we've all got pre-existing templates with which to explain such matters so why worry?

Mondoweiss simply disregards the matter. They're interested in Gaza only in two scenarios: when Israel can be blamed, or even better, when Israel can be blamed but they're saving the situation. This case fits neither template, so it didn't happen. Better to blame Israel for that Jordanian-al-Quaida chap who killed seven CIA men. And yes, I understand that Mondoweiss, being a mere blog, doesn't need to cover everything - I certainly don't, either. Yet they're a blog with a large number of contributors, and their editorial choices are instructive.

The BBC doesn't offer any explanation, though its report does contain this odd sentence:

Egypt and Israel impose a strict blockade on the Gaza Strip, which Israel says is aimed at weakening Hamas.

People are being shot as the Egyptians impose a blockade, and the only context offered is why Israel does it.

The Guardian does the same slight-of-hand:

Ehab Ghussein, a Hamas spokesman, said frustration about Egypt's new underground wall was fuelling the protests. "There was anger, and that's because of what happened, especially about the wall and [Egypt preventing entry of] the people who are coming to stand with us," he said. Israel's strict blockade of Gaza, which has been in place for more than two years, prevents all exports and limits imports to a few humanitarian items. Egypt has also kept its one border crossing with Gaza, at Rafah, largely closed.

So it's Israel's blockade, with the Egyptians merely tagging along. Why? The Guardian explains:

Under pressure from the US and Israel, Egypt has started building a vast steel wall along its side of the Gaza border to prevent smuggling. Hundreds of smuggling tunnels dug by Palestinians reach into northern Egypt and supply Gaza with a wide range of products from food and clothing to animals and cars. Israel and the US have said they are concerned about weapons smuggling.

They Egyptians are puppets of the Israelis and Americans. Why a nation of 80 million debases itself in such a manner is unexplained, though there's the implication that the puppeteers have awesome powers; at least with the Americans this has a rational grounding. The Israelis, however? Do they control the world? And if so, haven't we seen that theme somewhere before?

The New York Times offers no explanation at all. There's this context:

The demonstration, organized by Hamas, protested Egypt’s refusal to allow international aid and solidarity missions into Gaza as well as Egypt’s construction of an underground barrier to obstruct smuggler tunnels. Those tunnels supply both goods and arms to Hamas and Gaza.

But no explanation why Egypt might be doing what it does.

Then there's Haaretz. Like everyone else, Zvi Barel has no specific information, he can only tell about the larger picture. Still, in spite of being on the left side of Haaretz, as I've documented in the past, he's first and foremost an expert.

Egypt's stance does not arise from its desire to help the Israeli siege on Gaza or to respond to the United States' demand to prevent smuggling. It is intended to show both Hamas and Syria that just as it has the power to open the border crossings at will and relieve the siege, so it can twist Hamas' arm.

And also this:

Egypt is interested in Palestinian reconciliation and wishes to set up a Palestinian unity government. Egypt has assured Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas of its support if such a government is formed, mainly because it does not want to be responsible for the Gaza Strip. But Cairo is fed up with Hamas' foot-dragging and Tehran's meddling. In this Egypt is assisted by Saudi Arabia, which gave Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal an ultimatum to decide whether he is running an Arab organization or is under the "patronage of a foreign power," i.e. Iran.

Read the whole thing, as Glenn says. You begin to see why Israelis' understanding of the world is dramatically different from that of everyone else.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Wednesday, 6 January 2010

The Mind of the Antisemites

The Mind of the Antisemites

Zionist Juice yesterday called my attention to this line in Michael Ratner's questionable reportage from Maale Edumim:

We saw field after field of olive tree stumps, 100 year old trees that once belonged to the Bedouins that had been cut down by the Israelis—insuring that Bedouins could not stay in or near East Jerusalem.

Set aside the minor complication that the Bedouins in the Judean Desert don't plant olive trees, and certainly didn't a century ago. I know the field (not plural) he's talking about. Or put it like this: there are no such fields on the road from Jerusalem to Maale Edumim. A few miles further on down the same road, however, where Ratner may well also have been, there is one field that theoretically could be what he saw. I wrote about it late in 2007, here; at the time a Guardian reporter had written about the blackened olive trees, and it just so happened I had just taken the same road:

Most significantly, however, in both directions I looked at the two only fields that could possibly fit Borger's description of blackened olive trees. I stared at them, because they are indeed rather puzzling. Back in the 1970s, so far as I can remember, they weren't there at all: merely a parched and dusty hillside. Then in the 80s, as Jewish settlements were built nearby, someone planted them with some kind of desert crop - acacia, perhaps? I sort of thought it must have been the initiative of the new settlers, but maybe I was wrong. I didn't give it much thought - two fields out in the desert, nothing all that noteworthy. And then yesterday, I was struck by the fact that all the stumps look dead.

There was never an olive tree there, the stumps aren't blackened stumps of them, and anyway, what's the connection between Maaleh Edumim, some miles up the road, and those two fields? Maybe the acacia's all died of something? Maybe the owner, whoever he or she might be, stopped watering them and they died? Indeed, I don't know - but I do know that Borger's version is hogwash.

Since writing that post I've learned more about how these peoples' minds work.

More than 99.8% of the settlers have never had anything to do with Palestinian olive trees, nor committed any kind of violence against their Palestinian neighbors. Along the fringe, however, there are cases of destroying olive trees (and worse). The two communities living alongside one another, however, are never reported in the media, just as there aren't many media reports of people elsewhere living near other people. What gets reported are the unusual cases; in the case of the settlers, reports that fit the template of cruel-settlers-ruining-the-lives- of-neighboring-Palestinians will always be given attention.

Eventually this consistent distortion of reality takes on a life of its own: Settlers have a policy of destroying Palestinian olive groves. So people who come to the West Bank to observe the things they've heard of so often are eager to see for themselves, perhaps as a way of inserting themselves in the story and inflating their own importance: I'm part of history! Alas, there are many Palesti
nian olive groves on the West Bank, but most of them are simple groves of olive trees. Not destroyed at all. If you didn't know exactly where to look, you could criss-cross the West Bank and never see a destroyed grove. Yet the purpose of the trip is to see - so the travelers invent.

Michael Ratner certainly did. He saw some Bedouins and told they're about to be evicted. He saw a road which has been constructed by the Israelis to assist Palestinian travel from Rammalah to Bethlehem and cast it as Apartheid. He saw some rotten stumps and knew they were century-old Palestinian olive trees destroyed by the Israelis.

Humbug.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Tuesday, 5 January 2010

Censorship at Mondoweiss

Censorship at Mondoweiss

CIfWatch routinely documents how the Guardian staff censors opinions it disagrees with. This morning I tried to post a comment at Mondoweiss. First I had to register (why?). Then I had to re-register twice until the system let me in. I then posted a comment, which has yet to appear, even though in the ensuing hours Phil Weiss has put up a post of his own, so apparently he has been online. Will he eventually authorize my comment? I don't know. May he be waiting until the post it's appended to, sinks so far from the top that no-one will read it? I also don't know. So for the sake of documentation, I'm putting it up here. Perhaps Fake-Ibrahim, who seems to have no problem posting comments at Mondoweiss, will link to this post in a comment. Though I wouldn't count on it.
------------------------------


To the Mondoweiss community,

This will be my one and only comment on this website.

As a regular reader of Mondoweiss, I have long since resigned myself to the spite and the malice which are its main fare. Indeed, one reason I regularly visit is to keep updated on the themes and argumentation of the enemies of my nation. Perhaps someday we will manage to make peace with our Palestinian neighbors: I certainly hope so, having lost far too many of my friends in wars with them, and wishing them better than what they've got.

We will never be able to make peace with the sort of people who write at Mondoweiss and frequent its comment sections, however, since the source of your enmity is irrational, it's resistant to facts, and there's no common ground from which to begin a discussion. Ask yourselves a simple question: is there a theoretical interpretation of the facts as they seem, which might lead you to a different understanding of the reality; is there any explanation of Israel's actions which might weaken the template always used here at Mondoweiss? Not: Do we agree with that interpretation, simply: could it exist?

One of the oddest things a regular reading of Mondoweiss demonstrates is that the Mondoweiss community has not the slightest interest in the Israelis as human beings. There is never any honest attempt to understand who they are, how they see their world, and how this understanding informs their actions. Yet odder, however, the exact same thing holds also for the Palestinians. The Mondoweiss community loves the Palestinians, automatically sees them as beautiful people and wonderful, but never sees them as human beings. There is no slightest interest in who they are, how they see their world, and how this understanding informs their actions.

The Israelis are cardboard figures of evil, devoid of any real life. The Palestinians are cardboard figures of virtue, devoid of any real life. It's weird.

Dr. Yaacov Lozowick, Jerusalem
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Sunday, 3 January 2010

The Jews are the Worst

The Jews are the Worst

Last week some of us debated the existence of Rabbi Tony Jutner, a person who leaves extreme anti-Israeli comments at The Forward. The general feeling was that he's "too bad to be true", so to speak. No real person could be so totally idiotic in their single-minded rejection of Israel. (That, and the fact that Google couldn't find any trace of the fellow's existence).

I introduce you to Alex Kane, a 20-year-old student in New York, who writes regularly for The Indypendent; I came across him at Mondoweiss.

The question was like an electric shock to the six or so Palestine solidarity activists, including myself, as we were standing inside a classroom at a school in Gaza City.“Why the Palestinians? Why are we the only ones suffering?” asked a Palestinian girl who was probably about nine or ten-years-old. And then the enormity of what the people of Gaza go through every day hit me...

Although I didn’t have this reaction to the question of “why the Palestinians” right away, and I wouldn’t have said it out loud in front of a classroom of young Palestinian girls, I thought back to a story a professor at school told me. He is a Holocaust survivor, and was teaching a course I took on the culture and politics of Nazi Germany. One story that remains with me from that professor is when he described a scene in Hungary, where an Austrian friend, who came to stay with his family in Hungary after the Nazi invasion in 1938, repeatedly asked, “What have we done?” And someone in my professor’s family responded, “Your only crime is that you were born a Jew.”

The only reason why these innocent girls, and all the innocent children and people of Palestine are suffering, is because they committed the “crime” of being born Palestinian. Had they been born Israeli, or in the United States, the crippling siege on Gaza would not be a reality for them. But it is. The Zionist movement had looked to Palestine as a place where Jews could create an state where only Jews would reside, and the children of Gaza continue to live with the indescribable effects of occupation, war, and death that came as a direct result of the Zionist move to establish a state in Palestine.

I've been around long enough to recognize that college students need the opportunity to take positions they'll later reject. I even did it myself, briefly. Yet this tolerance isn't open-ended. Saying that the Jews purposefully and intentionally have persecuted anyone to an extent without equal anywhere else is beyond the pale in my book. Kane lives in a democracy so he may say whatever he wishes, but the rest of us need to brand him for what he says. What he chooses to write, beyond being a simple pack of lies, is also stark hatred of Jews.

Hosted on a site owned by two Jews.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Thursday, 31 December 2009

Fatuousness in Cairo

Fatuousness in Cairo

Phil Weiss will probably soon travel back to New Jersey and interest me less than he has this week, but for the meanwhile he continues to purvey high quality silliness from Cairo. It has been most helpful in getting a feel for the roots of the man's positions and those of his ilk.

Here's his most recent column. The quandary this time is whether to send 100 demonstrators to Gaza, as the Egyptians have allowed, or not.

Over the last week, as the international marchers arrived in Egypt, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry made it very clear that it did not want them going into Gaza, and it would arrest them short of that goal. But these 1400 are not tourists or milquetoasts, they are activists; and they were not going to be stopped by any old Ministry, even the ministry of a police state.

Awesome. Then the Epyptian said some could go, but most not.

Over the next 4 hours I witnessed agony and torment, and said a secret blessing that I had not tried to get on the buses last night. A crowd of those opposed to the 100 stood outside barricades set up around the buses and shouted "All or none!" and "Get off the Bus!" It turned out that they had many confederates among the 100 who boarded the buses– confederates who at a signal marched off the buses, some giving heroic speeches.

The people staying on the buses leaned out the doors to say that the Gazans wanted them to come so as to to join their march to the Israeli border on the 31st. But they wavered. Indeed, you saw some of the most resolute activists on the planet—Bernardine Dohrn, the law professor and former member of the Weather Underground; Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada; and Donna Mulhearn, an Australian woman who was a human shield during the beginning of he Iraq war, board the bus and get it off it, and then board it again and get off it, and on and on.

Weathermen, huh? Maybe these demonstrators are a wee bit more sinister than they let on. Here, I thought they were thoughtful people who've been carefully weighing the facts and trying to do the right thing in a complicated situation, while unfortunately reading too many counter-factual reports and so getting into the wrong positions.

Abunimah, who had been roughed up by security at the American Embassy yesterday, told me it was the hardest decision he’d ever had to make. It was an individual decision, he had no clarity on it, and no one could tell you what to do, and he respected the decisions of all parties. Mulhearn said that going to Iraq in 2003 had been easy compared to this; for that choice was in the face of physical danger and she would take that any day, this was in the face of moral doubt.

Moral doubt, yeah, that's hard. Fortunately most of us manage to get through life without much of it, and even then rarely on the level of actually getting on a bus to demonstrate. That must have been tough.

Dohrn said that the principle of "All or none" was a miserable one for activist politics. You always took what you could get and kept fighting for more. A European man in a red keffiyeh screamed at her that she was serving the fascisti. Her partner Bill Ayers gently confronted him and asked him why he was so out of control. Between getting on and off the bus, Dohrn, who wore a flower in her hair, said that she didn’t like the absolutist certainty of the people on the other side of the police barricades, and having been in the Weather Underground, she knew something about absolutist feeling.

Dohrn. Ayers. Now wait. I've seen those names somewhere. Israel must be doing something right if these are her enemies.

Yet I remind readers that good things are arising from this experience. The Americans, who are so conditioned to living with the Israel lobby, as an abused wife to her battering husband, are being exposed to a more adamant politics—we are having a rendezvous with the Freedom Riders. For another thing, our direct actions and demonstrations seem to be awaking Egypt, a little, and getting a lot of publicity. Helen Schiff told me that the front page of an official government newspaper today said, "Mubarak to Netanyahu: Lift the siege and end the suffering of the Palestinian people." We gave him that line! she said. A longtime civil rights activist, Helen told me it’s "fabulous" what happened, we are achieving more in Cairo than we would if we had gotten into Gaza.

Freedom Riders. Now that's an admirable role model, we can certainly agree on that. Young citizens willing to be arrested, beaten up, and indeed to risk their lives in a very real way, so as to heal their society of its worst affliction. That's quite a mantle Phil's claiming, isn't it. And note also that the demonstrators have been handing Mubarak his lines! (But not enough to have him let them travel to Gaza).

So there’s a tumultuous and ascendant feeling here tonight, in the little hotels that we have to meet in to make our plans. I can feel the spirit of the Freedom Riders and of the abolitionists, who fought the limits on freedom of movement of black people for so long in my country. As for the divisions, and bitterness, I think they will go away. A European friend advised me tonight that those who take the Palestinian side will find that they share somewhat in the Palestinian experience. They will experience isolation, division, bitterness, failure, contempt, manipulation. Surely not on the scale of the Palestinians; still, they will experience some of those things, and they will grow from them.

Freedom Riders move over, it's the abolitionists now. Of course, these brave folks will of course be called upon to endure great suffering in the little hotel rooms they've got to meet in, but that's how it is with the movers and shakers of history and justice.

There's something almost endearing, in a wistful sort of way, about the way Phil Weiss (and his readers) seek the confirmation of historical greatness. No, he's not Martin Luther King, of course (who is? Khaled Meshaal perhaps?). Yet if he can be a foot-soldier and chronicler of the Movement, that will satisfy him. As long as his grandchildren or theirs look back at him someday with awe for his far-sightedness and bravery.

Actually, I know the feeling, and that's what makes Phil Wiess so weird. He could easily join us.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Tuesday, 29 December 2009

Blindness in Cairo

Blindness in Cairo

The story of the 1,300 demonstrators stuck in Cairo continues not to attract much attention. The Guardian, generally exuberant in seeking vehicles to cast mud at Israel, doesn't seem to be noticing: I think this is because they're embarrassed. Even the editors of the Guardian don't see how the tale can be told without somehow attracting attention that it's the Egyptians, not the Israelis, who are doing the blockading. The BBC visited the story yesterday, but seems not to have returned today. Been there, done that.

The Mondoweis universe is, of course, bursting: Electronic Intifada, Antony Loewnstein, those folks (but not Richard Silverstein, for whatever reason). I continue to be fascinated by Mondoweiss itself. Yesterday they offered us the reflections of Emily Ratner:

We remember the more than 1,400 that were murdered. We remember the hundreds more who have died as a result of this horrific siege. We remember the tens of thousands who are still homeless, one full year later. And we remember our sisters and brothers on the other side of the Rafah border who have breathed life into this historic march every day for months, who have guided our feet to Cairo, and who light the shadowy path to Gaza. Most of all we remember that they will still be caged in Israel’s massive open-air prison long after we’ve safely returned home.

She sees the Egyptians blocking her, but her hatred of the Israeli prison is unaffected. She's in Cairo, for crying out loud, a city where millions live in squalid cinder-block structures under an undemocratic regime, and in the dimmest way she even knows this, but what comes out is a mishmash of romantic verbiage:

The Egyptian government taunts us, encouraging us to enjoy the tourist attractions Cairo offers during our mandatory stay in the city. And some of us do. We even take Gaza with us: Yesterday, Abdullah Anar, a Turkish Muslim, and Max Geller, an American Jew, raced up the face of one of the pyramids to unveil a 12 meter by 6 meter Palestinian flag. For about three minutes one of the most resilient structures on earth proudly called the name of one of the world’s most unbreakable people. We smuggle stories like this one through the tunnels connecting our hearts, exposing them in whispered reminders of the beauty and truth in this struggle, and the unending patience and flexibility we are slowly learning from our friends in Gaza.

Tunnels connecting hearts in beauty. Do you think she can image real people, living real lives?

Ratner is young, I"m told, not that that's much of an excuse: she's of my childrens' generation, and since they've all carried life and death responsibility by now, they don't need to wallow in such nonsense. Phil Weiss, however, is my age, more or less and can't cite youth to defend his malice.

No one here is talking about the two-state solution or land swaps. They know what the Goldstone report says–those missiles aimed at houses with sleeping children–and they are morally clear on the question. They reflect an international consensus: the end of patience for war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and an ideology of Jewish exceptionalism supported by western governments. Those governments have failed to act so we are speaking out as civil society

At the end of his report Weiss is quite revealing:

We didn’t do what the brave French did, and try to claim the UN plaza with sleeping bags and tents, but when we left we sang We Shall Overcome, mingling the American civil rights anthem with this international cause. Gaza will be free-ee-ee. No it doesn’t look like we will be getting into Gaza, still we are doing important work in Cairo, to transform ourselves and our presence on the world stage. (my italics)

It's all about ME, isn't it, Phil. At the end of the day, it's an exercise in narcissism.

Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Wednesday, 16 December 2009

Stories from Hebron

Stories from Hebron

Three weeks ago I visited Hebron with B'tselem. I first posted about the tour here, though that story was peripheral to the tour itself.

I've now completed two larger stories. The main one, which I've put here because of its size, tells what we were shown, and what I learned. Unsurprisingly, my conclusions are almost diametrically opposed to what B'tselem wished me to learn, but that's a risk they take when they encourage the general public to tour with them.

My thesis: Hebron has been an experiment in dividing a city between Israel and Palestine; it has been a horrible failure. Anyone who dreams of dividing Jerusalem must understand Hebron.

Finally, one of my fellow travelers, American graduate student Jo Ehrlich, posted her impressions at Mondoweiss. We have severe differences of opinion, Jo and I, and I've posted my reading of her piece here. I have no doubt she doesn't read this blog, but I'll try e-mailing her via the Mondoweiss people. She'll never change her mind, but maybe she'll appreciate that different people can understand the same reality in opposite ways - and also, that knowing facts is useful.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Jewish Mondoweiss

Jewish Mondoweiss

Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss has a touching post on how Jewish he is. I have no doubt he is, and believe him fully when he tells how it's his Jewishness that drives his animosity towards Israel. Jews are complex, Judaism even more so, and given the right (wrong) ingredients, some Jewish ways of seeing the world can make you intensely dislike Israel. It doesn't make you any less wrong, or obtuse to the stories of the Jews, but it's authentic.

Of course, there's the problem of his readers, some of whom are rabid antisemites, as some of his contributors seem also to be. It's either twisted or tragic when a Jew travels with the people who hate his people, but he'd probably retort that the Jews have become so bad he's got no choice. All the sadder for him.

One of the consistent themes of Mondoweiss is the search for proof the numbers of his team are growing. From time to time they may even, on the fringes. If 3,000 years of history are any indication, however, they won't ever grow much, and they'll always stay on the fringes. Most people don't naturally adhere to positions of self hatred.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Friday, 11 December 2009

Inventing Existent Jews

Inventing Existent Jews

This post may wander a bit over the hills, but actually it does have a central theme.

In a recent flurry of comments, Gavin - our resident New Zealander - posited that since most of the Western anti-Israel brigade all use the same talking points, they must all have gotten them from the same source. His candidates for the honor of "Father of the Movement" were Ilan Pappe, foremost, and the Early Benny Morris. (The Latter Benny Morris is a reviled heretic). I would add Avi Shlain. All of them good Israelis, though Pappe and Shlain have ostentatiously left.

It's an interesting point, even if it addresses the How more than the Why. How people know to bolster their prejudices, not Why they've got them in the first place, or Why this particular set of prejudices is so compelling in their minds.

Alongside the basic books, there are fashionable ones, which are widely quoted for a while and then are forgotten. Tom Segev. Norman Finkelstein. Walt-Mearsheimer, perhaps - or maybe they'll stay important for American enemies of Israel, while never really interesting the rest of us. The newest book on this list is Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People. There's a lot of swooning going on about this book, which was quite popular when it came out in Hebrew, and has just been published in English. (Mondoweiss, for example, gushes here).

I haven't read Sand's book. It's on my list, but so are many others. So I won't argue with it head on until I've read it. However, there's a detailed description, with lots of links to lots of reviews. In addition, we've got Tony Judt's review from the Financial Times this week, and Normblog's response to him, yesterday. Norm, like Norm, is always calm, measured, reasonable.

I'm sorry to see Judt back in the fray. He did some damage back in 2002, but then he mostly dropped off the Bad-Israel-scene, and concentrated on his Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 - a truly magnificent book. I'll review it when I finish it (it's almost 900 pages), but can already say it's my best read of this year. If only he'd stick to the things he truly knows about.

One of the critiques of Sand is that he - like Judt - also wrote about things he doesn't know much about. I'd like to address one theme of the book, as summarized in Wikipedia:

Sand began looking for records of the exile from Israel, a constitutive event in Jewish history, but could discover no literature about the Jewish expulsion. His explanation is that no one exiled the people of the country. The Romans sometimes committed ethnocide but they did not exile peoples. Sand claims that mass exile was not logistically possible until the 20th century... The original Jews living in Israel, contrary to the accepted history, were not exiled following the Bar Kokhba revolt. Sand argues that most of the Jews were not exiled by the Romans, and were permitted to remain in the country. He puts the number of those exiled at tens of thousands at most. Many Jews converted to Islam following the Arab conquest, and were assimilated among the conquerors. He concludes that the progenitors of the Palestinian Arabs were Jews.

Although I'm a historian by training, it may be that the question of the ethnic origins and cohesion of the Jews needs to be determined not by reading old texts but young DNA. The New York Times ran an item about this nine years ago:

The analysis provides genetic witness that these communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries.

If you're better qualified than I, you might wish to read some original research on the issue here and here, for starters; there's more where that came from. The scientists seem to be saying the same thing the Jews have been saying all along. Yet what, precisely, have the Jews been saying all along? Judt spells it out as he sees it:

The story went like this. Jews, until the destruction of the Second Temple (in the First century), had been farmers in what is now Israel/Palestine. They had then been forced yet again into exile by the Romans and wandered the earth: homeless, rootless and outcast. Now at last “they” were “returning” and would once again farm the soil of their ancestors.

It is this narrative that the historian Shlomo Sand seeks to deconstruct in his controversial book The Invention of the Jewish People. His contribution, critics assert, is at best redundant. For the last century, specialists have been perfectly familiar with the sources he cites and the arguments he makes. From a purely scholarly perspective, I have no quarrel with this. Even I, dependent for the most part on second-hand information about the earlier millennia of Jewish history, can see that Prof Sand – for example in his emphasis upon the conversions and ethnic mixing that characterise the Jews in earlier times – is telling us nothing we do not already know.

The question is, who are “we”? Certainly in the US, the overwhelming majority of Jews (and perhaps non-Jews) have absolutely no acquaintance with the story Prof Sand tells. They will never have heard of most of his protagonists, but they are all too approvingly familiar with the caricatured version of Jewish history that he is seeking to discredit. If Prof Sand’s popularising work does nothing more than provoke reflection and further reading among such a constituency, it will have been worthwhile.

Alas, I fear Judt (and Sand?) have set up a straw man, and are now knocking him down and expecting the rest of us to be impressed. All they're demonstrating is their own ignorance - since the main Jewish narrative was never what they say it was. As a matter of fact, the second most important document in all of Jewish history, the Talmud, says the opposite. (As do some of the latter books of the Bible).

The Talmud isn't a history book. Yet it contains a wealth of descriptions of time, place, and people. The Mishnaic period was roughly between 30-200 CE, mostly after the destruction of the Temple (70CE). It then went on for about three generations after the Bar Kochva revolt and its ensuing genocide of 132-135CE, though by necessity those last few generations lived in the Galilee, Judea having been destroyed and emptied of Jews. The Amoritic period went on from 200-500CE, more than 350 years after the Roman genocide. In the Mishnaic period the Jewish communities in Erez Yisrael were the center. In the Amoritic period this centrality moved to Bavel, present day Iraq, but there's a perpetual coming-and-going of scholars in both directions. Many discussions in the Talmud distinguish between way things are done in Israel or Bavel. Then of course there's the Jerusalem Talmud, less well known but created entirely in Byzantine-era Israel. It would never occur to anyone with even only a basic acquaintance with the Talmud to suggest that the Romans had exiled all or most of the Jews. They had been harsh rulers; they had killed many Jews and done their best, for a while, to destroy Judaism. But they had failed.

If the traditional Jewish sources depict a slowly sinking Jewish presence and importance in Israel that went on for centuries, with a rise in the significance of communities in luckier, more advanced lands, when can one say that "the Jews" as a nation had truly left? Not until the 7th century, when the Arab invaders arrived, destroyed the local Byzantine rule, and turned the land into a remote backwater. Indeed, study of the Jewish literature shows no important cultural activity until about the 16th century, after the expulsion of the Jews of Spain, when the Jewish community of Safed was arguably the single most important one anywhere.

Is it possible important Jewish historians today don't know this? I suppose. A sign of how little they know.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Sunday, 6 December 2009

Mondoweiss Universe

Mondoweiss Universe

I've just spent half an hour reading comments at Mondoweiss, something I don't often do. It's a bizarre exercise. See, for example, the comments on Phil Weiss' angry response to Obama's Afghanistan speech, last week. It's title, 'History's Fool', only goes halfway; the comments contain a long discussion about the probability that Obama, like other presidents before him, has received a sealed envelope with "marching orders" from... whom? It's not clear, but they're the Bad Guys, and they control the world, and Obama is under their thumb, and his decision on Afghanistan is proof.

I understand there are kooks around, and they can be found at both ends of the political spectrum. You look at this discussion, however, and some of the others on the same site, and you wonder if perhaps the sentence shouldn't be formulated in the other direction: the ends of the political spectrum exist because there are kooks around who can't deal with the complexity of reality and instead create imaginary scenarios to comfort themselves.

So long as they're fringe kooks, they add flavour. Yet the 20th century saw any number of times when the kooks took hold of the mainstream; in the course of trying out their ideas they killed tens of millions of people and caused endless human suffering - which is why normal people need to keep a wary eye on them. Not obsess about them, not act on each and every idiocy they invent, but never forget that in the wrong conditions, kooks can be very persuasive and infinitely destructive. They are often intelligent, articulate, and personable. They don't advertise their oddity with obvious external symbols such as pointed ears, tails, or even simple frothing at the mouth. They can be a nice-looking elderly man with glasses, a clear-eyed fellow with an open collar (to mention two I've linked to over the past few months) - or, they're very likely to be eager young university students earnestly learning about the world. Jo Ehrlich, for example.

Jo and I were on the same bus tour to Hebron, last week. I haven't yet written about the experience. Jo has, at Mondoweiss, here. She doesn't tell how she carefully chose the parts of the story she wished to tell, while overlooking others. She can't tell you the parts she doesn't know. That was one of the funniest things about her, to me: that she and the other enemies of Israel with us on the bus didn't know very much about the Israel-Palestine conflict, to the extent that they didn't even know much about what Israel has done wrong. They are firmly rooted in a narrative about the present, with next to no idea of how it came to be.

I use the term 'enemies of Israel' advisedly. On the way back to Jerusalem I engaged some of these students in conversation. I hadn't intended to, but there was an American woman a few rows behind me who was defending Israel, and the students were lambasting her with a stream of counter factual contentions, so I joined the discussion to set the facts right. (Using the Goldstone Report as my primary source, of all things. The "facts" they were citing were so outlandish I was able to refute them from the Goldstone Report, which they all admitted not to have read.The world can be a funny place).

Jo Ehrlich didn't participate in the conversation, which was mostly between myself and two or three young Palestinians, and an English student named William. The Palestinians weren't kooks; it took all of ten minutes for us to agree that we can't live in peace with each other because their fundamental positions and mine aren't compatible. They demand a right of return and reject a Jewish claim to the Temple Mount. But they were nice, and I was sorry we didn't have more time to discuss.

William, on the other hand, is an antisemite with whom there can be no common ground for agreement. For him, Israel Is Evil. Everything Israel does is wrong and the Palestinians are the only wronged party in the conflict. He was incapable even of an intellectual exercise of trying to piece together how the Israelis see their world. Not only can there be no possible explanation of the fact that would set Israel in a reasonable light; when I suggested a number of such scenarios he brushed them aside as fantasies. In one case, I told of a clear-cut democratic decision made by a comfortable majority of the Israeli electorate earlier this decade; not only was he unaware of it, but he confidentially told me I was wrong, and if I wasn't wrong, the decision had been a hoax, intended to pull the wool over people's eyes; since he, however, studies Middle East Studies in London, he's able to recognize the truth and not be fooled.

Such a pathology cannot be argued with, and after about the fourth attempt to counter his allegations with facts, to each of which he responded with a version of "it's an Israeli attempt to fool everyone so as to continue with their evil machinations", I literally turned my back to him and stopped trying. If I'm evil irrespective of any facts, what might we discuss?
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Tuesday, 24 November 2009

American Jewry from Many Directions

American Jewry from Many Directions

Mondowiess is furious that J Street is against the anit-Israel boycott movement. Is this a tempest in the far-left American Jewish teacup, or is it a rant by the pedigreed loonies against a group that's disappointing them by staying within the general consensus? We need to know more about J Street than we presently do to be able to answer that.

Meanwhile, back in the mainstream, The Forward has published its annual "50 Top American Jews" list. It may take you half an hour to read, but I recommend. It's fascinating. It also shows a vibrant, diverse and creative American Jewry.

Ah, and there's Michael Oren, of course.
Originally posted by Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Wednesday, 2 September 2009

Uri Avnery and the Boycott

Uri Avnery and the Boycott

Victor asks my opinion about this article, in which Uri Avnery talks with Desmond Tutu about boycotts and what they can achieve.

Avnery starts by asking Tutu how effective the boycott was in bringing down the Apartheid regime, and Tutu tells that it was crucial. Which would be fine if we were still in 1993, asking for journalistic impressions. But we're not. By now, given the passage of time, the question needs to be answered not by asking a protagonist but by looking for hard evidence. I don't know the rules of South African archives, but if one could look at the deliberations of the decision makers of the time, for example, that would be helpful. Tutu wasn't one of them.

Mostly, however, Avnery explains that Israeli isn't South Africa, and a boycott won't work; he eventually says, in so many words, that it oughtn't be tried:

Neve Gordon and his partners in this effort have despaired of the Israelis. They have reached the conclusion that there is no chance of changing Israeli public opinion. According to them, no salvation will come from within. One must ignore the Israeli public and concentrate on mobilizing the world against the State of Israel. (Some of them believe anyhow that the State of Israel should be dismantled and replaced by a bi-national state.)I do not share either view - neither the despair of the Israeli people, to which I belong, nor the hope that the world will stand up and compel Israel to change its ways against its will. For this to happen, the boycott must gather worldwide momentum, the US must join it, the Israeli economy must collapse and the morale of the Israeli public must break.How long will this take? Twenty Years? Fifty years? Forever?


This is an essential part of the Avnery story: for all his (long) life-long contrarianism and insistence that the Palestinians will fall in our arms if only we'd be nice to them, still he remains an Israeli. He remembers escaping Nazi Germany as a child, and fighting for the newborn country as a young man. (Did you know he's the author of the anthem of the Samson's Jackals anthem, which is still played from time to time? Shuala-a-av shel Shimshon.... One of our first commando units, for those who don't recognize the name). I don't know if he can still be called a Zionist in any meaningful use of the term, but he's in no way an antisemite. He wishes the best for Israel, at least according to his rather unusual lights.

Don't belittle this. As any visit to the Guardian will demonstrate, many of Israel's critics blur the line, cross it regularly, or even hate Israel because it's Jewish, irrespective of its actions. Here, see how Mondoweiss responded to Avnery's article. Of course they were disappointed, but some of them consoled themselves with the thought that maybe it was inevitable:

I’m always perplexed by this attitude people have about Avnery. He’s a venerable
force, truly an inspiration. But he’s still a zionist, and zionism is racism. So
OF COURSE he doesn’t support sanctions. Of course he doesn’t support the idea
that Israel should abide by international law. Of course he believes that jews
are special, that Israel is special, that Israel should be permitted to act
outside the law in whatever way it likes, provided that it declares to be in the
racial interests of Jews. Of course he rejects the right of return. His entire
life of incredibly courageous political advocacy was dedicated not to human
rights, but to Jewish rights, and to zionism. He’s a racist in the way that
every advocate of zionism is a de facto racist, and he speaks to and for
racists, which is why people like Richard Witty declare “Avnery makes sense.”
I’m not saying that in a shallow, flaming way. We have to be able to make these
distinctions which allow us to see the whole spectrum of Jewish racism, which
includes the Israeli “left” and much of what passes for the “extreme left”, and
not just the hideous mess on the far right, which is so patently, horrifically
racist that it boggles the mind. Jewish exceptionalism is the problem. I am a
great fan of Avnery and think of him as something of a hero, but the fact
remains that Avnery, and Avnery’s zionism, are part of the problem. Zionism is
not going to produce the solutions and answers to Zionism – they are just going
to perpetuate zionism by iterating a superifically prettier version of this ugly
ideology: Something like “ethnic cleansing Lite.” (Comment 14, posted by
anamalous NYC, whoever that may be).



Interesting, isn't it. The vestiges of patriotism Avnery still has are what make me grudgingly accept that he's part of our discussion. The same vestiges are what make this fellow condemn him, in spite of admiring many of the things he's said over the years. I'd be fascinated to know which of us Avnery himself prefers. Yaacov the Zionist who disagrees with much of his positions, or Anamolous and his hatred. We already know the answer when posed to the Mondoweiss gang. They prefer the antisemites.
taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Monday, 29 June 2009

Mondowiess Expose

Mondowiess Expose

Jay Adler has a long, thoughtful and empathic analysis of the Mondoweiss folks. It hinges on Jewish identity, and how it can function or malfunction. Jay's reading is as compelling as it is, precisely because he more or less shares a starting point with the Mondoweiss folks - though of course he then took a different road. Read the whole thing.

Can we say all this of Mondoweiss? No, we cannot. Not really. For while Mondoweiss may at times espouse these positions, none of them are the end it seeks to serve, not even the ultimate end of a just settlement and a lasting peace. In conflict, a just settlement recognizes the legitimate desires of all parties, not the moral claim of only one. But the active agents behind Mondoweiss do not believe that Israel, or the Jewish people in relation to Israel, has just desires. Horowitz does not support the existence of a Jewish state. Blumenthal, like him, believes that Zionism (Jewish nationalism) – in apparent contradistinction to any other nationalism – is inherently racist. Weiss, a deeply anti-Semitic work in progress, in his haziest, most narcotic fantasy of peace, envisions as its ecstatic end not the peace, but the end of Israel.

taken from Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Wednesday, 17 June 2009

DISTINGUISHING BETWEN A COUNTRY AND ITS CITIZIENS

Distinguishing Between A Country and its Citizens

Mondoweiss yesterday slammed Netanyahu for his willingness to countenance an attack on Iran to foil its nuclear ambitions. Look at all those brave Iranians facing their ugly government! Netanyahu wants war against them!

Glenn Greenwald, meanwhile, castigates American hawks who call for force in halting Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Matt Yglesias, in a recent post about the administration's "debate" over whether
to bomb Iran, wisely included a random photograph of an Iranian street with
civilians walking on it. These are the people Norm Podhoretz and his comrades
want to slaughter.


I can't speak for the American hawks, but to the best of my understanding, the situation is diametrically the opposite of what Mondoweiss and Greenwald make it out to be.

First, there's an obvious distinction to be made between a government and the totality of its populace. The government makes the decisions, sometimes supported by parts of the populace, rarely by all of it, and often by a minority of it. One can act against a government without wishing to harm its citizens - in fact, that's how wars are supposed to be waged. That's why the Hezbullah and Hamas way of war is so profoundly wicked: it aims at all civilians, and not at the IDF at all. (Need I mention that Hamas and Hezbullah are both Iranian clients? That means, clients of the Iranian regime, not each Teherani protestor).

Second, people calling for the Iranians to be stopped with military forcewould all prefer the goal to be reached with peaceful means - but so far these haven't done much good.

Third, a military option, were it to be chosen, would not target civilians in Teheran but rather the military targets in places like Nantaz.

Fourth, the reason there is urgency in stopping the Iranian nuclear program is exactly because no-one wants to hurt the Iranian population. So long as the Iranian nuclear program has not yet reached fruition, it may be possible to halt it with very limited loss of life. Once the Iranians have nuclear weapons, attacking them would mean tremendous loss of life, on all regional sides - though not in the United States. The Iranians can't reach the Americans yet.

I have no explanation why these simple self-evident considerations are so far beyond the comprehension of educated people such as Greenwald or Adam Horowitz, who loudly and frequently pride themselves for their acumen.
taken from :Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Monday, 15 June 2009

MONDOWEISS : FIRST DAMN, THEN DAMN

Mondoweiss: First Damn, Then Damn

Philip Wiess apparently doesn't know Hebrew, and wasn't able to listen to Netanyahu's speech; moreover, as he himself admits, he hasn't even seen an English transcript yet. None of which stops him from opining (via an unidentified friend):

Mean-spirited in the extreme, he emphasized on Israel's god-given
right to the "Land of Israel" (euphemism for Israel Plus--plus Judea and
Samaria, i.e., the West Bank, aka Palestine). And on Israel's right to all of
Jerusalem. There was not a generous word about the Palestinians. Only the usual
tone of threat. There was no surprise in this, of course, but the nasty,
supercilious, and hypernationalist tone even took my breath
away.

Lest you think it was all negative, he did offer to cooperate
with the Palestinians on solar panels.


Mindboggling. The intellectual dishonesty is breathtaking. Actually, so is the simple dishonesty, since it totally misrepresents what Netanyahu said.
taken from : Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...