Submitted Comments RSS Feed Comments by Jeremiah Haber
Posted in: Blaming imagined tormentors for violence, in Oslo and in Istanbul
Ron, I am sympathetic to your basic point. And I posted something similar today. But your statement: In Norway or in Istanbul, extremists are going to seek out their hated targets whatever the state of multiculturalism or the actions of Israel. is simply not accurate. There is considerable correlation, for example, between the frequency of anti-Semitic acts in Europe and Israel's actions; this has been shown time and time again, and is not disputed by scholars of anti-Semitism, or even the ADL. That doesn't mean that the perpetrator is not responsible for his actions, or is determined to do what he does. But in explaining what brings someone to commit violent acts against civilians, context is clearly relevant, and we neglect it at our peril. For then we simply attribute to the perpetrators some baseless, irrational hatred (which we call anti-Semitism) and neglect to deal with the broader context. Israel's Occupation, and the unresolved plight of the Palestinians, provides fertile ground for anti-Semitic actions outside of Israel. That may be the price Zionists are willing to pay for a Jewish state. But it is undeniable. The context of Breivik's actions is not the state of multiculturalism in Norway, but the state of rightwing, ultra nationalist xenophobic ideology. And, frankly, there is considerable difference between the state in which, say, the Gazans find themselves, and the state in which Christian Norwegians find themselves. Condemn all actions against civilians -- so do I -- but admit distinctions in circumstances -- not in order to justify, but to help tackle at the larger issues.
Posted in: Hamas-Fatah unity: The liberal case against
Hamas-Fatah Unity -- The Illiberal Case Against James Kirchik advocates disregarding the results of a fairly-conducted election, jailing elected officials of a party recognized as legitimate by the world community during those elections , splitting a people in two, and imposing sanctions and siege on a million and a half people. for the reasons that the party that was elected a) does not recognize the State of Israel; b) takes illiberal social positions; and c) employs violence to achieve its aims. And he criticizes liberals for excusing these points. True liberals, however, though they despise narrowminded religious fundamentalism, whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, realize that in many countries there are religious political parties, and the way to fight against them is not through jailing their leaders or outlawing them, but through insisting upon democratic institutions and their playing by the rules of that democracy. Mr. Kirchick may regret the suffering brought on by Palestinians who, sick of Fatah corruption, voted for a credible, albeit ultra-nationalist and illiberal, alternative. I understand that. Whenever Shas gets posts in the Israeli government, I, an orthodox Jew, weep. But it is not liberal to want to give Palestinians a demilitarized state on a fraction of Palestine. It is also not liberal to demand one side forswear violence when the other side in the negotiation has one of the most powerful armies in the world and uses it frequently. And it is certainly not liberal to bully one side by asymmetric demands that will considerably weaken its already weak bargaining position. Nobody told Ben Gurion that he wouldn't get a state until he recognized the Palestinian's right to a state and forswore violence. Mr. Kirchick doesn't like Hamas? Then why does he advocate US policies that ensure its growth and survival? Why does he allow Israel to elect religious fundamentalists that drag its country to the right, but not the Palestinians? Sorry, Ron, this is not a liberal argument against the unity pact. This is a Zionist argument against ceding control of the Palestinian destiny to the Palestinian people. A true liberal believes in equal fairness to both sides. Kirchick is a Zionist hawk in liberal's clothing.
Posted in: Kushner's reply to CUNY
Ron, you misunderstand Kushner's point -- and you also lapse unthinkingly into Hasbara spin about Israel as a ethnic democracy. It is not. Let me explain. Israel is the only one of the countries you yourself mention -- and many others -- where the state is defined as the state of a particular religious ethnic group, no matter where the members of that group are born -- and of no other group. You don't become eligible for Polish or Irish citizenship through baptism; you do become eligible for Israeli citizenship through circumcision and signing on to a religion. A 100 bucks contribution to JTA for any other country you can find where that is the case. Even Saudi Arabia, which requires you to be a Muslim in order to be a citizen, doesn't guaranteed citizenship to Muslims. The issue is not whether some countries have religious or ethnic traditions associated with it. The issue is also not whether some countries give preference in immigration to ethnic groups, as in Greece or some of the new former Soviet republics. Israel is not like Greece in its immigration policy, despite what the hasbaraniks say. And why not? In Greece, Greek nationals get preference in immigration. In Israel, Jews (defined by the criterion of the Nuremberg laws) are considered returning natives -- whereas the natives of Palestine are considered as aliens with no rights to return to their homeland. No other country in the world is like that, despite the facile analogies you read with Ireland or Poland. And your second point is simply bizarre. If being a Jew were simply a matter of voluntary identification, like being a fan of the 14th amendment, that would be one thing. Then there could be Muslim Jews, and Palestinian Jews, and Christian Jews -- all equal before the Israeli law. But Israel does not recognize voluntary affiliation or identification as sufficient. Let me put it this way: would you make the same point if a country defined itself as representing the white nation? Could a black person who thinks himself white be represented. Kushner's views are radical for Jews who have been conditioned, by faulty analogies with ethnic states, to consider Israel normal. But you know that there are many thinkers in and outside of Israel that consider its version of ethnocracy to be very abnormal. Of course, one common response is -- just as the Jewish people are unique, so is the Jewish state unique -- and so what? But if Kushner wants to explain his views as deriving from his understanding of American democracy (and remember -- many Americans consider it to be a Christian state -- would that Israel be a Jewish state in the same way), then what is wrong with that? Most liberal American Jews I know check their liberal values at the door when it comes to Israel. They are willing to dupe themselves into thinking that Israel is a Jewish America, or like Ireland or Greece. Until they think harder.
Posted in: Goldstone: A Primer
Actually, Judge Goldstone did not say that Israel did not commit major war crimes. He still asserts that Israel committed major war crimes. So Uriel, you are out to lunch.
Posted in: Jews for Helen Thomas
Rabbi Glazer is right. We are indeed a very strange people. We get very upset when Helen Thomas suggests that the Israeli Jews go back to where they came from. Yet many of us have no problem with the expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians from their homes when Israel refused to let the refugees return, or with expropriation of Arab lands within the Green Line after 1948 for Jewish settlemetn. Even today, some of us contemplate a solution involving a transfer of Palestinian citizens of Israel against their will out of Israel for security and demographic reasons. Heck, many of us don't even believe that the Palestinians have a right to a state in their native homeland or a right to a military that defends the state. I look forward to the day when a Fox News commentator who denies that the Palestinians have a right to a state, or suggests that Jordan is Palestine, or advises the Palestinians to leave Israel, is booted out as unceremoniously as was Helen Thomas.
Posted in: On walls and olive trees
Mike, Your reasoning is fallacious; your premises are false. Premise 1. "The barrier has saved Israeli lives." In fact, there is no evidence that a single Israeli life has been saved by the barrier. Read my post, "On Exploding the Myth that The Israeli "Security Barrier" Saves Lives" http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2009/07/on-exploding-myth-that-israeli-barrier.html But there is abundant evidence that the security barrier has destroyed thousands of Palestinian lives -- and added more land for settlements, which was the real reason for the fence in the first place. 2. "If there had been on intifada," etc., Palestinian land would have still been expropriated for settler roads and settlements. Just look at how much was taken before the intifada. 3. Conclusion: "the Palestinians are responsible for their own olive tree uprooting." By that reasoning, the Israelis are responsible for their being blown up by suicide bombs. And, by the way, since the last suicide bombs, how many Palestinian lives and livelihood been lost? Only one people is being held hostage without self-determination, and basic human rights. Were thousands of Jews blown up by suicide bombers (God forbid), the equation would not be altered. As long as one side has no self-determination, the other side has no right to self-determination.
Posted in: The power of example -- the NIF, the attacks, and Goldstone
Ron, I just saw you left a comment on my blog. Thanks for the change. I realize we are still probably in disagreement on one or two things. One reason for my writing so much about the Goldstone report lately is that Goldstone-bashing has become the favorite sport in the Jewish world. For me, Judge Goldstone is a profile in personal courage, and, yes, a Jewish model to emulate. Here is a man with great personal integrity, love of Israel and passionate commitment to human rights, who has become the number one enemy of the Jewish people after Ahmadinejad -- and for what? For criticizing the IDF's conduct of the war in Gaza? Ribono shel olam, he is not even an anti-Zionist (not that there is anything wrong with that!) Even if he is wrong, is there any indication that he acted from malice? Ah, but he will have given ammunition to the anti-Semites, some will say. To which I reply, not a fraction of what the IDF's behavior has given. When asked how would he feel if Israel could successfully refute the accusations, Judge Goldstone has said, repeatedly, that this would make him very happy. Is it too much to expect that some prominent Jewish liberals will stick up for him the way they have stuck up for the New Israel Fund, which supports the groups from which he culled much of his data? Granted, the right will bash them all, fine and dandy. But why should the Goldstone supporters be coming only from the usual suspects of the far left (I mean supporters of the Judge, not the report.) Is it because he is too much the outsider, somebody who doesn't have the extensive Israeli track record, family and political connections, that Naomi Chazan has?
Posted in: The power of example -- the NIF, the attacks, and Goldstone
Thanks, Ron.
Posted in: The power of example -- the NIF, the attacks, and Goldstone
Bill, The claim that interests me here is Ben Dror Yemini's claim that Zokhrot, by insisting on the right of return, in effect wishes to do away with the Jewish state. Yemini could have saved himself some trouble (if he wanted to be intellectually honest, at least) by reading Zokhrot's website, which has a question in its F.A Q. and answer as follows: ืืื ืืืืช ืืฉืืื ืืื ื ื ืืขืฆื ืฉื ืงืื ืืืืกืื ืืืื ืช ืืฉืจืื? ืืืืช ืืฉืืื ืืื ืืืืช-ืืื ืืกืืกืืช, ืฉืืื ื ืืืืจื ืืืืืช ืืืชื ืืช ืืคืืชืจืื ืืืื ื ืื ืื ืืืจ. ืืื ืกืคืง ืฉืขื ืืืฉืื ืืฉืืื, ืืื ืื ืืืกืืจืช ืฉื 2 ืืืื ืืช ืื ืฉื ืืืื ื ืืืช, ืืฉืจืื ืชืฉื ื ืืช ืืืคืืื. ืืืคื ืืฉืื ืื ืืืืงืคื ืชืืืืื, ืืื ืืฉืืจ, ืืืกืืืืช ืฉืืืืขื ืืืืื ืืฆืืืื ืืืฉื ืืืชื. 'ืืืืจืืช' ืืืืื ื ืฉืืฉืื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืกืืืื ืืืื ืืจืืคืื ืืคืฆืข ืืขืืืง ืืื ืืฉืจืืืื ืืคืืกืืื ืื, ืืืจืืฉืื ื ืืืฉืชืืืืช ืืืืชืืช ืฉื ืืืฉืจืืืื ืืืืจื ืืชืืืื. My quick translation: Questions: Isn't the Right of Return a code word for the elimination of the State of Israel? Answer: The right of return is a fundamental human right which is not conditional upon this or that political solution Certainly if the right of return were implemented, whether in the framework of a two-states or one state, there would be a change in the character of the State of Israel. The nature and extent of that change will depend, inter alia, on an agreement arrived at in negotiations between the two parties. Zokhrot believes that this change contains within it a great opportunity of healing the deep wound between Israelis and Palestinians, and, for the first time, the true integration of the Israelis within the Middle East" What, I think, Zokhrot is driving at, is the transformation of Israel from an ethnocracy with some democratic institutions to a liberal democracy of all its citizens, in which the Jewish and Palestinian culture would play predominant roles. Now the transformation of Israel to a liberal democracy with Jewish heritage, culture, and calendar in public sphere may be what Ben Dror Yemini calls "the elimination of Israel." But as Bernie Avishai argues in the Hebrew Republic, such a country would be very similar to what Israel looks like today: Hebrew culture, Hebrew calendar, Jewish history taught in schools, etc. Now, after all this, you can say, "this is naive bullshit". But if you do, then you be in fundamental disagreement with Ben Dror Yemini. Because he doesn't claim that Zokhrot naively and wrongly thinks that Israel can survive the recognition and implementation (in negotiations) of the right of return. He says that they agitate against the existence of the state of Israel. That is because Yamini, a tribalist, cannot understand the idea that humans have inalienable rights that trump the concerns of states. What concerns Zokhrt is the human rights of the people who were barred from returning to their homes not because they because they were a security threat, but because of their ethnicity. .
RSS Feed Breaking News
Updated 02/09/12 @ 05:54PM EST
- A poll showed that nearly half of likely voters believed the United States should use military force to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
- Rabbi Gunther Plaut, a major figure in Reform Judaism, died in Toronto.
- The application for a proposed Hebrew-language charter school was accepted by the District of Columbia Public Charter School board.
- A truck driving calves from Eilat to the Golan Heights was hijacked into the West Bank.
- U.S. Rep. Howard Berman introduced legislation that would allow eligible Israeli nationals to receive non-immigrant investor visas in the United States.
- Poll: Half of U.S. voters back strike on nuclear Iran
- Reform leader Rabbi Gunther Plaut dies
- D.C. Hebrew-language charter school accepted for review
- Op-Ed: Kick the reaction addiction on campus
- Berman moves to grant investor visas to Israelis
- Holy cow! Calves hijacked into Palestinian territory
- Report: Israeli journalist also works for prime minister
- Larry Greenfield tapped to lead JINSA
Posted in: Jennifer Rubin and Shabbat
08/05/11 03:31 AM
Ron, I already had checked the postings and saw that Shabbat observance was a pretty lame excuse...if she presented herself to her editor as strictly observant. On the other hand, who am I to say that if a Jew partially observes shabbat, or spottily so, that shouldn't be a good reason. So she "cheats". Big deal. The question was whether she had a good reason not to post (like maybe she went away from her computer for whatever reason. I bless Hashem for allowing me 25 hours away from the web and my trivial, insignificant, and time-wasting blog. And I can only hope that Rubin becomes even more observant