Dr. elsewhere's post below, "The state of Israel," aroused much controversy. She can defend herself admirably; even so, I thought I would add a few words of my own.
First, I am stumped as to why we commonly refer to Israel as a "state" and not as a "nation." This oddity never came to my notice before a commenter pointed it out. On the other hand, I'm not sure why some American states are called "commonwealths." Linguistic convention often conflicts with rationality.
Dr. elsewhere made reference to the fact that she has Jewish relatives by marriage, which led one commenter to infer anti-Semitism on her part. Infuriatingly, said commenter compared her biographical revelation to the once-familiar phrase "some of my best-friends are Negroes," which is now considered condescending.
First, a few words on the latter phrase.
I'm old enough to recall when white people really did say, without any self-consciousness, "some of my best friends are Negroes." As some of you may recall, I grew up in a jazz-loving household -- and back in the mid-1960s, one of the likeliest places for blacks and whites to get to know each other was in the jazz club. In those days, a legacy of intolerance left a massive wound in the body politic. That wound is still there and still poses a threat -- but back then, it was much deeper and much more dangerous. Times were bad.
Yes, I can understand why a dopey, socially clunky white guy of that time might have sounded condescending when he announced that some of his best friends were black, but that pronouncement had a purpose. Back then, the most problematical individuals -- by which I mean, the folks who cheered for Bull Conner as he turned the water hoses on civil rights protestors -- did not have and did not want any black friends. If you regularly broke bread or went out for beers with someone of a different race, you might still have been a dopey, clunky, awkward, self-conscious, even somewhat prejudiced white guy -- but at least you weren't like that.
Friendship, acquaintanceship, family relations -- these things do mean something. Ultimately, they may be the only antidotes for the toxin of intolerance. It's easy to hate gays when the only ones you see are on television; less easy, when a friend "outs" himself or herself.
Similarly, if you've never met any Jews, it's easy to see them as either God's impossibly noble Chosen People or as demonic Schemers Against All That Is Good. Fundamentalist Christians who live in areas of the country where Jews are rare tend to cycle (perhaps understandably) between one stereotype and the other.
That's why I -- without any apology -- will say that I grew up with a Jewish stepfather. He is a somewhat well-known individual in his field, and after his passing I will have much to say about him. He possessed enormous talent and intellect; he was also an addict and a manipulator whose world-view reflected the hoods he used to know. I hated him. (To paraphrase Churchill, history will be unkind to him, for I intend to write it.) On the other hand, his mother and other relatives were the only members of my extended family that I truly liked -- and I'll never forget the day that sweet, grey-haired lady asked my mother point blank: "What on earth do you see in my son?"
In the years since, I've had Jewish friends, Jewish bosses, Jewish roommates, and one Jewish girlfriend. I've been to a number of seders -- and the few Jewish religious services I've attended probably outnumber the Christian services. The historical personage I admire more than any other is Gustav Mahler, one of the music world's more notable victims of racism. Austria never let him forget his Jewish ancestry, despite his conversion and his marriage to an anti-Semitic bitch -- not to mention a diet that, for some years, consisted largely of ham sandwiches.
(Side note: I recently learned that a young Adolf Hitler loved Mahler's conducting. That factoid can fry a few brain cells.)
What have I learned from my interactions with Jewish people?
Jews are people.
I can't see them as either the Chosen or as demons. They are people, just as capable of nobility and of baseness as are any other individuals. Mark Twain once said something along these lines: "Don't talk to me about a man's race; it's enough to know that he is a man. The news can't get worse."
My Mom was a daughter of Sicily, and I learned early on that the Italians gifted the world with Leonardo, Dante and the Renaissance. A little later, I learned about Benito Mussolini and Al Capone. My personal theory is that, over the course of (say) 50,000 years (should civilization last that long), each and every culture will have the opportunity to play the role of the oppressed and the oppressor.
Yes, it is my belief that the Jews, oppressed brutally for centuries, now count among their number quite a few people willing to countenance bullying. The abused child often grows up to become an abuser, and Israel has conducted itself in an unpardonable fashion that can, should and must be compared to Nazi Germany's behavior. Frankly, if any group other than Jews controlled the Israeli government, the rest of the world would have obliterated it years ago.
It is also my belief -- after reading Deuteronomy and Joshua while freed from any childish adherence to tribal mythologies -- that no Jew in history ever had a right to that particular piece of real estate. Not Solomon, not David, not Jesus, not none of 'em. Similarly, I have no right to park my ass on Chumash territory. Nevertheless, I'm not going anywhere, just as most of the Jews now in Israel aren't going anywhere. Some sort of rational accommodation must be found before a squabble over territory leads the world into war.
It is also my belief that anti-Semitism remains a genuine danger -- as was proven not long ago, when a commenter on this very blog left a "naive" recommendation of the Protocols. I have long feared that America's Christian fundies, who now support Israel so fervently, may one day revert back to the mind-set they were in when Leo Frank swung and Gerald L.K. Smith built his statue of Christ. Nevertheless, the myth of an all-pervasive anti-Semitism -- the paranoid belief that every goy on earth is a secret stockpiler of Zyklon-B just waiting for Der Tag -- allows otherwise good-hearted Jews to rationalize support for Israel's atrocities.
No doubt about it. We travel in tricky waters.
Even so, I'm going to continue to criticize Israel, and will continue to scoff at anyone who calls me a Jew-hater. Yep, I'll say it: Some of my best friends are Jews. More than that: Those unafraid to point out Israel's sins will one day be counted as the best friends the Jews ever had.
26 comments:
I believe the term "State of Israel" is used because historically--and certainly within the Jewish community--"Nation of Israel" means the entire Jewish people--who were once seen as a people without a state. As for "Commonwealth," my American history is old, but I believe that has been based on the original historical organization of the (former) colony. As in Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
splendiferous job, joe; most incisive, and i thank you for your sentiments and the experience you bring to the discussion.
and especially thank you for making my point, though with far greater eloquence: we's all's people, jews included, no one exempted or exhaulted.
we mock and taunt the gods (of your choice) to pretend that we are somehow above the frailties of humans, inviting their mighty wrath.
and anon makes the best point about the state/nation issue; thanks for that. and i happen to prefer 'commonwealth'; common wealth. perfect.
Israel does not equal Judaism, or Jewishness. This false conflation has been a deliberate ruse by right wing Israelis in order to shield themselves from criticism, like a crutch used as a bully stick. It's like Bush calling himself a christian and hiding behind God. God is unassailable, and, because of their suffering in the holocaust, the Jews are unassailable.
Because the media only showcases the opinions of the war-mongering elites and their AIPAC foot soldiers, most common folk think all Jews believe alike. No one sees the Jews who are protesting the Iraq war or Israeli foreign policy. You rarely hear from Norm Finklestein or Jeffrey Blankfort in the msm, who vehemently disagree with Israeli foreign policy, regularly slay Jewish sacred cows, and do believe the lobby has a stranglehold on US ME policy.
These men and others like them need to speak up, and very very loudly, because I believe they can give courage to the tens of thousands of Jews in the US who feel as they do and are afaid to speak out. If they do speak out,perhaps disaster can be averted. If they do not speak out, I am terribly frightened all Jews will be blamed for what is coming re Iran and it will not be good.
I have to say the sudden revelation of dr.elsewhere's girlhood leaves me gobsmacked.
I have been reading this blog for about a year now and hope to continue reading it for many years to come because there is rarely a day without something well worth reading, but that one came right out of left field.
This particular post revealed my boyhood, not the doctor's girlhood.
Sorry for any mix-up. It is very difficult to get Blogger to append any name other than mine to the posts. In THEORY it should be easy. In actual practice, things are different.
The Cannon says..
"It is also my belief -- after reading Deuteronomy and Joshua while freed from any childish adherence to tribal mythologies -- that no Jew in history ever had a right to that particular piece of real estate. Not Solomon, not David, not Jesus, not none of 'em.
Well now Cannon ite (or Caananite) that belief of yours falls a little short of Jehovahs' script. Your pale "earthy" opinion is but a mosquito on His cheek..smack!
Finally someone sees as it is!!! however you failed to mention the palestinians who have been forced out and have not been welcomed back yet!!!
God's name wasn't JEHOVAH until someone in the middle ages said it was. It was written by Hebrew's as YHWH. What is YHWH?
Ponder this image:
http://www.tworiversmediation.com/pix/WORK_Tetragrammaton.gif
The world is waking up fundies.
For those that are curious, YHWH is called the Tetragrammaton and those funny characters in that image are how it is written in Hebrew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah#The_J_in_Jehovah
Oh hell, Joseph. You and the dear doctor still don't get it.
The two of you talk about Jews as if they were another species, and are utterly blind and deaf to the implications of doing so -- or that you *are* doing so.
I was born a Jew. I haven't been able to believe in God -- any god -- since I was 5 years old. As I see it, Jews have no historical claim to a square foot of land in the Middle-East. The Nazi analogy to Israeli policy vis a vis the Palestinians (and, for that matter, the Lebanese) may be a little excessive, but not entirely unwarranted. Even Israelis have been known to make it. (If readers of this blog read Hebrew, they would know that the "debate" in Israel is far more vigorous than it is here in the U.S..)
And yet the language used in this this blog, formerly by unirealist, and now dr. elsewhere, is patently racist to my large ears, and would be seen as such, if used (say) in a discussion of African-Americans.
Every Jew in the world, no matter how rich, comfortable or esteemed, believes the knock at the door could come at any time. Of course, the Israelis manipulate this fear, to get support for genocidal policies ("doing whatever we have to do", etc.). Nonetheless, the fear is real, and not without some foundation.
People don't like Jews, as this blog clearly demonstrates. Most Jews, if they had a choice, would not be Jews. Most Jews do not think they are the "chosen people", and resurrecting that phrase, as if it's a Jewish patrimony and believed by Jews because it figures in bible mythology, says a lot about the speaker (what religious or national group doesn't think it's "chosen"?).
The old canard, "Some of my best friends are Negroes" was (and still is!) used to demonstrate the speaker's innocence and purity of heart ("what me, racist?"). The few rare cases were it was actually true aren't relevant here.
So I suggest you step back and listen to yourselves.
Jew is a misleading term isn't it. Of that descent, that religion or both. Or simply born in that "state"/ nation. There are tremendous differences and even within the religious Jews there are different " sects" or kinds. So a Jew is NOT a Jew is Not a Jew is a Jew.....
glad everyone is straight now.... whew
When a tiny percentage of a quite small population that is itself only 2% of America comprises half the billionaires in the country (world?), who themselves or their co-believers sit astride the helms of the ever shrinking number of news and information vendors (6 companies now controlling 95% of content worldwide), and demonstrably controls US foreign policy to the detriment of the US national security interests, I don't care how anti-Semitic it sounds to anybody in bringing it up to seek corrective measures.
For the apparent alternative to such anti-Semitic appearing criticisms is to allow carte blanch to people who have proven unworthy of such trust, and have gravely imperiled this country and the world for base, narrow, and personal reasons.
FDR was quoted to say that a narrow group of financiers on Wall Street had control of the country then and had it as of then for some decades. Lincoln inveighed against the money power of his day. Anti-Semitic expressions? Depends on if the shoe fits, I should think.
Considering that the average Jewish American opposed the Iraq war more than the average non-Jewish American, and do not support the Likudist positions of the American Jewish organizations, I don't think this really involves Jews, as Jews. Rather, it involves a small segment of Jewry, that the vast majority of American Jewry ought to openly oppose, lest the fairly logical anti-Semitism that would ensue occurs when America is awakened to what's been going on.
Surely, this nightmare scenario worries The Lobby and its component parts, and it should.
I'm sure Jews the world over will rejoice, Joseph, to hear that you "grew up with a Jewish stepfather" and say so "without any apology".
Transpose this discussion into another realm -- for example, a consideration of African-Americans, and murderous, black-lead African regimes -- and its racism will become apparent to you.
Commentator A wonders aloud why "our African brethren" aren't more vocal about the human rights' outrages taking place in (say) Nigeria. At that point, one of "our African brethren" takes issue with the phrase (he finds it racist and patronizing) so Commentator A remarks that she has black in-laws and is therefore well informed about the virtues of blacks, but manages to offend our "African Brethren once again, with more loaded language.
Then Commentator B jumps in, to assert that he won't be deterred from criticising Nigeria (after nobody tried to stop him), because some blacks were offended by Commentator A. Besides, he also has black in-laws and he knows blacks are human, just like you or me. Yes, there are some pretty awful blacks, but they all need to be judged as individuals. That's why he's not ashamed to say his stepfather was black. The guy was a bastard, but his own mother acknowledged as much. Besides, says Commentator B, I've been to my share of Kwanzas, so I have a special understanding of blacks.
Get the drift, folks? It's not very pretty.
Let us take a look at racism:
Criticism of Israel is not racism and it's not anti-semitic, but support for the Palestinians is racism and is anti-semitic.
# posted by banbarbush : 1:05 PM
joe, dude, you GO!!
thankyouthankyouthankyou!
though i could feel the fatigue setting in with the frustration of trying to speak reason to a wall.
anons, whomever you are, the position you take is not only absurd - are you suggesting that we not speak of ANY group of people as a group??? or reference our personal experiences with them??? - but it is so utterly and completely thin-skinned, one wonders just how you can function in the world without your guts spilling out.
but that is apparently what we see here.
please know that, between the lines, we seem to share many points of view on aspects of this topic. but also know that, because of your amazing belligerence on this non-matter, we have been unable to explore that.
this is what happens when you speak so much louder than you listen.
pity; grave pity.
Well, the ultra-annoying posts I've encountered heretofore have usually fallen into two categories: Trannies and guys telling me to buy a Mac. Both are irritants because both are incessant salesmen who keep trying to get a foot in the door even after I have clearly told them to go elsewhere.
But anon 10:58 and anon 3:53 take the cake.
"The two of you talk about Jews as if they were another species, and are utterly blind and deaf to the implications of doing so -- or that you *are* doing so.
Bull-fucking-SHIT.
Note that you do not cite any specific text, my suspiciously anonymous friend. You are responding to words that exist in your imagination, not on the screen.
Here is what I actually said:
"What have I learned from my interactions with Jewish people?
"Jews are people.
"I can't see them as either the Chosen or as demons. They are people, just as capable of nobility and of baseness as are any other individuals. Mark Twain once said something along these lines: "Don't talk to me about a man's race; it's enough to know that he is a man. The news can't get worse.""
You say:
"And yet the language used in this this blog, formerly by unirealist, and now dr. elsewhere, is patently racist to my large ears, and would be seen as such, if used (say) in a discussion of African-Americans."
Racist? I'll happily apply that semi-accurate Twain quote to blacks, whites, Chinese, Jews or anyone else. Hey, why offend one when you can offend all?
"People don't like Jews, as this blog clearly demonstrates."
Bull-again-I-say-shit. If didn't like Jews -- which is to say, if I held any special contempt for them that outweighed my contempt for mankind in general -- why would I have befriended so many? Why would I have admired so many?
Nor do I think that Jews are disliked generally, at least here in America. Before you scoff, consider the large number of prominent Jewish figures embraced and revered by this society. From Einstein to Kubrick to Kafka to...well, I could name thousands of other names, including, I guess, Jesus: Americans read their works, talk about them in classrooms and even hang their images on our walls. In a society where Jews really were disliked, that situation simply would not happen.
You want to know what it REALLY is like to be disliked in this society? Pose as a Muslim for a day. America will take (say) a Sacha Baron Cohen to her heart, but she will never embrace any Arab performer nearly so readily. For a year after after 911, the poor Pakistani fellow working the night shift at a convenience store local to me feared that he would get beaten up just for being who he was.
THAT is "dislike," my friend.
Turn off your self-centered paranoia, see the world as it really is, and count your damn blessings.
"Most Jews, if they had a choice, would not be Jews."
Bullshit once more.
1. They do have a choice, at least in the area of religion. 2. I think the vast, vast majority of Jews are just fine with who they are, which is precisely as it ought to be.
Maybe you speak for yourself. If so, then all I can say is that your personal neurosis is not my problem, and is not to be ascribed to any larger group.
"Most Jews do not think they are the "chosen people", and resurrecting that phrase, as if it's a Jewish patrimony and believed by Jews because it figures in bible mythology, says a lot about the speaker (what religious or national group doesn't think it's "chosen"?)."
All religious Jews do so think, although they have (at least in my presence) been careful to distinguish between being "chosen" and being superior. And as long as that distinction is recognized, I have no problem with the phrase, even though I don't accept the theological basis for it.
If you read my use of that phrase in context, the reference is not so much to Jewish self-identification but to Christian Zionists, who DO use the term.
Guess you missed this part:
"Similarly, if you've never met any Jews, it's easy to see them as either God's impossibly noble Chosen People or as demonic Schemers Against All That Is Good. Fundamentalist Christians who live in areas of the country where Jews are rare tend to cycle (perhaps understandably) between one stereotype and the other."
In Fundamentalist circles -- I've read the literature -- the phrase "chosen people" is indeed used often when shoring up support for everything Israel does. And the phrase does carry (again, in THAT literature) a hyper-romanticized aura of "specialness."
And now for the kicker:
"The old canard, "Some of my best friends are Negroes" was (and still is!) used to demonstrate the speaker's innocence and purity of heart ("what me, racist?"). The few rare cases were it was actually true aren't relevant here."
Christ, you missed my point entirely! My intention was to demonstrate that this shopworn and much-derided phrase is neither a canard (unless the speaker really is lying) nor condescension. All I can do is to repeat what I wrote, and hope that this time it sinks in:
"Friendship, acquaintanceship, family relations -- these things do mean something. Ultimately, they may be the only antidotes for the toxin of intolerance."
And that is why I said my reference to my Jewish stepfather came without apology. Y'see, for as long as I can recall, any discussion of race relations went along these lines:
SPEAKER 1 (on the attack): "You don't like Group X."
SPEAKER 2 (playing defense): "That's not true..."
SPEAKER 1: "You don't! Hell, you don't even KNOW any members of Group X..."
SPEAKER 2: "Nonsense. I've known many. I can even count Group X-ers among members of my family. Why, some of..."
SPEAKER 1: "You were about to say that some of your best friends are members of Group X. Why, you condescending bastard!"
See? Speaker 2 can't win, no matter WHAT he says.
If he says he has no Group X friends or relations, then he is damned for being isolated and ignorant. If he says he DOES have friends or relations in that category, then he is damned for being condescending.
Well, I call bullshit on that unfair conversational tactic.
I say once again that personal interaction across racial, religious and cultural divides is worthy, useful and necessary. Furthermore, in conversation or debate, it is -- at all times, under any circumstances -- perfectly legitimate for you, me, or anyone else to bring up ANY aspect of personal history.
Anyone who says otherwise can go to hell.
Oh, anon 3:53: Your comparison would be apt if Nigeria had millions of Christian zombies supporting every wrongheaded thing that nation did.
In my experience, African-Americans are quite realistic in their assessment of African governments. Back in the 1970s, I never encountered, in print or in person, a single black American apologist for Idi Amin. Maybe my reading wasn't wide enough back then, but I read pretty damn widely for a teen.
Sorry, but you can find LOTS of American Jews who defend the indefensible in Israel.
(Some of you may want to presume that when I wrote "LOTS," I meant "ALL." Read the previous paragraph again. And please respond only to words actually used, not to the words in your imagination.)
Has anyone tried to stop me from criticizing Israel? Not physically. The feedback can be pretty harsh. And it segues pretty quickly into the usual: "You don't like Israel because you don't like Jews."
If I say otherwise, the dialog immediately takes the familiar course outlined above -- the "Speaker 1, Speaker 2" thing.
Is the phrase "Jewish brethren" or "African Brethren" -- or "Chinese brethren" or "white brethren" or whatever -- patronizing, as our boldly anonymous critic says? Nope. Never. The very forms of the words give the lie to this idea. I suggest you look up the meaning of "pater," the Latin root of the word "patronizing." You do know the difference between a father and a brother, do you not?
"Brother," used figuratively, implies both equivalence and a certain root familial relationship -- as in, "we are all members of the human race." Got a problem with that, bub?
"Besides, he also has black in-laws and he knows blacks are human, just like you or me. Yes, there are some pretty awful blacks, but they all need to be judged as individuals. That's why he's not ashamed to say his stepfather was black. The guy was a bastard, but his own mother acknowledged as much. Besides, says Commentator B, I've been to my share of Kwanzas, so I have a special understanding of blacks.
"Get the drift, folks? It's not very pretty."
Seems purty enough to me. If that really is the writer's history, why shouldn't he mention it, if he cares to do so? Why keep things hidden? Both you and I have a right to reveal as much biography as seems comfortable, for any reason that seems good to us.
By the way, I never claimed to have a "special understanding" of Jews -- unless recognizing that they are neither better nor worse than anyone else counts as a "special understanding."
(I mentioned the fact that my stepfather was a bastard for a special reason: I'm preparing the audience for a nice little essay that will appear as soon as the guy leaves this mortal coil. As noted before, he is somewhat revered in his field, and I'm gonna stop the hagiographies in their tracks.)
You know who you are, my anonymous friend? You are Speaker 1 in the dialog above. You just LOVE that particular unfair conversational gambit. And you are royally pissed off because I made it difficult for you to use that bit of verbal jui-jitsu ever again.
Sorry, pal. Ain't gonna let you get away with it any more.
I learned a long time ago that sophists can scry racism into ANY text -- even if that text reads "All are equal." And that is precisely what our two fearlessly anonymous friends have tried to do here, in the expectation that I would simply roll over and die.
Bull-fucking-SHIT I will!
I deleted and reposted my words just now because I originally made a typing error which twisted my meaning. The error has been corrected in the second version, immediately above.
That's quite a tirade, Joseph.
One wouldn't think that the charge of unconscious racism -- coming from someone who despises Israeli policy as much as you do, and perhaps more so, because I feel some responsibility for it, as a racial (if unobservant) Jew -- would provoke such a storm of outrage.
After all, most of us (who are honest with ourselves) are racist at heart, it's human nature to hate and fear the "other", particularly when (in this case) you can objectify that hate with a national policy which is indeed hateful and murderous (i.e., Israeli policy).
Of course, when people get red in the face and foam at the mouth, it's a fair bet that a nerve has been struck. So why not shut up and think for a while? Maybe you're in this state because you recognize something in yourself you don't like much.
On the other hand, it may be easier to dismiss these posts as the railings of another sophist Jew trying to forestall criticism of Israel by crying "anti-Semitism". If that's easier or more therapeutic for you, well -- each to his own. In any case, this is my last post on the subject. If you're going to progress as a human being, it will have to be through your own efforts.
"If you're going to progress as a human being, it will have to be through your own efforts."
Always has been, always will be -- and boy oh boy, if you're going to lay a phrase like that on someone, then don't you dare ever again accuse anyone else of being patronizing. Your words, pal, are the very definition of patronizing.
If I am red in the face, blame rosacea. There is no foam in my mouth, just the afterburn of the spiciest burrito I ever made. And yes, I do think you are being a sophist.
Racist at heart? An acquaintance of mine once drew a distinction between racism and prejudice. Racism, he said, is prejudice plus power. If I don't like you because you are black, I am prejudiced. If I won't hire you because you are black, I am a racist.
If we accept that definition, I can honestly say that I have never been a racist.
No-one, of course, can claim to be beyond prejudice. I suppose every human being in this society struggles to conquer some form of bigotry. As my readers know, my bigotries (and this admission is not something I'm necessarily proud of) run against the sons and daughters of Dixie.
Against Jews? Nope.
If you prefer to think otherwise, I really don't give a damn.
True, I swore off this thread, but reading it over, in all it's glory, you do see a pattern.
On the one hand, you have the frankly unashamed contributors who cite the power and influence of Jews in disproportion to their small numbers, and appear to conclude that this wily mercantile race, rubbing its hands in glee, either lies and cheats its way to the top, or takes shameless advantage of simple good-hearted prelapsarian Christians -- gentle and divine hearts like (say) Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Bush, Cheney, the heads of the major oil companies, the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Scaifes and the Irish cop who beats the bejesus out of a striking worker in front of the meat packing plant.
Then you have those commentators who are clinically and malevolently obsessed with the conduct of Israel, and yet curiously unprovoked by the far worse the crimes of their government, which predate the Jewish neocons by centuries (every heard of the Monroe Doctrine)? Certainly outrage over Israel is appropriate, but why not look closer to home? At least in principle, you have the power to change your own government. I would argue that Americans could also change Israeli policy (rejecting the notion that Israel controls the U.S., rather than vice versa), but since the rest of you seem to think that Israel controls U.S. foreign policy, that option isn't open to you. All you can do is fight to change your own government. If so, why all the useless impotent moaning and bitching about Israel? You might as well be complaining about Kenya or Russia (where, in both cases, worse things go on), if we Americans can do nothing about it.
Finally, you have the "what, me?" crew who talk about Jews as if they were a zoological curiosity. So and so has relatives of "Jewish extraction". This one went to a seder. That one isn't ashamed to say his stepfather was Jewish. Let's turn the tables a moment. Imagine a left-wing blog in Israel, which is 98% Jewish. One day, the subject of "goys" comes up. Some of the Jews have known goys; they offer their opinions. One says that not all goys are bad, just some of them. Another points out that he had goy stepfather; a real goy bastard, but the in-laws were grand. Yet another cites Bach, Beethoven, Shakespeare and Mick Jagger; with goys like that, there has to be some good in goydom. Another wonders aloud how we can distinguish the international behavior of goys through history, from goys and goydom in general. Surely they must be racial characteristics which predispose goys to war, pillage, torture, victory parades, coca-cola and the boundless goy stupidity we all know and love? Then a goy turns up in the thread, and takes exception to this talk -- provoking outrage among the Jews. Prejudice? Racism? Who does that goy think he is? Haven't we had enough of this goy tyranny? Goys are trolls! They ruin every blog! Shut the goy up! Pal, go elsewhere! Don't you *dare* accuse us Jews of racism! We are enlightened, and no goy can tell us otherwise! Etc. etc. etc.
You get the idea. At least I hope so. Finally, the last sentence of my previous post, to which Joe took such strenuous exception, was intended to be ironic, given my failure to move Joe even an inch, to that point. I think we can agree that, in the end, any growth of character is a personal and private affair.
No, I don't get the idea. And you keep misunderstanding ME. Look, I'll try this one more time, and then I will give you up as a hopeless misreader.
WHen I said that thing about my stepfather "without apology", it didn't mean that one should apologize for Jewishness or being related to a Jew or whatever. I meant that I was heading into "Some of my best friends are..." territory knowing full well what I was doing and not apologizing for it. Because I think (again I repeat) that particular bit of verbal jui-jitsu, which you seem to love, is patently unfair and I refuse to be cowed or stopped in my tracked by that tactic any longer.
Your own words -- that whole bit about the Jewish blog in Israel -- shows me that you STILL want to sneak in that particular tactic. You still want to play the role of "Speaker 1" in the dialog outlined earlier. You love that role so much that you refuse to give it up. You love it because it places Speaker 2 in a position where nothing he says can possibly be right.
And again I say: I just ain't gonna let you get away with that shit anymore. I've called you on your crap, bud.
Sorry, but in my view it is perfectly acceptable for you, me, -- or the contributors to that mythical Israeli blog you've mentioned -- to detail as much personal experience as is comfortable, for any reason that seems good to the speaker or author. ESPECIALLY when someone is accused of being a racist.
"And again I say: I just ain't gonna let you get away with that shit anymore. I've called you on your crap, bud."
This is kind of funny, Joe. I provoked the same sort of language from Josh Marshall when I objected to his notion that "she" (Israel) had every right to invade Lebanon, and suggested that he was evidently indifferent to the suffering of non-Jewish civilians. He all but called me a Nazi, in the crudest terms, and used the same kind of impolite and rhetorically vacuous language, some of it quite vicious (far more so than yours, which is demeaning but admittedly not vile).
All I can suggest is, if I were the member of a large majority, and a 2% minority, whose race or racial characteristics I was discussing, took issue with my language, I might well protest: no, I'm not a racist, overt or unconscious. However, I might also sk myself, what am I saying which gives such offense? Is it conceivable -- merely conceivable? -- that I don't fully grasp the full import of what I'm doing, or how it may sound on the other end? Do I know that other race a reconsideration of my attitudes and language, or am I above such self-questioning?
These are clearly doubts you're not willing to entertain, so we won't get that far. A pity. And this really *IS* may last word on the subject, and it may well be the last word on any subject here.
Sorry, typo: the sentence toward the end of the last post should read:
"Do I OWE (not "know") that other race a reconsideration of my attitudes and language, or am I above such self-questioning? "
Not, of course, that this will make any difference to Joseph; any more than he'll be able to restrain himself from remarking that he HOPES I don't make any further contributions to this blog. Besides, the absence of Jews on the blog should ensure greater harmony. But one likes to be clear.
Don't know the "why" but here's the "what" -
Country name:
conventional long form: State of Israel
conventional short form: Israel
local long form: Medinat Yisra'el
local short form: Yisra'el
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html
Also see:
The Declaration Of The Establishment Of The State Of Israel
(May 14, 1948)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Dec_of_Indep.html
Just as my criticism of the current United States' government has no relation whatsoever to my feelings toward my fellow Americans or even Christians (I am not a Christian), my criticism of the Israeli government also has no relation whatsoever to my feelings toward those who may be Jewish - Israeli or otherwise. Apples and oranges, people. Apples and oranges.
But we can't forget that the Israeli government and its ardent supporters have gotten immense mileage out of intertwining anti-Israeli sentiment with the term, "anti-semitism". Anti-semitism automatically stirs thoughts and images of Nazi Germany, Auschwitz, Buchenwald, etc. In the game that is public opinion, Israel knows where its bread is buttered. And "anti-semitism" is, by and large, Israel's bread and butter for getting what they want. It works and they know it.
Sadly, the policies of Israel's government often go unchallenged, even when they are utterly despicable. The mere threat of being branded an "anti-semite" is too much for potential critics to bear. It's high time that we toss such garbage aside and level legitimate criticism when and where it's due. And Israel most certainly is owed its due when it comes to criticism.
DrewL Bucket
Post a Comment