dr. elsewhere here
This point might have been as easily placed in a comment for Joseph's last post on this topic, but I feel it truly deserves close scrutiny. And, it focuses not on Israeli art students and 9/11, but the state of Israel today.
Evidently, there is abundant evidence the government is coming completely undone. Stateside, we've heard scant noise here and there about the rape charges against President Katsav, but little else. It appears, that that scandal is only one of several involving top government officials, and the citizens are becoming increasingly fed up.
Sound familiar?
In any case, fascinating to consider just how little press this kind of analysis gets over here. Makes one wonder if the Jewish citizenry of the US is as clueless as the rest of us about these problems. And if so, why? And dare we wonder why we hear nothing of any of this here, regardless of our Jewish brethren in the US? (I know, I know, it's the corporate press, stupid. That piece I've been working on is coming; hard to nail down because it just keeps growing, day by day. Unlike my bank account.)
40 comments:
"Jewish brethren"?
It's odd that even the most "progressive" Americans -- I assume that's what dr. elsewhere is -- can't seem to divorce Israel from "Jew", a term which (in the U.S.) largely means atheistic secular humanists.
The reason you don't hear anything untoward about the state of Israel is the same reason it took the U.S. media 6 years to start reporting on the Bush administration. Or is that also a Jew conspiracy?
Yeah, it's a "Jewish state", which makes me cringe as much as anyone. But "Israel" and "Jew" are not synonomous, unless you believe in collective guilt and punishment, based on a racial identification. In which case, we had better start feeding the bonfires, because there will be lots of burning to do, starting with white protestants (like dr. elsewhere?) for their long and murderous history....
mercy me! do i detect a little more than a little defensiveness in this response?
forgive me if any offense was taken; none was intended. several facts, not least of which, i am related - by marriage - to those of jewish ancestry, and likely in the past by blood. this bothers me not one bit in any direction. i have considerable cherokee blood, and i suspect - and actually the singer in me hopes - i also have some african blood, as well. i suppose as a progressive, none of that really gets a rise out of me.
what i was referring to in that phrase was those in our country of US citizenship (and many with a long US lineage) with also jewish lineage who seem to turn a blind eye to the many negative issues surrounding the state of israel. this group is a subset of 'those in our country of US citizenship (and many with a long US lineage) with also jewish lineage'; not all US jews feel this way. in fact, my personal experience is that not many do turn this blind eye. that does not alter the fact that some do, and i have experience with some of those folks, and none of them have anything to do with the press; they're just as regular as the next, except they really cannot comprehend israeli crimes.
i'm not at all sure why my wording led you to assume that i cannot divorce 'jew' from 'israel'. but i would suggest you consider that you might be hypersensitive to what you experience as the likelihood of such a conflation; hence your assumption. i would agree with you that, in the progressive press, there may be a tendency to use the concepts interchangably, overlooking the counter-examples. it is unfortunate, and given your sensitivity, i will strive to be more sensitive about it.
in the meantime, though, i hasten to remind you that the title was not 'the jewish state' but 'the state of israel;' that should have given you a clue as to my leaning. i will also suggest that your point about the press not reporting on israel's woes just as it has not reported on bush's woes does not really stand up; the press is, however shabbily, now reporting on bush's woes, and the abundance of them. however, nowhere in the press do we hear about the extent of israel's problems. nowhere. i did not suggest that this is a jewish conspiracy, but i do suggest it might be a jewish-american blindspot. my suggestion comes from the several friends i have who sport such a blindspot; it's as astonishing as any rightwingnut bush fanatic's. no need to get into the problems of religious blindness here, but there is the additional problem with my jewish friends in that they are otherwise extremely progressive. i don't know what to do with that, but there it is. and i also observe that this problem is broadly based; the support for israel from american jews (not all of them, mind you) is astonishing, and borders on the fanatically blind.
hence my comment.
i could not agree with you more that jew and israel are not synonymous; i just wish that more jews in america felt that way.
and how do you leap to collective guilt and punishment?? sure, we're all guilty of long and murderous histories, which is why i suggest we work hard to stop such behaviors. supporting murderous regimes, regardless of their lineage, is one way to start.
avoiding becoming hyper-reactive and defensive, even personally hostile ('white protestants like dr. elsewhere?'), would be another.
reflecting on what that hyper-reactivity and defensiveness might stem from and mean in one's own life would be yet another.
appreciate your thoughts.
Why do we refer to 'the State of Israel'?
We never say 'the state of France', or 'the state of Canada'.
It suggests there is some distinction between Israel and a normal country, or that the place is a thing in a temporary condition of being Israel.
It inherently suggests an iffiness about it.
hm. the 'state' of israel. well, i agree, at first blush, that on a certain technical level it should be the nation of israel.
however, there happens to exist some real contingency about it as a bona fide nation. how it came into existence was highly contengent. its persistence in marginalizing palestine in the process i'd have to say diminishes its status and renders it, again, contingent. its methods of that persistence calls its legitimacy into question, again rendering it contingent. and then, to reference the article i linked to, the fragile status of its government just now, all these things give it another dimension of contingency.
(mind you, i feel all these points also apply to the USA; just sub 'natives and africans' for palestine, and it's just about the same, with the possible exception of its inception.)
interestingly, its original, biblical inception was as 'the nation of israel.' however, if one reads genesis 34 and the surrounding relevent chapters, you get yet another angle on the 'contingent' nature of this tribe of tribes.
few may recall that jacob, who had already really ticked off his father, isaac, by faking his hairy hand to get his blind father's blessing in his older brother, esau's, stead. he fled, took up with the family of his mother's cousin, fell in love with his daughter, rachel, but had to marry leah, the elder, first. the children he sired with these two women became the twelve tribes of israel.
however, he also had a daughter, dinah, who caught the eye of the local prince (remember, the hebrews were a wandering, sheepherding tribe), who evidently seduced her, which outraged her father and brothers. but the prince evidently either really loved her or wanted to own her, and begged his father the king to offer an enormous dowry.
jacob agreed to give dinah's hand on the one condition that all the men of the kingdom would be circumcised. now, this is no small concession; this was saying you must all become like us. and the king agreed. the prince really wanted dinah.
the night that all the king's men - and boy's and babies - were recovering from this surgery, the brothers stole into their homes and slaughtered each and every last one of them. slit their throats.
nice, eh?
now, we all know biblical verses and language and the way the stories are told. but here is the upshot of what happened next. jacob and his family pulled up stakes (literally, all the tents left the area), and resumed their wandering ways. during their wandering, god suggested to jacob that it might not be a bad idea to change his name. so he became israel.
now, i am not making this up; read it for yourself. but i cannot shake the impression that this name change occurred because jacob was essentially on the lam and had to become something he was not in order to avoid being tracked down and slaughtered, along with his bloody sons, out of vengence for their slaugher of the prince's people.
(for a truly fascinating account of dinah's story, do read 'the red tent')
the bible is full of such unsavory stories about the hebraic traditions, which does not make them more unsavory but just as unsavory as the rest of the human race. i just find it at least quizzical that this is the story behind the name that these people have taken for their nation.
and i would further venture (at the clear risk of offending many, but i honestly do not intend to do so, only to open discussion on the matter), that many of the old testament's prophets - yea, even the new testament prophet! - would be horrified to find israel in the 'state' it is currently in. i suspect they would all be about the business of shouting warnings and doom and overturning more than just a few of the money-changers' tables, not just in jerusalem, but everywhere.
please take very sensitive note of just how very sensitive an issue this is. i have risked much to speak so bluntly, but i do so partly to expose the sensitivity as a point of discussion. much lurks here that could reveal a lot about who we are and why we see these things the ways that we do.
Sixty years after the ratification of the US Consitution was 1849, hardly our best era.
The tradition of Jews referring to their homeland as 'Israel' is simply real old. What other name would have presented itself?
But I don't think Israel's establishment was contingent in any way, and certainly not contingent when you compare it to the way the Palestinians came into existence, principally as a means of causing trouble for the British by fighting with the Zionists to make the place ungovernable.
banbarbush, might i suggest you check with your history. israel did not exist as a nation or location until it was created for them by the winners of WWII and the UN. it was done out of guilt for what had been done to them by the nazis - not at all a bad thing to attempt some compensation for them, but consider the fact that no nation would take them, not at all a good thing.
the zionists had been lobbying for a return to their native region for decades, and gained the ear of many in the US. however, FDR also consulted with the saudi king who explained to him the importance of including arabs in the decision process. he wisely understood that yet another western intrusion on middle eastern territories, especially if it involved the displacement of arabs in the process, would lead to nothing but trouble. FDR just as wisely took him seriously and wrote a letter to assure him arabs would be included in the process. unfortunately, FDR died about a month later, and despite the fact that this letter constituted a diplomatic commitment, it was ignored by truman when the UN 'created' israel out of palestine. granted, most of this territory was desert, and they were resisted by the arab neighbors in bloody fighting in which israeli forces ultimately prevailed due to enormous financial and military support from the US. their continued survival has also been financially and militarily supported by the US, further underscoring my use of the term 'contingent.' every war involving israel since that time, many of them instigated by israel, has been supported financially and militarily by the US.
the US refusal to honor FDR's commitment to the arab people (who did not expect to reject israel at that time but only to have a say in how the decision was made) was seen as a huge insult to their royalty. the brutal removal of palestinians from their lands, their farms, and their homes was also seen as barbaric. israel's ability to pull this whole thing off was almost entirely contingent on US financing and UN complicity. the US has repeatedly blocked all resolutions noting israeli aggression for over half a century.
and on it goes...
your claim for palestine's existence as an irritant for british rule is, forive me, a bit simplistic. those were real people who lived their, with real lives and real livelihoods. are you saying they had no right to lobby and fight for those things? they had no right to resist a foreign occupation, and then a foreign insertion of another nation?
palestine as a location and region has a long history, as old as israel at least, and it has been populated by middle easterners of various faiths, but mostly muslims, for centuries.
and to claim that the name of israel is 'simply real old' is - again, forgive me - again, highly simplistic. that was part of the point of my retelling of the biblical story. it is not simply a name; it has a history, and a really interesting and telling one.
and as for what other name could have been chosen, well, why is any name chosen? yet again, my point was, take note of the way in which this particular name was chosen.
finally, you are right, though, to point out that the parallel time frame of our nation was hardly a model. yet another reason to compare our relative contingencies. and it seems there is another parallel, in that the rough periods appear to be a function of the same exploitive pattern of attempting to overcome our relative contingent natures, with the US exploiting african slaves and israel exploiting palestinians.
hopefully israel can find a similar, liberating, and progressive solution to their dilemma.
"i am related - by marriage - to those of jewish ancestry"
Those of "jewish ancestry". I see. Very interesting. And that innoculates you exactly how? The same way "some of my best friends are Negroes" does?
Lady, forgive me for saying so, but you don't when to stop. If I'm taking offense, you're giving me far too much opportunity. Before offering any further lectures, try looking into yourself a little deeper. Perhaps there's some unacknowledged bitterness and resentment there.
The cry of anti-Semitism is worn out these days from abuse and misuse, typically used against anyone who questions right-wing Israeli policies and Jewish racism (against Arabs -- yeah, Jews are no better than anyone else, despite their history).
But you're putting my hackles up, that's for sure, and I'm about as far removed from defending Israel as one can get (far more so than most American "gentiles"). Maybe some sensitivity training is in order (for you), despite your experience with your in-laws.
In my view, the true "Axis of Evil" in this world is comprised of the three massively corrupt and breathtakingly incompetent governments of the USA, UK, and Israel. These respective criminals -- Bush, Cheney, Blair, Olmert, et al -- are finally beginning to receive their just desserts. The sooner their downfall comes, the better for us all.
It's difficult to imagine anyone going to greater lengths to avoid giving offense than dr. elsewhere has here. We really have to stop this business of pouncing on any marginal hint of insensitivity, or stereotyping, or hypocrisy. Such rhetorical tactics are discussion killers.
"Jewish brethren?"
"State of Israel?"
"Jewish ancestry?"
Who cares? Does calling attention to expressions like these somehow refute the doc's point? No, and in my view progressives who use that rhetorical device aren't any better than the right-wing talk show hosts who eschew reason in favor of demagoguery.
Anyone who wants to play the political correctness card should go back to the Digby blog, where it serves as coin of the realm.
show me the " state of Palestine" on any historical map..... then read me the history of that state...
and why are we arguing again????
whew! it does appear this topic does raise some ire.
again, my apologies, as no offense has ever been intended; quite the contrary. the only point i intended to make is that there appears to be evidence that the 'government' of israel (state, nation, whatthehellEVER) is experiencing a spate of scandals and a diving public confidence, comparable to what is occurring here, but we are not hearing about it here. yes, the implication that the press suppresses such unpalatable information is there; i don't know what to make of it, but i do know that yale's offer to juan cole was withdrawn and 'my name is rachel' could not find adequate voice here for the longest, both (just examples) the victims of a fierce and powerful jewish lobby here in the states.
now call that offensive if you will, and i do, but for different reasons than apparently some of the readers do. the fact that i'm pointing this out does NOT make me anti-semitic, any more than pointing out that unqualified black kids get high school diplomas. in each case, it is the fact of the matter, and no amount of whining or knee-jerk reactionary name-calling will make it any different.
unirealist, i truly appreciate the fact that you seem to have actually read the words that i wrote, rather than some emotionally habitual response. and you seem to have understood my intent, as well as my point, so it does not appear that my words did not convey these things.
nowhere in my words do i conflate 'jewish' and 'israel.' if your hackles are up because i mentioned that i am related to jews (which i did only to say i'm not speaking in a vacuum here), then your hackles are up too far to begin with. and that deserves some attention.
and as for a map of the 'state of palestine', there exists no more map of israel than there does of palestine AS STATES prior to the middle of the last century. the brits occupied the territory after the ottomans were driven out during WWI; arab rule by the ottomans and caliphs before them spanned more than a milennium! during this time, palestine was not dignified with statehood any more than israel was, but it WAS a bona fide region and referred to colloquially as such, along with its people.
and as for an alternative name for israel, it now occurs to me that they might have chosen judah or canaan, for example, instead of israel. i know the reasons FOR choosing israel, but i was describing in the story of dinah a good reason to have avoided that name.
finally, what are we fighting about, exactly? heck if i know. seems an anon was offended by what i had to say, and here we are.
again, my apologies, as no offense was ever intended. i'm just attempting dialogue here. that does get dicey, though, around sensitive issues. so how about let's all just consider how we can approach this with more mutual respect?
doc, stop apologizing, you did nothing wrong. If the truth is anti-semitic, then we've got serious problems.
This happens EVERYTIME Israel is brought up on any forum. Responses usually amount to ad-hominem attacks and offer no evidentiary or substantial rebuttal.
Fortunately, people of the left who know they are not anti-semitic are standing up to this hateful tactic and are bravely stating the facts as they are. Good onya.
Please google Jeffrey Blankfort. He's a Jewish American anti-zionist activist who tells it like it is.
Dr,
Your discussion of the name of Israel is just silly in this context. It's the same as saying that Americans are all about Italian shipbuilding because America was named after Amerigo Vespucci. Judah and Canaan are subsets of the whole. Palestine was always a region of larger external empires with no history or tradition of self-determination.
Both the Jewish and Arab residents of the region of Palestine were citizens of the Ottoman Empire. When the Empire disolved the organization of the area outside Turkey was attempted by the colonial powers, to the satisfaction of no one. Palestine had the most social friction and was the easiest to provoke by the surrounding Arab powers, both as a proxy to fight one another and to destabilize the British.
If that sounds simplistic I can only say you're trying hard to tangle it up.
That the Zionists defended themselves successfully in this seems to have caused limitless offense in those inclined to be offended by Jews generally.
And a not insignificant point is that the people who afterward came to call themselves Palestinians were allied with Nazi Germany. After WWII no one was going to take the views of such people very seriously.
It's false to say a whole population was disenfranchised. The present area of Israel occupies only about a fifth of the Ottoman region of Palestine, the rest of it is now Jordan and part of Syria. The people who were displaced were displaced by their own bad actions and their unfortunate susceptibility to external manipulation.
They certainly were real people. Really fucked with, but fucked with mostly by other Arabs, herded forward into a fight they weren't prepared for and then largely abandoned.
Except, of course, when other Arabs want to have a great time crying crocodile tears over them and prod them on to blow themselves up.
As I've thought about it I think 'State of Israel' is probably a journalistic hangover from the Irish Free State, which was a highly contingent entity in the 20s and 30s, contingent because it was created in a way to allow a peaceful working out of separation or not-separation between Ireland and Britain.
So, continuing to use this term in reference to Israel is to create an unconscious impression of iffiness about it, to subtly undermine its self-determination and prolong it in a permanent state of war, a small bit of institutionalized anti-semitism that is simply forgotten.
oh good grief.
at the risk of completely alienating everyone, i have to say that this discussion has completely devolved into mere perspectives. what set it off? that i used the phrase 'state of israel'?? honestly, can no one out there recognize the play on words referencing the 'state' of israel?? is that how thin the skin is around here, and how literal the minds?
as for the historical accounts, sure, folks in palestine were told that jews would take over their land if the allies won; the nazis were nothing if not astounding propagandists. the word had been out for decades that israel wanted to reclaim their rightful place in the promised land, regardless of what it meant to people actually living in the region; the plans had been on the table since the early part of the century.
what would you have those people do? better, what would you have done if a people who had lived in exile from your region for almost TWO MILENNIA!! decided they were coming to take it all back?
please understand; i'm the first to acknowledge that the jews in exile were treated horrendously, everywhere by everyone. it's yet another shameful part of our legacy as humans that was alluded to in the early comments here. we ARE all guilty of these crimes. but that also includes the jews; they are not exempt because of their suffering.
in fact - and i take another great risk here, but i have made this statement on this blog before - the jewish people and the nation of israel have come, through their government, to more resemble their nazi murderers than the chosen of anyone's god. i know that is harsh, but my large objection is that israel has shown little if any circumspection about these implications in their regional behaviors since their contingent existence was ushered in by a guilt-ridden and sympathetic world half a century ago.
they are not alone; the US and the UK, as has been noted, are equally guilty of this crime of adolescent hubris. the world is teeming with folks who seek to get what's coming to them at any and all costs, damn the consequences.
i'm only saying jews are not exempt from this fact; none of us are.
back to my original point, the 'state' of israel is not at all good right now, and we are not getting ANY press about that fact stateside, despite the almost approaching reasonable press we're now seeing about the demise of this godforsaken bush/cheney administration. make of that fact what you will
how the rest of this exchange got so far afield of that point is well beyond me.
This excerpt from the Katsav rape accusation article is pretty scary:
"With his voice cracking, an increasingly angry Katsav blamed a media smear campaign — aided by the police — for his troubles and said he would 'fight to my last breath, even if it means a world war, to clear my name.'"
Great. Just great.
The part that interests me most is not where Israel came from but where it's going -- and the idea that it may be undergoing some sort of psychological meltdown under the pressures (some self-created, some not) which it's currently experiencing is particularly intriguing.
For example -- just to raise the tone of the discussion a bit -- there's this current story, from AFP:
Israel has recalled its ambassador to El Salvador after police found him on the streets of the capital blind drunk and wearing nothing but bondage gear, a foreign ministry official said on Monday. . . .
According to a story initially published in Israel's tabloid-style Maariv newspaper, police in the Salvadoran capital found Israeli ambassador Tsuriel Rephael on the streets two weeks ago bound and gagged with sado-masochistic sex accessories.
Despite his inebriated state, Rephael clearly identified himself to officers as Israel's ambassador to the central American state.
"During the 60 years of the State of Israel, some of our diplomats have caused us embarrassment, as happens in every country, but an ambassador behaving indecently on a public thoroughfare, that has never happened before.
"It's the last straw," the foreign ministry official said.
Last straw, indeed.
Ever noticed if you have even the smallest critique against Israel, you're labeled as anti-semitic? But for those who are on the right side of the political spectrum, if you criticized Clinton, you were a patriot. Makes one think about who really has the problems with boundaries and name calling.
Ms. Vandal.
P.S. Dr. Elsewhere is probably about as fine of a human being as you'll ever get lucky in your life to encounter. Count your blessings she is here working with Joseph. If it were not for her, this blog would have ceased to exist about a year ago, maybe more.
Ok, I should just let this slide; it's a digression from the real topic of this post, and I suspect this sort of person is best ignored ... but I just have to call the original anonymous commenter on his outrageous behavior.
In his first post of 10:59 AM, he engages in ethnic profiling of dr. elsewhere:
<blockquote>
[...] there will be lots of burning to do, starting with white protestants (like dr. elsewhere?) for their long and murderous history....
</blockquote>
In response, the good doctor is quite apologetic, and among other things disusses in passing her true ethnic heritage in direct response to this accusatory mis-identification.
Anonymous offended comes back at 8:47 pm to take umbrage at dr. elsewhere's response:
<blockquote>
Those of "jewish ancestry". I see. Very interesting. And that innoculates you exactly how? The same way "some of my best friends are Negroes" does?
</blockquote>
(Of course, I can't know it's the same anonymous, but c'mon, we all know it is.)
Can you say passive-agressive? What a sicko mind-game!
BTW, dr, thanks for the story about how Israel got its name. I hadn't heard that before and I found it very enlightening. Don't let the passive-agressive anonymous posters get to you!
boy, this has been some ride.
i was on the phone with a friend who wondered how i was holding up under all these attacks, and i checked out the comments section to find so many MORE comments, i wondered if i'd just fold up my tent.
but, lo and behold, the new comments have been quite supportive, and i cannot thank any of you enough for that. such a great readership here (joe: hint hint!).
yeah, it does seem that the psychology of the jew so often includes this defensiveness about their existence. psychologically, i can really understand it in terms of how vilified and abused they have been for so long now, the holocaust being the crowning blow.
but there is this other part to that psychology, namely the religious tradition of 'the chosen people.' that's not only a really huge burden to carry, it's also deadly, in that it assumes that they're better than god's other people, and their god is better than other gods.
i feel the same way about that as i do about the rapture folks; get over yourself already. this presumption could arguably be THE biggest bane to humanity, no matter where you find it. and it is unfortunately everywhere.
the tenacity and determination and loyalty of the jewish people should inspire enormous respect. but the exclusivity of their tribe that has inspired those qualities in them is not a healthy thing for anyone. look how it leaves them reading slurs and hidden bias and hatred in the most innocent of comments!
portia's eloquent speech (my fave of the bard's) was written not only for shylock to show mercy to bassanio, but for the world to show mercy to all our shylocks.
"the quality of mercy is not strain'd; it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. 'tis twice blest; it blesseth he who gives and he who takes." and so on....
when you have been given leave to feel chosen over others, when you are excused because you are exhaulted among men, when you can set yourself apart from all other peoples of the planet, then you run this enormous risk of alienating yourself from them, to the point that they will resent and hate you for just believing that you are special.
i am not saying that this is the way that folks should react; just saying this is the way they DO react, that's all. so the mighty are lain low, and the prophets are proved right, i suppose, and the jews spent milennia in exile.
and now we see a truly frightening reaction to those centuries of suffering, a truly disturbing self-righteousness in too many who feel this has become a badge that allows them to invade other peoples' homes, to occupy their land, to wage war and terrorize, to assassinate and torture. all to preserve their existence.
in the name of whose god??
somehow i can imagine the prophets are renting their garments and rubbing dirt in their hair as they howl the very. same. admonitions of old:
watch your pride, o israel; vengence is not yours but yawheh's.
which brings me to a remarkably astute observation made by the friend who was on the phone with me just minutes ago. she was watching the news list the latest killed in action in iraq, and she commented how the names have so often been hispanic, and also often not even citizens who have died for this country.
but, she said, 'i don't believe i can actually recall seeing a single name of a fallen soldier that was clearly a jewish name.'
this observation really struck me, because i have to say that i cannot recall that, either. though i'm sure there have been jewish soldiers who have died in the US uniform, their names have not been many.
one wonders what proportion of the troops are jewish, compared to the population ratio. we know that blacks and hispanics are way over-represented in the ranks, but what are the numbers for the jews of this country?
this is decidedly NOT a taunt; i am genuinely very curious. because service in israel is mandatory, and it boasts the best infantry in the world.
and at least as much because this war, this godforsaken invasion of a neighbor of israel, was undertaken with great enthusiasm from israel, with great encouragement from a notably sizable contingent of jewish politicians in this administration, and - at least in its inception and in theory - israel stood to gain handsomely from the success of this endeavor. assuming it was a success, of course.
yet we do not see throngs of young jewish american citizens volunteering to head to iraq.
i believe that is mostly because jews show the lowest support for this war of any other population group. leading us back to our original knot: israel and being jewish are not synonymous. could not agree more.
nor could i agree more on the point that neighboring arab nations have contributed much to the plight of the palestinians. pretty disgusting to see the house of saud blow bazillions of dollars on baubles while their 'precious' brothers in palestine squalor in pig sties. again, everyone is guilty here, no mistaking that.
i so appreciate ferry fey's reference to katsav's scary comment and starroute's posting of the little israeli diplomatic embarrassment in el salvador. i felt i showed exquisite restraint in refraining from posting that link myself!
and thanks so much, as always, to ms. vandal, unirealist, sunny, and that last anon for your kind words. you guys are just the best!
"but the exclusivity of their tribe that has inspired those qualities in them is not a healthy thing for anyone. look how it leaves them reading slurs and hidden bias and hatred in the most innocent of comments!"
Your innocent comment was "the jewish people and the nation of israel have come, through their government, to more resemble their nazi murderers than the chosen of anyone's god," the favored idea of neo-Nazi screeds throughout the world.
A statement like that is so psychopathically stupid and can be said with no interest but to insult with as much vulgarity and contempt as you can that I have a hard time framing a serious response.
And then you proceed,
"they are not alone; the US and the UK, as has been noted, are equally guilty of this crime of adolescent hubris. the world is teeming with folks who seek to get what's coming to them at any and all costs, damn the consequences. i'm only saying jews are not exempt from this fact; none of us are."
so --all of us have come to resemble Nazi murderers, which is 'adolescent hubris'?
Everything you say about Judaism as a religion I in fact agree with, but in the sense that these characteristics aren't unique to Judaism but are characteristic of all tribal religions, and elaborated forms of tribal religions, like Islam and fundamentalist Christianity. Every thing you have said about Judaism could be said with just as much meaning if you said it about Islam, or the Dominionists or the Cherokee nation.
So why exclusively speak of Judaism as some exceptional thing in this regard, particularly when Islam, whcih has brought up the whole subject, is so much more demonstrably detrimental to every society it has had serious contact with?
I think you're mistaking your interest.
Your innocent comment was "the jewish people and the nation of israel have come, through their government, to more resemble their nazi murderers than the chosen of anyone's god," the favored idea of neo-Nazi screeds throughout the world.
A statement like that is so psychopathically stupid and can be said with no interest but to insult with as much vulgarity and contempt as you can that I have a hard time framing a serious response.
You obviously know nothing, or if you do, care nothing, about what is really happening to the Palestinians. Perhaps you should educate yourself before you align with the perpetrators of genocide.
Oh, and doc per you comment on lack of Jewish names on casualty lists:
From the aforementioned Jeffrey Blankfort, go here.
What about Chomsky’s assertion that Israel is America’s cop-on-the-beat in the Middle East? There is, as yet, no record of a single Israeli soldier shedding a drop of blood in behalf of US interests, and there is little likelihood one will be asked to do so in the future. When US presidents have believed that a cop was necessary in the region, US troops were ordered to do the job.
And here is an interesting quote from famed journalist Dorothy Thompson, an early Zionist activist who was vilified and lost her income after coming home from Palestine and questioning the treatment of the native population: (from here.
For Dorothy, the bitterest blow was the discovery that Zionists equated criticism of their policies with anti-Semitism. "I refuse to become an anti-Semite by designation," she said, recalling not only her long record of benevolence to Jewish refugees, her steadfast battle against Hitler, and, perhaps, the fact that she had once been ridiculed for walking out of a dinner party where an anti-Semitic joke was told, with the comment, "I will not remain in the same house with traitors to the United States."34
The Zionist pressure directed against Thompson resulted in certain newspapers, including the New York Post from which she received a full quarter of her income, dropping her syndicated "On the Record" column. She was bitterly hurt: "I am crushed at the thought that this campaign has been instituted by 'liberals,' against a writer in a 'liberal newspaper' whose intolerance of an opposing or differing view leads them to character-assassination and career-assassination. It has been boundless, going into my personal life."
snip
"... In the same way, the State of Israel has got to learn to live in the same atmosphere of free criticism which every other state in the world must endure. If the editors of this country's press are forced to suppress critical views because of organized pressure, both in the form of masses of letters to the editor and pressures on the business side of the paper's organization, the net effect - and I know what I'm talking about - is to foment a very ugly resentment, the worse because it finds no outlet. There are many subjects on which writers in this country are, because of these pressures, becoming craven and mealy-mouthed. But people don't like to be craven and mealy-mouthed; every time one yields to such pressure, one is filled with self-contempt and this self-contempt works itself out in resentment of those who caused it." [Italics added.]
"I often think that race relations were actually much better in this country when we took good-natured flings at the characteristics of the various national groups in our midst. People actually don't like paragons, and any group that tries to arrogate to itself all the virtues and admit none of the vices of the common run of humanity does not thereby make itself more lovable. Therefore, I am sure that anti-anti-Semitism, like anti-anti-Negroism, can reach a point where it has exactly the opposite effect from the one which it has striven for. . ."
Sorry, here is the link to the previous quotations.
Yo Doc,Take heart!
There are lots of us folks who hear you loud and clear.
We tend to ask the same questions you ask and wonder about the same absence of discussion you find.
I see Joseph's obssessive dislike of the 9/11 conspiracy theories and his dislike for the discussion in the same light as discussing why we can not logically discuss the "state of Israel" or the "nation" of or the "existance' of a Jewish state.
This topic is and has always been an explosive one.
Both(9/11 speculations and the existance of Israel) cut to the core of some Americans basic belief system, some to the far left and some to the far right.
The last war between Israel and Lebenaon brought forth the legetimacy of aggression in light of Israel right to exist and it's right to water and other natural resources.
The point was missed entirely by American MSM.
You my good friend, bring up a very sore subject in the eyes of many(regretably my fellow jewish Americans who are stuck defending a very undefendable position) and you are(undesrvingly so) recieving the brunt of the onslaught.
Take heart agian from the fact that every one of us(the less known the less in peril) will recieve in some way or another a retribution for our outspokeness.
So take heart my friend, some of us will pay with librety or loss of life!
And I am not being flip!
banbarbush said:
"Every thing you have said about Judaism could be said with just as much meaning if you said it about Islam, or the Dominionists or the Cherokee nation."
Which I think is untrue. Jews consider themselves "the chosen people" by birthright. Muslims and evangelicals/dominionists feel they are special because they have willingly accepted God/Allah, especially in the sense of a religious conversion. This is no small semantic point; the views are entirely different.
The gratuitous inclusion of the Cherokee Nation is slanderous. Although the self-identity of an isolated tribe is often that of "the people," I have never seen evidence that any Native American tribes believed they had exclusive lock on god or the happy hunting ground. Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it seems that such a bizarre belief is confined to the religions of Abraham. Perhaps it's something in the water there in the Mideast.
wow and triple wow. this is really fascinating. a real discussion. and, interestingly, as it turns out, banbarbush appears to be a minority of one here.
not that s/he does not raise some important points. but the problem is he completely misses mine. completely.
banbarbush, you're right; all those tribes have committed some atrocity or other for whatever reasons. the point i have been making - and you have been missing (because everyone else seems to actually get it) - is that the jewish tribe does not seem to acknowledge its own crimes. they seem to hide behind the veil of their suffering as an excuse for every crime they commit.
and i need to reiterate here, NOT ALL JEWS!! but sadly, way too many of them. enough that the state/nation/whatever of israel is so vilified and hated now, even within its own citizenry, that it may not recover from its 60 year slump in the way the US did in the mid-19th century.
thank everyone so much for all this fascinating input. and so you'll know, not a single comment has been removed, so this represents the full force of the readership on this topic. so, it does appear that all but about one, maybe two, comments were defensive of israel and this jewish problem, compared to all the rest.
and all the rest raised this jewish problem to levels that need attention. i agree with sunny that the defensive words here expose something of an ignorance of the plight of the palestinians, something of the propaganda i've heard repeated from smart jews i know who should know better but somehow seem to drink the magic koolaid that israel can do no wrong, and if they do, it was justified.
and i really agree with unirealist that the truly grave aspect of the problem, that 'chosen' part, does seem to drive the intensity of the 'problem'. i don't think it's the water, though. this may seem far afield, but its a notion i've been working with (along other lines of inquiry about the brain) for quite some time, and it has more to do with the phonetic alphabet (which appears to be a hebraic invention, not a phoenician one) than anything else.
for a fascinating exploration of this idea, see leonard shlain's 'the alphabet vs. the goddess.'
it'll open up all manner of possible perspectives on these issues.
thanks again, folks. you make great dialogue!
A few miscellaneous points:
1) Since that Israeli foreign ministry official in the quote I put up used the phrase "State of Israel," it's presumably official terminology and not some kind of attempt to imply a "distinction between Israel and a normal country."
The issue, no doubt, is that "Israel" first and foremost means the people of Israel (as in the prayer, "Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Ehad") -- which is to say, all Jews everywhere -- and not a latter-day political entity which occasionally abrogates the right to speak for that people. And the Israelis themselves have to be more aware of that than anyone.
2) Jewish paranoia long pre-dates the Holocaust. My son was studying the fine print on the calendar last week and asked me what Purim was. I said, "It's a holiday based on an ancient romance novel with no historical basis -- which didn't even get canonical status in the Bible -- that describes a plot to destroy the Jewish people for no apparent reason and how it was foiled."
After we kicked that back and forth a bit, I concluded, "Actually, most Jewish holidays are about how the Jews were screwed over, or barely avoided being screwed over, or were screwed over first and then got past it. It's the basic theme."
And thinking about that, it also became clear that the Holocaust really is a "myth" -- not in the sense of being a lie, but in the sense of an event that is experienced not for itself but as a ritual reenactment of the eternal events of the Dreamtime.
3) That, in turn, rouses some really dark thoughts about the need to continue being a victim, once you're assigned that role to yourself. One of the selling points for the State of Israel has been that it marks a crucial turning point, where Jews stop being victims and start being warriors. But it seems more as though the Israelis are trying to be both at once -- which has to be rousing some really strong cognitive dissonance.
My grandmother, who died in 1974, had a great deal of contempt for the State of Israel, and in the years since I've tried to figure out why. As best I can piece it together, she felt that the Jews who came to America (as her family did in 1891, when she was an infant) had made, shall we say, a clean break with the past -- while Israel was founded by Jews who had stayed behind, clung to their victimhood, and were now attempting to prolong that situation even further by creating a ghetto state instead of having the guts to forge a new destiny in the larger world.
I'm not sure she was wrong.
Boy o boy, hats off to starroute! What an amazing reflection this is. I’ll only add to it by way of further reflection, but please know how powerfully it stands on its own, this profound comment of yours.
Thanks for that point about the Israeli official himself using the phrase ‘state of Israel;’ all I can say to that is that I still don’t know what the issue is there. Dredging the lake for hidden biases via the ‘state of Ireland’ is evidence someone is actively looking for the bias.
But you’re so right that the term Israel references the people and not a place or a government. That fact has abundant historical support.
And the Jewish paranoia predating the Holocaust is also very true. But as I mentioned, likely too briefly, their paranoia did not emerge from a vacuum; the Jews were harshly vilified throughout the Roman, Byzantine, medieval and Renaissance eras, their entire exile, hence the role of Shylock. They have been vilified, it seems their entire existence, and I posit that this may have something to do with the determination of their religious faith to presume to be the ‘chosen’ people.
From the evidence, it might appear that they have indeed been chosen, but to suffer and perhaps to be pitied, not to prevail or be loved.
This is again dangerous territory, but still fascinating for its psychological ramifications, and I turn this on myself; why do I feel as I do about their particular history?
For what it’s worth, I confess to the sorts of resentment I alluded to previously with respect to anyone who claims to be something special. Having to state the case immediately makes me suspicious, and just as suspicious of the rapture folks; in both cases they claim specialness and wrap themselves in it, to the exclusion of those they place outside the realm.
This exclusion factor is something I abhor in all its manifestations, and not least of all within myself. Nothing I can think of gets my hackles up more than for someone to put themselves above anyone else, and I don’t care if it’s because of blood or a choice or a degree or an income. Call it the greatest sin in my world.
Turning the psychological view onto those who have chosen themselves as ‘chosen’ is harder because of course you don’t want to judge because who among us have walked in those shoes? But there is so much compelling history, it’s impossible to ignore, and I don’t think it would be that productive to do so.
Specifically, your point about the holocaust ‘myth’ is especially well-taken, particularly when compared to a similar American myth like the defender of democracy, our special little Dreamtime. We each have our myths and delusions, as individuals and as groups, that keep us coherent and adherent as best we can. But it is not trivial that the Jews have elected to be chosen while also living out their history as victims.
And as I already mentioned, perhaps chosen to be victims.
It’s a great shame you don’t know more about why your grandmother was so resistant to the establishment of Israel in the Holy Land. There could be so many reasons, not least of which might have been a wise knowing of what it would mean for the region and the people who lived there.
A friend told me this morning of a quote from David Ben Gurion’s memoirs, describing his thoughts as his boat took him toward the first assertion of Israeli forces into their new homeland (remember ‘Exodus’?), he found himself thinking, ‘there are people there; there are people living there.’
He of course ignored these concerns and led the charge anyway, though to his credit, he most often showed more concern than his colleagues about the plight of those whose lands they were taking. For example, he insisted that no one be forced out and that all property be purchased. Clearly that was not adhered to.
I asked a Jewish relative why Israel felt they had a right, after two millennia, to waltz in and take over this land, despite all the time and people and resistance against it, and he responded (I kid you not), ‘well…. God gave it to us.’
Now this is a very very smart man, and a very wise one in so many respects. I dearly love him, I truly do. But never in a kazillion years would I have pegged him for being the least bit religious. Not the least little bit. But that was his answer, and he made no excuses or apologies for it; to him, it was self-evident.
So you’re also right about the dark potential that such presumptions bring to bear on those whose blood and souls carry these myths in their respective Dreamtimes. The problem with the attempt to turn the victim myth around into the warrior myth is that it is simply inevitable that you will become the monsters who have been persecuting you all these centuries. That fact is not a statement about Jews; it’s a statement about humanity. This is simply the way humans behave, especially without benefit of self-reflection.
For Jews to think that they might somehow be exempt from such human frailties as this, or vengenge or wrath or cruelty, is as much hubris as it is for Americans. Yet another universal truth about humanity; every criminal and heroic act is potential in each and every one of us. So tread lightly, and do not be proud.
And, just the odd note here: remember your brothers. There is no doubt that, in the middle east, all that hatred goes in both directions, and the Muslim nations are in serious need of showing circumspection and compassion. After all, they all share the same father Abraham, a fact that will never cease to fascinate me.
as if anyone would still be interested in this long debate, i thought i would add that pac at FDL has a related and intriguing post on aipac, which touches on the power of the israeli lobby in the US:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/13/aipact-with-the-devil-of-global-militarism/#more-7795
this lobby was pivotal in getting the blue dog dems to remove the language restricting bush from attacking iran from legislation.
same folks who brought us iraq with such aggression; the fact of the matter.
In the 1959 movie of Ben-Hur, which made a considerable impact on me when I was 12, there is a scene (written, I suspect, by Gore Vidal) where Ben-Hur's girlfriend warns him not to hate the Romans so much that he becomes like them. That is something I have never ceased to think about in all the years since.
However, there are far deeper issues here as well -- issues that are almost impossible to resolve because our culture no longer remembers the habits of thought that first established them.
Two thousand years ago, the Romans considered the Jews to be the most religious people on Earth (with, as I recall, the people of India coming in a close second.) Among other nations, a certain number of priests or sages might be dedicated to the service of the gods, and marked off as such by special clothing and complicated taboos they had to follow. But with the Jews, the entire nation was dedicated and marked off in that special way. That was the real meaning of "chosen" -- not being uniquely favored or privileged in any way, but being dedicated as servants of their god.
However, there is something more to it, that is older and deeper yet, though even more difficult to make sense of in present-day terms, and that is the matter of human sacrifice.
Whatever we may think of it today, in its time human sacrifice must have been a great source of psychological stability. You paid your debts to the gods at regular intervals, and after that everything was cool. The cosmic scales were in balance. You were free to go about your business.
In time, attitudes changed (though probably more because human sacrifice had become primarily a means of acquisition of power by the wealthy than because people had become any kinder) and human sacrifice was no longer socially acceptable. But its passing left a psychological imbalance that had to be addressed.
The pivotal event of Judaism is the incomplete sacrifice by Abraham of Isaac, whose upshot is, essentially, that the entire nation of Israel becomes God's chosen victims -- never quite slaughtered yet permanently stretched out across the altar, favored and yet abused -- in an ongoing ritual that has had to be enacted over and over through the course of history.
Hence Jewish guilt. Hence Jewish neurosis. Hence the Jewish propensity to psychological blackmail.
(Christianity, in contrast, is founded in the idea of Christ as substitute sacrifice -- of a one-time-counts-for-all getting things right with God that never has to be reenacted. But that's another topic for another time.)
The frightening part is that the State of Israel appears to have embraced this victim role wholeheartedly. In effect, the same bargain with God that gives it title to that particular piece of land also demands that it continue to suffer unjust persecution forever.
If that is so, then it becomes impossible to imagine a State of Israel that is not a victim. That exists in a state of peace and friendship with its neighbors. That is a source of scientific and artistic creativity in its region and gives as freely as it receives.
I hope I'm wrong about this, but myths are scary things. They are not easily exorcised. And they have the power to run us even when we no longer believe in them.
starroute, your analysis is breathtaking in its scope; i bow to the thought you have given this, and to its expression.
i too have given some thought to the role of sacrifice in the history - and prehistory - of humanity, but have not applied it to the role of isaac in hebraic history. what you suggest is deeply archetypal, and of course therefore consigned to hypothesis. still, most compelling.
just as compelling then would be the consideration of how isaac's own son came to found the 'nation' of israel by changing his birthname to avoid revenge of his double-cross, and not his first double-cross (stealing isaac's blessing for esau being the first).
you're so right that these myths worm their way into our psyches beyond our conscious control. making my point that we must each and everyone one of us - jews included - engage in self-reflection and conscious examination to avoid being controlled by them.
this is the step beyond religion toward the truly enlightened life that i feel the saints have always tried to encourage. but few grasp.
Sorry, computer on the fritz, so I'll respond in a not well-ordered way.
I have to say I am primarily in agreement with Starroute above.
I don't think you can find any evidence of something like anti-semitism before the end of the Roman era.
Sunny,
Any dictionary can give you an excellent definition of the word 'genocide' which you must review before trying to use it again in a sentence.
unirealist,
A tribalisitic religion is by definition wholly exclusive and based on nothing but race. As far as I know all native American religions are tribalistic. There was a story in the paper a week or two ago about the Cherokee voting to exclude tribal members descended from African Americans because they just can't be Cherokee.
Christianity and Islam evolved the tribalistic characteristics of Judaism and extend them to the converted, the elect and so forth, (political genius!) where everyone outside the golden circle is going to hell or can be enslaved without conscience or remorse. In Christianity it quickly became the idea that some people are of an even more golden circle within that, the aristocracy standing as a nearly separate species between mere mortals and Heaven.
That's why I said Christianity and Islam were developed forms of tribalism as they exclude from acceptable humanity those not of the faith.
"the point i have been making - and you have been missing (because everyone else seems to actually get it) - is that the jewish tribe does not seem to acknowledge its own crimes. they seem to hide behind the veil of their suffering as an excuse for every crime they commit."
But the point I have been making is that this idea is itself racist and anti-semitic, because to make it you would have to believe in collective guilt or a single organized international Jewish conspiracy secretly pulling the strings.
And how could you ask of Jews everywhere to make some such acknowledgement as a group? Jewish people have as diverse opinions of anything as any other group, and I have known plenty who think Israel is nuts.
‘well…. God gave it to us.’ --when a smart person says something like that it's because he has no answer that wouldn't take an hour, not because he really believes it. Self-doubt is one of the principal Jewish contributions to intellectual life and I think this displays it.
The Palestinians have never lived up to a single treaty they have ever made, and, I think we have seen clearly in the past year, they have probably never actually been capable of doing so even if they had seriously wanted to.
The interesting problem in Israel is the conservative movement. Conservatism everywhere is the conspiracy you're looking for, a conflation of the incapable of living with anyone else unless you're lording it over them. Contrasting the way it has evolved over the last thirty years in parallel with the conservative movement in the US and with the almost identical stupidities and corruptions is really worth study and I want to commend them to you as the principal villains.
Would you say that the Republican party speaks for you, that the Republican view of who we are, where we came from and what we are doing here is the true and most accurate view of the United States? Would you say their attitude towards how to treat people and deal with other countries defines the ideal and proper American manner? If not, why would you buy that of Israel?
Many words are taboo when used to describe Israel’s actions against Palestinians. One word in specific, genocide, sparks emotions that echo across Israel, Europe and America. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines genocide as “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.” What is happening in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip today is dangerously encroaching on genocide, close enough so that the pictures of Palestinians in Rafah loading their meager belongings on carts and evacuating their homes are too reminiscent of another time, another place and another people. These very same images should be setting off alarms in the hearts and minds of Israelis. Unfortunately, at stake is not the lexicon of conflict but rather, our children, and we refuse to sit still to watch a deaf, dumb and blind world steal their future from them.
~
During the last few years and weeks, in specific, the situation can no longer be accurately defined as “symbolic.” In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestinian cities and refugee camps are being battered beyond recognition. This is the same fate that today’s very same Israeli leaders already forced on Palestinians in Lebanon over 20 years ago and on Palestinians inside Israel proper over 56 years ago. The Israeli targets have been many, most recently, as we write, Rafah City and the Rafah refugee camp in the Southern tip of the Gaza Strip. This isolated poverty-stricken community is facing the same brute force of the Israeli military occupation that the Jenin refugee camp, in the North of the West Bank, faced less than two years ago, if not worse. The Palestinian death toll has been mounting so steadily that the media does not even bother anymore to mention the five to six Palestinian deaths that occur almost daily from Israeli firepower.
Nevertheless, “deliberate and systematic destruction,” as the definition of genocide illustrates, does not necessarily mean physical killing of people, albeit Israel is having no problem, and is facing no international outcry, in doing just that. Destruction, Israeli-occupation style, is equally focused on demolishing Palestinian homes under the false pretext of “security.” If so many Palestinians were not being killed and even more being made homeless, this outdated Israeli-manufactured pretext called “security” would be laughable.
Israeli newspapers routinely publish headlines like the following which appeared earlier this week, “[Israeli] High Court allows Gaza demolitions” (Ha’aretz, By Yuval Yoaz and Gideon Alon) and the article’s lead was, “[Israeli] Army’s ‘operational necessity’ takes precedence.” This High Court is the same that several years ago allowed for Palestinian political prisoners to be to tortured while under Israeli detention. Indeed, the Israeli High Court has a long history of providing legal justification for the heinous actions of the Israeli military and the security services. This judicial carte blanche for Israel?s illegal occupation is worse than Israeli politicians publicly discussing which Palestinian is next on their assassination list or how Palestinians should be “transferred” out of homes and cities all together. What Israel is doing is planned, organized, systematic and illegal. It is a wicked policy being discussed in full view of the public eye. On the other hand, Amnesty International, which historically has water-downed the injustices afflicted on Palestinians, has released a report today stating that by destroying these homes (over 3,000 and causing damage to 16,000 more homes) and displacing thousands of Palestinians, making them refugees again for the umpteenth time, “are war crimes2.” Yet the world remains silent.
If Americans Knew
Palestine 2007: Genocide in Gaza, Ethnic Cleansing in the West Bank
By Ilan Pappe
01/18/07 "Electronic Intifada" On this stage, not so long ago, I claimed that Israel is conducting genocidal policies in the Gaza Strip. I hesitated a lot before using this very charged term and yet decided to adopt it. Indeed, the responses I received, including from some leading human rights activists, indicated a certain unease over the usage of such a term. I was inclined to rethink the term for a while, but came back to employing it today with even stronger conviction: it is the only appropriate way to describe what the Israeli army is doing in the Gaza Strip.
On 28 December 2006, the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem published its annual report about the Israeli atrocities in the occupied territories. Israeli forces killed this last year six hundred and sixty citizens. The number of Palestinians killed by Israel last year tripled in comparison to the previous year (around two hundred). According to B'Tselem, the Israelis killed one hundred and forty one children in the last year. Most of the dead are from the Gaza Strip, where the Israeli forces demolished almost 300 houses and slew entire families. This means that since 2000, Israeli forces killed almost four thousand Palestinians, half of them children; more than twenty thousand were wounded
Information Clearing House
The Palestinians have never lived up to a single treaty they have ever made, and, I think we have seen clearly in the past year, they have probably never actually been capable of doing so even if they had seriously wanted to.
What treaties did they break?
Israel is the target of at least 65 UN Resolutions and the Palestinians are the target of none.
Aside from the core issues—refugees, Jerusalem, borders—the major themes reflected in the U.N. resolutions against Israel over the years are its unlawful attacks on its neighbors; its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes and other collective punishments; its confiscation of Palestinian land; its establishment of illegal settlements; and its refusal to abide by the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992
Resolution 106: "...‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid"
Resolution 111: "...‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
Resolution 127: "...‘recommends’ Israel suspend its ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem"
Resolution 162: "...‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions"
Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria"
Resolution 228: "...‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
Resolution 237: "...‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
Resolution 248: "...‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
Resolution 250: "...‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
Resolution 251: "...‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
Resolution 252: "...‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
Resolution 256: "...‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation"
Resolution 259: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
Resolution 262: "...‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
Resolution 265: "...‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
Resolution 267: "...‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
Resolution 270: "...‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
Resolution 271: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
Resolution 279: "...‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 280: "....‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 285: "...‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
Resolution 298: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem"
Resolution 313: "...‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 316: "...‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 317: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
Resolution 332: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 337: "...‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty"
Resolution 347: "...‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 425: "...‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 427: "...‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon’
Resolution 444: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
Resolution 446: "...‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 450: "...‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
Resolution 452: "...‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
Resolution 465: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program"
Resolution 467: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon"
Resolution 468: "...‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
Resolution 469: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians"
Resolution 471: "...‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 476: "...‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claims to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’
Resolution 478: "...‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’
Resolution 484: "...‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
Resolution 487: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility"
Resolution 497: "...‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
Resolution 498: "...‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
Resolution 501: "...‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
Resolution 509: "...‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
Resolution 515: "...‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
Resolution 517: "...‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 518: "...‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"
Resolution 520: "...‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut"
Resolution 573: "...‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
Resolution 587: "...‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
Resolution 592: "...‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops"
Resolution 605: "...‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
Resolution 607: "...‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
Resolution 608: "...‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
Resolution 636: "...‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
Resolution 641: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 672: "...‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
Resolution 673: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
Resolution 681: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 694: "...‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
Resolution 726: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 799: "...‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
If Americans Knew
Now you can't ever say you didn't know.
One final comment, which few will, at this point, read: The Jews were not vilified in the Roman empire until the rebellions. Jews were, in fact, given special privileges -- the sabbath was respected and Jews were not compelled, as other nationals were, to do military service.
Palestinians have nothing to distinguish them from the people living in the other 4/5 of Palestine, Jordan. If every one of them dropped dead it still wouldn't be genocide.
Palestinians have managed to create a lot of sympathy among the weak minded because it looks like an easy story to understand, the little guy oppressed, which is what it would be if you saw that outline in a European country, and lazy journalists never try to see farther than the obvious headline.
But the history of what is going on in Israel has been a history of small things that build until something exceptional enough occurs that it gets into the western press, and that usually involves the Israelis shooting back and a lot of Palestinian women wailing in the street.
I don't live in Israel so I don't know how this story has finally worked out, but I bookmarked the article because it is such an iconic example,
Most of it is exactly the kind of thing with little context you read every day, but buried in the middle you find,
"Despite the truce, (declared a month earlier) Gaza militants launched six homemade rockets into Israel on Tuesday, causing no damage or injuries, the army said. The militants have launched about 60 rockets since the truce was declared, and Israeli officials have warned their patience is wearing thin."
60 rockets in a month after they had signed a truce! Anywhere else on Earth that would be the headline, but what gets reported is the Israeli army shot a guy cutting through a security fence and his wailing mother.
Those fanciful UN resolutions were created by the Soviet Union as a proxy to screw with the US by screwing with Israel by creating antagonism to Israel and the US throughout the third world. Taking them out of the context of the Cold War amounts to believing in fairies.
Now you can't say you don't know that.
Criticism of Israel is not racism and it's not anti-semitic, but support for the Palestinians is racism and is anti-semitic.
banbarbush has a problem with "The State of Israel"? Sheesh. How about "The State of The Thinnest Skins"?
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
Post a Comment