ABANDONMENT AND BETRAYAL: HOW I FEEL ABOUT THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT AND THE ORGANIZED JEWISH COMMUNITY AFTER THE HAMAS MASSACRE

I’m not primarily writing this to non-Jews. It’s difficult to experience a feeling of betrayal when one already knows what the score is. When I see rallies, demonstrations, social media posts calling for violence against Jews, often promoting genocide, using old antisemitic tropes, I’m not at all surprised. I used to tell Jews that this is what could happen, but what I said usually fell on deaf or skeptical ears. People either didn’t believe it or couldn’t believe it. As a scholar of both Judaism and Christianity, none of this is surprising to me. You don’t work in that arena as a Jew without experiencing antisemitism. I always knew that the issues were deep and unyielding. I could not have predicted the timing, but I knew it would come one day in the future.

I’m writing this to Jews, particularly to Israeli leaders and to global Jewish organization and institutions.

With Netanyahu and his political allies, we have a group whose betrayal extends almost beyond description. We have a leader who has spent the last months busily trying to dismantle Israeli democracy through a judicial coup while cozying up to global, antisemitic dictators. Alienating the majority of Israelis and mocking members of the IDF who disagreed with him (particularly in the air force and special forces), he divided Israel and helped make its enemies think it was vulnerable. The military was in open revolt, as were many Israelis. Despite his support for the judiciary earlier in his career, he nevertheless pressed on, bullying all those who opposed him—presumably to keep himself out of prison due to an ongoing bribery trial. He was willing to rip apart Israel, which responded with the largest protest demonstrations in its history. Is time in prison really that bad that he would divide the nation and destroy the democratic tradition that had served as a model in the Middle East? Apparently for him and his cronies, it was.

We have a man, one of whose signature policies was to work with Hamas in Gaza in order to degrade the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank. Now he talks tough, but he and his buddies were the ones who enabled Hamas which then fooled him into thinking that all was under control and that he knew what he was doing: obviously he did not. He’s an over-confident know-it-all (*chacham* in Yiddish) who thought he could outsmart terrorists, but he was the one outsmarted.

While doing this, he removed IDF troops from the Gaza border to help out his settler allies who were celebrating Sukkot in the West Bank, confident that he had Hamas under control and that Israeli hi-tech could protect the border fence. He left Sderot and all those left-wing kibbutzim to fend for themselves. He abandoned all of them, left them alone to fight against heavily armed murderous barbarians. How much did he care about civilians in Sderot and kibbutzim? Not much. He left them (the ‘little people’ for him) alone to be tortured, mutilated, beheaded, raped, and burned alive. That is his government’s legacy. You don’t leave an extremely hostile border area without physical protection of actual troops. That says it all right there–how little he and allies care about Jewish life.

For Gaza border residents, the basic contract was: “You live there, and we’ll protect you.” The government reneged on that contract. How many other contracts have they broken and will they break?

Netanyahu and his allies aligned themselves with fundamentalist Christians to get their money and political support, even though these far-right advocates dislike most actual Jews, want to convert Jews, frequently use antisemitic tropes, and even cite Nazis with approval. Would anyone really be surprised how that’s going to work out down the road?

Netanyahu allied himself with the ultra-Orthodox/Haredim most of whom don’t serve in the military. In fact, he’s been busy trying to pass legislation to make de-facto military exemptions for yeshiva students a legal fact (de iure). If you talk to many Israelis, especially those with children, you’ll get an angry earful about how most Haredim live off the welfare of the state through citizen tax dollars and don’t have to send their children to war. How do you think most Israelis feel right now when many Haredim live their lives as if nothing were happening while the rest of Israel goes to war, potentially to face trauma, injury, or even death?

As a member of the diaspora Jewish community, I look to Israel as a safe place and a protector of Jews everywhere. Netanyahu abandoned us, left us alone, made us more vulnerable to antisemitism, to the violence of hate, to the indifference of a world that views Jews (.2% of the global population) as disposable.

Then we have have the organized Jewish community in the U.S. and globally. What have they been doing?

Well, through most of my career, they’ve spent time defending Israel no matter what (including the Netanyahu government) or promoting outreach to non-Jews.

I’ve never been able to stanch my criticism of Israeli policies. So I’ve never really done very well with that first category. That said, as far as promoting Israel goes without criticism, we can easily see the shortcomings of this approach by simply looking at the anger of most Israelis toward the current government. The extent may be broader now with the Hamas massacre, but it’s always been there. Yet, during the protests, most Jewish organizations downplayed the protests or avoided discussion altogether. How seriously will upset Israelis and diaspora Jews take these organizations now?

As for the second category, I’ve done my share of outreach and “dialoging” and know that, as important as it is, it is nowhere close to a panacea. For many of the participants in dialog groups, it’s often more of a gig than an encounter with reality and pain. I’ve always said that these kinds of groups are more about feeling good than about the truth of hatred and antisemitism, the truth of Christian and Muslim antisemitic discourse and persecution of Jews, the exposure of authentic prejudice and pain. For that reason, we’re unprepared for what we’re seeing now on college campuses and city streets. Institutions preferred the ease of comfortable discussion with support from sympathetic granting agencies to the more unpleasant task of actually being present to real pain, anger, hatred, and fear.

As far as general outreach goes, the idea of making allies sounds good and is good, but, no matter how many friends you think you have, just look at places like the former Yugoslavia to see what friends can do to one another when push comes to shove. Look at how neighbors treat neighbors, former friends, and meal companions. When hatred emerges, friendship and even family relations are tested and often fall short. That’s one of the lessons of genocide around the world. Of course, we need to cultivate allies, but we also have to recognize that we’re ultimately doing this as Jews on our own and that we Jews have to take care of of one another as a starting point

It’s that last part of taking care of one another that Jewish mainline organizations have fallen short. Many members in mainline Jewish communities feel alienated, alone, unsupported, unvalued, uncared for, unacknowledged, and unprotected. Volunteers who take on a disproportionate amount of the work feel those emotions even more strongly, with the added feelings of burnout and exhaustion. Leaders who want to know why people aren’t more engaged might want to start by examining how we care for and appreciate one another in mainline Jewish communities and organizations, many of which are not known for their warmth and openness.

In this way, I, as a diaspora Jew, feel a kinship with Israelis who feel a sense of abandonment and betrayal from their government. Obviously my complaints are less existential in comparison, but that’s what Jews across the world are experiencing. There’s a sense that Jewish political, religious, and social institutions have their own agendas set for their own perpetuation, that they’re not authentically committed to the well-being of Jews as a whole, that they’re more concerned about power and money than human relations, that they place a greater emphasis on institution building than on quality of life, and that they do not truly value the efforts and lives of their citizens and members.

JEW HATRED

Really and truly, and I don’t mean to be flippant or mean or cynical, but I have to assume that most people who aren’t Jewish are antisemitic or racist against Jews or whatever you want to call it. We’re all prejudiced–all of us–about others, and that’s just inbuilt into who we are as human beings. But hatred of Jews is the oldest, continuous human prejudice–at least 2,500 years old. Just 80 years ago, we witnessed the annihilation of 6 million Jews, and we act as if this is now only marginally relevant to our lives in 2021.

I honestly assume that most people, when they find out I’m Jewish, will dislike me, make certain assumptions about me, maybe hate me, patronize me, see me as some kind of biblical incarnation, look at me as part of Jesus’ family, believe I’m smart and rich, resent me–you name it. In the U.S. (but not in Europe for the most part), people can’t look at me and most other Jews and figure out we’re Jewish. That’s an enormous advantage, but, once they do figure us out, then all the crap comes through. Even when they’re trying to be nice, it comes through–because, well, being nice is a way of acknowledging that we Jews are different and a minority, and they have to treat us in a different way. And, the truth is, we are different. So I don’t blame them.

But it’s exhausting, and people feel as if they can attack Jews without much consequence these days. Now we Jews all stand as some kind of stand-in for Israel. So, if the Israeli government or Netanyahu does something they don’t like, then we’re supposed to stand up and condemn Israel as evil. If we don’t–if we present a more nuanced picture–then they attack us and condemn us–even if we criticize Israel. And then they tell us that we’re wrong to call them antisemitic. They say they’re just criticizing the actions of the Israeli government.

Why do anti-Zionists get to decide what and who is antisemitic? Do heterosexuals get to decide what homophobia is? Do men get to decide what misogyny is? Do White people get to decide what racism is? Really??? Why do non-Jews get a free pass at engaging in patently prejudiced behavior? Inquiring minds want to know. As far as I’m concerned, that’s just proof of Jew hatred that’s out there–Jews aren’t even allowed to identify when others are engaging in offensive behavior or language.

For example, if you support BDS, you’re antisemitic. You just are. Because: 1) you’re picking on Israel without doing the same thing for other countries that have engaged in far more offensive and violent activities; and 2) you’re supporting a movement that opposes the right of Jews to have their own state (that’s what BDS states)–while not doing the same for countless countries across the globe.

Yes, there lots of antisemitic language I hear on both the far-right and far-left. It comes from politicians across the political spectrum on both sides of the aisle. I’m hearing it today with regard to the recent conflagration in the Middle East. But it’s not restricted to politicians. It enters into daily life and is just part of the most routine activities. Could I ever imagine myself putting a menorah in my window? You’d have to be crazy to do that. Why? Because someone would throw rocks in your windows–or worse. And why do you think synagogues have to have to have police security these days? This is reality across the globe, including the U.S.

So here we are. I have no idea how to address this. I wish I did.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2021 Laurence Kant

Israel, Gaza, and the Hamas Charter (Covenant)

The Israeli government has engaged in many stupid and unethical acts preceding this recent engagement–especially at Sheik Jarrah. And where has the Israeli state been when crime has overwhelmed Arab-Israeli communities? Nowhere. And what about the nation-state law, which is deeply damaging to Jewish-Arab relations in Israel? Meanwhile Netanyahu is using everyone as a means of keeping himself in power and out of prison.

But, whatever Israel has done, Hamas has done far worse, as always. It uses its own citizens (including children) as human shields, trying to get them killed– so that Hamas can improve its PR and image in the international public square. This should not be a surprise, because Hamas describes itself in its own words as hating Jews and seeking their annihilation (genocide).

Here’s some of what the Hamas Covenant (Charter) says on Jews. This is not Israeli or Jewish or U.S. or European imagination. It’s what Hamas itself states in its founding document–its mission statement if you will. Enough said:

Introduction: “For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Araband Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails.”

Article 7: “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'”

Article 15: “The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews’ usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.”

Article 28: “Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.”

Article 32: “The HAMAS regards itself the spearhead and the vanguard of the circle of struggle against World Zionism… Islamic groups all over the Arab world should also do the same, since they are best equipped for their future role in the fight against the warmongering Jews.”

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2021 Laurence Kant

Israel and Gaza

While I condemn Hamas, especially its promise to annihilate Israel and all Jews (i.e. genocide), it’s also sadly clear that Israel–especially Netanyahu and LIkud– has a kind of weird, working relationship with Hamas. As long as Hamas exists, Israel can worry much less about the West Bank. That’s exactly what Ariel Sharon predicted, when he noted that once Israel got out of Gaza, the pressure would lessen for Israel to make a full peace deal with Palestinians in the West Bank.

This recent conflagration actually has more do with the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank than it does with Israel. By taking the fight to Israel, Hamas is increasing its popularity among West Bank Palestinians. This is extremely useful to Hamas, especially as Hamas is rather unpopular in Gaza currently. Right now Hamas has much more popularity in the West Bank than in Gaza.

In a strange way, the current Israeli government prefers dealing with Hamas than with the PA. In this case, Hamas saw an opportunity to take advantage of a political opening. And that’s what they did.

In the Middle East, nothing is as it appears.

Jewish Space Lasers and Shabbat: Recent Controversies

From Andy Borowitz: “Marjorie Taylor Greene Claims Jewish Lasers are Turned Off Friday After Sundown.” Borowitz also recently coined the phrase, “magic Jewish mittens,” in relation to this controversy and the trending Bernie Sanders inauguration meme.

______________

Laurence Kant’s Response to Andy Borowitz:

In fact, the Talmud has extensive discussion of this in Tractate Mittens 39a BT (missing from the Palestinian Talmud unfortunately). Lasers are in fact a sub-category of work and therefore prohibited on shabbat (sabbath). Rabbi Shmuel ben Laser (part of the now well-known Laserofsky dynasty) holds a minority opinion, however, that lasers are life-giving and therefore excluded from the shabbat prohibition—but only when protected by magic Jewish mittens. This is extensively debated in Responsa literature. As a traditionalist, I accept the prevailing majority view here and will turn off my lasers on shabbat.

If anyone really wants to know, my giant Jewish space lasers are hidden in an invisible, secret compartment dug by me in the earth in my backyard. Rothschild Inc. (LLC) has paid me money (with interest) to do their bidding whenever they text me.

As far as the mittens go, I just want to say that I love my magic Jewish mittens. Bernie has provided them to me at wholesale through Rothschild Fashion Inc. (LLC). They allow me to hypnotize my enemies and get them to walk in the path of my giant Jewish lasers.

If you need to use the lasers, please let me know. They are available for use at a discount in 5- to 30-minute slots—but only if you act FAST.

I want to offer profound thanks to Professor Andy Borowitz for alerting the public to the enormous significance of magic Jewish mittens. We are all in your debt. You are a light to the nations.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2021 Laurence Kant

Israel and Annexation

Annexation: This will break America’s relationship with Israel: maybe not now, but at some point in the not so distant future. Once you make Israel into a minority Jewish state (which is what annexation will inevitably do), then Israel will have lost the democratic argument it has always been able to win. Israel may be able to thrive anyway–with the support of China and the gulf states–but it will likely do so without much U.S. support. You want to know why Israel is cutting deals with China (having China build a container port in Haifa and a desalination plant), there you go. Millennials are going to lead American politics in coming years, and they are not going to put up with this, like it or not. Polling among U.S. evangelical Christian millennials shows the same trend. It doesn’t matter whether Americans like me strongly oppose annexation because we can’t influence Israeli policy. It’s going to change the U.S. relationship with Israel down the road in any case even if many of us Zionists (me included) stick our heads in the sand:

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-when-my-daughter-called-israel-an-apartheid-state-i-objected-now-i-m-not-so-sure-1.8970682

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2020 Laurence Kant

MORE ON ILHAN OMAR AND ANTISEMITISM

There was no state of Israel in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but antisemites, and later the Nazis, made similar claims about Jews then: they’re more loyal to one another than to the nation; they’re “clannish”; they stick together; they plot against the nation; they have foreign allegiances; they’re “cosmopolitan”; and on and on. If you watch a Nazi propaganda film like “Jud Süss,” you’ll see much of the same rhetoric repeated.

Ilhan Omar is not using language that relates specifically to AIPAC and those who have a particular view of Israel. She’s using language that those living around 1900 or in the 1930s would have had no problem understanding.

If Omar had criticized AIPAC’s backing of Israeli settlement policy, that would be one thing; it would be a policy dispute. And I don’t agree with AIPAC much of the time. But that’s not what she did here. She used a trope that revealed her real views of Jews and who we are as a people and how we’re not really authentically loyal Americans. David Duke (former Grand Wizard of the KKK) is now praising her and backing her. And, sadly, he has good reason to do so given what she said.

I may strongly disagree with those who back Israel right or wrong, but I don’t question that they want the best for the United States and for Jews and for Israel. I don’t doubt their motives. They believe that the interests of American and Israel are aligned and that we share common values of democracy and freedom. And they have a point on that, even though recent Israeli policies on democracy have fallen far short IMHO. I think that their views are misguided and leading us to a situation where Jews and Israel and the United States will find themselves in much greater danger. In fact, I see Omar’s comments as vindication of my argument. But those with whom I fiercely disagree are loyal Americans as well as committed Jews, and I will not question their motives. We’e all doing our best in a confusing world and trying to make sense of very difficult and hard-to-solve problems and issues.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2019 Laurence Kant

ILHAN OMAR AND ANTISEMITISM

This is my response to Michelle Goldberg’s column in today’s New York Times saying that Ilhan Omar’s comments were offensive, but only mildly so:
————
Stating that Jews have dual loyalty is not mild antisemitism. It’s raw. It’s ugly. It’s mean-spirited.

None of us knows what was in the heart and mind of Ilhan Omar, but we know what she said this time and at least twice before. By any reasonable definition, that’s antisemitism. It’s prejudice and hatred, and there’s nothing any of us can legitimately do to dress it up and make it look like something else.

My father (a Jewish physical chemist) worked for the military most of his career and suffered and eventually died from an illness that was related to his work in the Manhattan Project and other government laboratories. His brother served as a Navy ensign in World War II off the coast of Italy and saw many die? Were they loyal enough to the U.S.? Are some now going to question their efforts and their colleagues and compatriots then and today? Is my loyalty now under question because I’m Jewish? Are we wanted here any more?

Republicans are even worse with their ongoing displays of white nationalist and neo-Nazi rhetoric. Almost as painful are those Democrats who try to play Omar’s words down or talk about “unintentional” antisemitism.

The language Omar used is found in the Protocols of Zion and throughout classic antisemitic literature. We can see it in 1930s propaganda as Nazis questioned the loyalty of European Jewry. I’m a Democrat who holds many progressive views. What are those like me supposed to do now? Maybe, if I go to sleep now, I can dream this all away.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2019 Laurence Kant

DEMOCRATS FIGHTING OVER HOW TO RESPOND TO ILHAN OMAR ANTISEMITISM

Ds had better deal with this one way or another. If they don’t, they will lose a core constituency and also lose their moral authority on issues of diversity and hatred. Good luck on winning in 2020. This is not Trump or a racist Republican. This is one of their own. If you want to stand against prejudice, you start with your own. Otherwise, you’re hypocrites and should just shut up on all issues of hatred. If you can’t see that accusing Jews of dual loyalty is profoundly antisemitic, then the white supremacists and neo-Nazis really have won:

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2019 Laurence Kant

Womens March Leadership and Jew Hatred

Apparently, as they curry favor with Louis Farrakhan, Tamika Mallory and her colleagues have also concluded that they can exclude Jews who are in their view “white” and therefore privileged. They have no problem exalting a man who has called Jews “termites” and praised Hitler, but they happily decide that “white” (whatever that means in this context) Jews don’t deserve to belong in their circle of power.

This is hatred, pure and simple, and it’s disgusting and revolting. Hitler and the Nazis murdered Jews because of their “race” and didn’t give a s*** what their color was. Almost all of those six million were “white” according to this interpretation by Mallory’s little band of haters–a definition which is absolutely idiotic given that Hitler and the Nazis did not view Jews remotely that way. Jews were their own “race,” which had nothing to do with color, but with genetic theory in which the 1930s gang of swastika wearers placed great faith.

Do the murdered in Pittsburgh matter to Tamika Mallory? Do the gassed in Auschwitz matter to her? Do my bullet-rain relatives matter to her? Maybe their blood is irrelevant to her because we don’t actually count as human in her system of accounting–and in Farrakhan’s. Are these representatives there to give her and her friends cover to spew more venom at Jews? Sure looks like it. They are being used.

There are all sorts of excuses made for why Tamika Mallory and others supposedly don’t have to condemn Farrakhan: the history of oppression of African Americans, separation of families, previous requests to condemn other African American leaders, different responses to hatred on the part of Jews and African Americans. But there should be no excuses. Being a victim does not excuse one from following basic moral principles. That applies to Jews, as well as to any other group. Making excuses for not condemning Farrakhan is relativism gone mad. Wrong is wrong. And we need to say so for Farrakhan and for anyone else no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel.

Further, why is Linda Sarsour not white, but Vanessa Wruble white? We’re all descended from Semitic peoples and related to one another. Basically, they call Wruble white because she’s Jewish, but the others are passable because the big bosses decided that they’re another kind of minority and get a pass for their Jewishness. So once again people who are not Jewish are trying to control the lives of Jews for their agendas and writing some Jews out of history. Really that’s not much different from what the Nazi commandant, Amon Goeth, said in the film “Schindler’s List” when he talks about eradicating the history of Jews in Krakow and Poland. (Yes, I know, that was not an historical quote, but it was definitely how Nazis like Eichmann conceived of their project). If you erase Jews, then you’ll get rid of them forever. Sounds familiar once again. It’s a form of dehumanization.

I cannot express how utterly depressing and maddening this is. Until they repudiate Farrakhan and his despicable beliefs and meaningfully apologize, Tamika Mallory and her buddies should be shunned.

https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/279077/the-womens-march-doesnt-get-to-decide-who-the-white-jews-are?fbclid=IwAR3BT8y7VARbQaSxUbGNQQXLV7HyDKQWY4OOlzQFi5cMVUbp-Wmc81dOGTs

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2019 Laurence Kant

Birthright Israel and Zionism

This reflects views found among many American Jewish millennials. One-sided? Yes. Incomplete? Yes. Too sympathetic to Palestinians and hostile to Israelis? Yes. Naive and a little silly? Yes. Part of an anti-Israel, anti-Zionist political movement? Possibly.  Anti-Israel propaganda? Yes. But no less one-sided or propaganda than Birthright or other tours led by mainstream Jewish organization. The American Jewish community had better get its act together if it wants its Jewish youth to continue as Zionists.

 

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-nagel-birthright-israel-walkout_us_5b54f04fe4b0b15aba90107d

(“Why I Walked Off My Birthright Israel Trip,” Huffington Post)

 

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2018 Laurence Kant

Sessions: Fear of Gang Violence is not Grounds for Asylum in the U.S.

 

Gang violence is not grounds for asylum? How do you think my maternal grandparents came here? How did many Jews end up coming to this country from Eastern Europe? What the hell do you think a pogrom was? “Pogrom” is another word for “gang violence.”

You, sir, disgust me, denying our history. Lady Liberty is barfing right now as you s*** on our heritage and piss on the the moral foundations of our nation, reducing it to sham mockery and a dark imitation of a once glorious past.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/domestic-or-gang-violence-not-grounds-asylum-sessions-rules-n882116Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2018 Laurence Kant

The Decline of Religion and Its Influence on the Jewish Community

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2018 Laurence Kant

Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his Legacy

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2018 Laurence Kant

Demonstration of Solidarity of Christians and Jews at Temple Adath Israel: Friday, August 18, 2017

Thanks to support from our Christian friends for the Jewish community on Friday. With me is Rev. Marsha Charles who helped to organize this demonstration of solidarity at Temple Adath Israel. She is a mensch and my former student at Lexington Theological Seminary!

 

Elie Wiesel: Neutrality

“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” Elie Wiesel

Jewish Federation of the Bluegrass Press Release: On Tolerance, Hatred, and Respect (including response to Stephen Bannon appointment)

PRESS RELEASE

SUMMARY

The Jewish Federation of the Bluegrass (JFB) issues a call for tolerance, a rejection of hatred, and a respect for all. The JFB also asks that President-elect Trump reconsider his appointment of Stephen K. Bannon.

———

STATEMENT

THE JEWISH FEDERATION OF THE BLUEGRASS CALLS FOR TOLERANCE, A REJECTION OF HATRED, AND RESPECT FOR ALL

The Jewish Federation of the Bluegrass issues a call for tolerance, a rejection of hatred, and an embrace of diversity and pluralism.

In recent months, we have seen a spate of incidents of intolerance and prejudice in the U.S. and abroad. Numerous instances of bullying, vandalism, violence, ugly language, and name calling targeting ethnic, racial, and religious minorities have led to a climate that both adults and children find unsettling and even frightening.

The appointment of Stephen K. Bannon, especially, as President-elect Donald Trump’s “chief strategist and senior counsellor” has caused consternation among many Americans, and particularly in the Jewish community.

All presidents should have the right to make their own choices as to who advises them on strategic and other matters. We respect the latitude necessary for a president to work efficiently and productively on issues of national and ultimate global significance.

Yet, Mr. Bannon, through his position as chief executive of Breitbart News, has associated himself with a variety of radical views that fall into the categories of anti-Semitism, xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and misogyny. For these reasons, white nationalists and neo-Nazis celebrate him as one of their own. No one with these associations should be in the White House, especially among our president’s closest advisors.

It is the responsibility of our Federation to support and defend the rights of the Jewish community and all minority communities against all forms of bigotry, racism, hatred, and persecution.  We understand that prejudice, including anti-Semitism, exists at both ends of the political spectrum. History has taught us that silence is both unacceptable and dangerous.

We urge President-elect Trump to demonstrate his commitment to the pluralism, diversity, and respect for all Americans he pledged in his victory speech when he promised to “bind the wounds of division” in America.

As a first step in this endeavor, we ask President-elect Trump to reconsider his appointment of Stephen K. Bannon. We also request that he reach out and show in all his personnel appointments his desire to work toward genuine healing in our divided society.

Our Federation, along with other federations, including the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, continues to stand for the values we have always upheld: welcoming the stranger, fighting injustice, repairing the world, supporting Israel and Jewish communities around the world, speaking up for the voiceless, and protecting the orphan and the widow.

Hate is neither a Jewish nor an American value. We urge local, state, and national leaders on both sides of the aisle to speak up against this threat to American democracy, to uphold inclusion, to fight against bigotry and discrimination of all kinds, and we encourage other community groups to join in our efforts to combat prejudice and abuse.

TRUMP, HITLER, AND THE RETURN OF FASCISM

TRUMP, HITLER, AND THE RETURN OF FASCISM

Laurence H. Kant

 

Many, including Melania Trump, have assured us that Donald isn’t Hitler. Some commentators object to the comparison outright; others simply bleat the equivalence hysterically, without further explanation. All should contend with the evidence:

 

• Trump’s tweeting a Mussolini quotation and retweeting neo-Nazis, white supremacists;

• Trump’s belated (and weak) disavowal of David Duke and the KKK;

• Trump’s refusal to condemn or even rebuke Jew-hating tirades—including death threats and concentration camp oven imagery—against Jewish journalists who’ve criticized   him (Bethany Mandel, Ben Shapiro, and Jonathan Weisman);

• Official association of Trump’s campaign with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, giving talk-show host, James Edwards, a VIP press parking space and interview with Donald Trump, Jr. at a Memphis rally, and designating William Johnson a California Trump delegate to the Republican convention;

• Ivana Trump’s Vanity Fair statement (1990) that her husband kept a copy of Hitler’s collected speeches, “My New Order,” in his bedside cabinet (which Trump acknowledged);

• The right-arm salute Trump invokes at his rallies, recalling the Nazi salute (some dispute this, but, given his media skills, it’s safe to assume that Trump knows the symbolic effect of every image he uses);

• Trump’s use of “America First,” alluding to an isolationist, early-40’s U.S. movement that was rife with Jew hatred and called for negotiations with Hitler;

• Trump’s October 13 speech that refers to international bankers, media, and global elites that allegedly strip the U.S. of its rightful power—a trope that recalls the classic Jew-hating screed, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” , and has numerous and widespread parallels in other Jew-hating rhetoric as well;

 

Does anyone really believe that this self-described “really smart” Wharton grad draws on the Nazi tradition of political rhetoric, symbolism, and ethnic/racial scapegoating unawares?

The onus should be on those who deny the obvious connections to explain in detail why they’re not relevant.

Countless other items of evidence connect Trump to fascism more generally:

 

• Using threatening gestures, encouraging supporters to beat up protesters and intimidate critics;

• Forecasting (and encouraging) “riots” at the Republican convention;

• Calling reporters “scum” and implicitly threatening them, and barring major media organizations (left and right) from his campaign events;

• Calling to change libel/slander laws to curb criticism of public figures;

• Demonizing ethnic groups: labeling Mexicans “rapists” and “drug addicts,” calling for mass deportation of 11 million undocumented aliens, advocating a ban on Muslims entering the U.S., and demanding the recusal of a judge as biased and unqualified because of his ethnic heritage;

• Targeting the disabled by mocking the arm and facial movements of New York Times reporter, Serge Kovaleski;

• Praising dictators, including North Korean Kim Jong-un, for murdering potential  enemies; Chinese rulers, for cracking down on Tiananmen Square protesters; and Vladimir Putin for being “a leader’’;

• Openly and frequently calling for the jailing of his political opponent, Hillary Clinton—this happens as a matter of course in totalitarian societies from the Congo to Cuba to North Korea;

 

No, Trump doesn’t outline a genocidal philosophy or well-thought-out plans to implement discrimination—what coherent policy strategy has he ever enunciated?—but he is aware of Hitler and Mussolini and riffs off of them. He knows who they are and borrows their ideas—most notably the use of intimidation and violence to acquire political power.

Does this make him more like a third-world dictator (Marco Rubio’s assessment)? Would Mussolini serve as a better comparison than Hitler? Silvio Berlusconi?

We don’t know what he sincerely believes, but does that really matter? We can only judge him by his words, his actions, and what he promotes.

We d­­­on’t know what Trump would actually do if elected president. Given the American system of checks and balances, his attempt at authoritarian rule would likely be limited by the realities of governance. Yet, is that a risk worth taking?

Why don’t commentators address the specific evidence instead of asserting that Trump isn’t Hitler? Many in the press minimize the Trump phenomenon by laughing off his words or by rationalizing the crazy stuff he does. The reason is clear: because the evidence is so troubling and disturbing, and the implications so appalling, that they would rather it simply go away.

If we’ve learned anything from the holocaust, it’s that we can’t take on the role of bystanders and let troubling events transpire by ignoring or glossing over them.

Too frequently in the past, politicians and commentators trivially compared political adversaries to Hitler and the Nazis, leading to what many call “Godwin’s law”: the inevitable invocation of Hitler or Nazis to refute an argument. Neither mindless name-calling nor willful ignorance force us to face the facts before us.

The facts are clear: Trump uses language, images, and tactics that directly recall those of the Nazis and Hitler, along with other fascists. To allow him to speak destructively by incorporating this pernicious tradition and to permit him to encourage violence without calling him to meaningful account does nothing more than offer him a media get-out-of-jail free card. It amounts to an abdication of the sacred responsibility the founders gave the press in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. Who is willing to stand up and be counted?

 Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2016 Laurence Kant

My Family, The Holocaust, and ‘Original Sin’

 

I was recently discussing the concept of original sin in a workshop I was leading. I was explaining that I thought that this was a legitimate concept, even though I did not share it. If I ever did accept original sin, I would certainly apply it to the holocaust.

This photo was taken c. 1905 in Pinsk, Belarus. In the center is my grandmother, Leah Kaston (Kaplan). Standing behind her are my great-grandfather Ya’akov and my great-mother Rivka Kaston. To the far left is my Aunt Bunya, my grandmother’s sister. She tried to come to this country around 1915, but was turned back by immigration services at Ellis Island because of red eye (conjunctivitis). She returned to Belarus. Later her husband, and some of her children followed her, and they went to live in Babruysk, Belarus. Somewhere between 1941-1943, when the Nazis entered Babruysk, they shot my Aunt Bunya and her family and dumped them in mass graves.

Workshop: “Reading the Bible Mystically”

READING THE BIBLE MYSTICALLY: An Introductory Workshop
Dr. Laurence H. Kant, Historian of Religion (Ph.D., Yale University, 1993)
June 14, 2015, Sunday, 2:00-5:00 p.m.
Full Circle Massage School: 465 EAST HIGH STREET, Suite 110, Lexington, KY  40507 (Please note that the correct address 465 East High Street)

Everyone comes to the Bible with different perspectives. Lay people appeal to tradition, practice, belief, social justice, evangelism, literal interpretation, and opposition or apathy to religion. Scholars interpret the Bible from their own angles: history, literature, sources, language, theology, and archaeology. No one perspective, however, can encompass and explain biblical texts.

For me, a mystical approach to biblical interpretation entails the discovery and creation of profound meaning in the text. Integrative in nature, it uses a variety of perspectives to understand the contexts and multiple (often ambiguous and conflicting) meanings of passages. We start from the ground up, beginning with small details (word-by-word and even letter-by-letter) as we move through sentences and stories toward apparently hidden and esoteric readings. Usually what we regard as secret or mystical lies in open sight, but seeing it demands close attention and far-reaching awareness of all sorts.

We will initially have a brief review of some basic Hebrew Bible background, including chronology, history, the source hypothesis, and language issues. We will follow this up with a short discussion of how Jews, Christians, Muslims, as well as non-believers, non-affiliated, and spiritual-but-not-religious, view the Bible. Then we will spend the bulk of our time engaging the text, particularly Genesis 1, and discuss its use in constructing meaning for our lives. No previous background is necessary. Mutual respect is assumed in an atmosphere open to all spiritual, religious, and non-religious points of view.

The workshop is part of a larger series that continues in the Fall (September-October). Dates and times will be announced. There is a limit of 24 people for the June 14 session. If significantly more than 24 sign up, I will hold a repeat session at a later date.

The cost of the workshop is $35.00 per person (cash, or check made out to “Mystic Scholar, LLC”), Reserve a place by emailing Dr. Kant at dblk2@qx.net (with “Mystic Scholar” in the subject line). Payment may be made at the door before the workshop. Please read Genesis 1 beforehand. For further information on the presenter, see the attached CV and bio, as well as the brochure with photos.

Dr. Laurence H. Kant, Historian of Religion (Ph.D., Yale University, 1993)

BibleMystic1
BioKant2a
CurriculumVitaeMainWeb2Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2015 Laurence Kant

Israeli Governing Coalition Likely to Have 1-Vote Majority

Barring a unity government (which the Zionist Union under Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni have thus far resisted) or the sudden withdrawal of Bayit Yehudi (Naftali Bennett = the religious settlers’ party), there will be a coalition government of 61 MKs out of 120. This gives a 1-vote majority to the coalition and is a recipe for political instability and possible new elections. [MK = “Member of the Knesset]

Avigdor Lieberman and Yisrael Beteynu made this possible when they opted out of the government for a variety of reasons (see my post from a couple of days ago: See http://mysticscholar.org/lieberman-and-yisrael-beteinu-out-of-israel-government/

Essentially one member of the Knesset can bring down the government. One member can sit out a vote to prevent legislation from passing. One member can exact retribution on political rivals by voting one way unexpectedly or by abstaining. If someone wakes up in the morning on the wrong side of the bed, that MK can simply gum up the wheels of the government. One member can basically do anything he or she wants. It’s a level of political chaos, which even for Israelis is quite extraordinary. I have no idea how much can get done under these circumstances, unless a military crisis compels unity of some sort.

In Israel, they have nicknamed this potential government: “EVERY BASTARD IS A KING.”

For the moment, there will probably not be new elections, simply because the politicians and the voters are exhausted by the previous campaign. No one apparently wants to face an election right way. That will likely change in short order, however, once the political circus again enters into full season.

Israelis are famously tough and resilient in these kind of circumstances. They will have to use every bit of that ingenuity to keep this government afloat for an extended period of time.

Anybody out there have ideas about how all this is likely to play out?Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2015 Laurence Kant

Lieberman and Yisrael Beteinu out of Israel Government

Uh-ho. It’s possible for Likud/Netanyahu to form a government with 61 MKs out of 120, but that would produce an extremely unstable government. All it would take is one member to bring down the entire government.

This may force Netanyahu to broaden the government to include the Zionist Union (Isaac Herzog/Tzipi Livni) or Lapid’s Yesh Atid. Otherwise, the current constellation of partners would be almost ungovernable. Good luck to a coalition with a 1-vote majority.

It’s well-known that Lieberman dislikes Netanyahu–both personally and politically. He doesn’t trust him, believes him to be opportunistic, and thinks he breaks his word (this is a common complaint even among many Likud members, as well as among Netanyahu’s political opponents). Lieberman also is upset about the Supreme Court, which he wants to diminish in power, but Moshe Kahlon/Kulanu is totally opposed to doing this–and Netanyahu can’t govern without Kulanu. And Lieberman wants pro-Jewish nation state legislation, but Kahlon/Kulanu also opposes that. Further, Lieberman thinks that Netanyahu is soft on Hamas (he wanted him to destroy Hamas in the last Gaza war), though at the same time is more supportive of negotiations with the Palestinians than Netanyahu–a paradox, reflective of Israel’s complex fault lines. And finally Lieberman strongly dislikes the ultra-Orthodox and wants a more secular government–for example on issues of civil marriage and not allowing the ultra-Orthodox to absent themselves from the military. This mirrors his own secular supporters.

I have no idea what will happen, but this does indicate the tremendous complexity of Israeli politics and society and the ideological divisions among Israeli voters.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4653645,00.htmlCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2015 Laurence Kant

“Selma,” Film Criticism, History, and Racism

Here’s my take. Much of the criticism of “Selma” is accurate. However, why is there so much criticism of “Selma,” but not of other Hollywood historical films? it’s not the substance of the criticism which I find problematic, but the ferocity and amount of it.

From what I know, LBJ and King were partners in the civil rights process, but that relationship later fell apart over the Vietnam War. I’m sure that King was pushing harder for the Voting Rights Act than Johnson, but the dynamic was a lot more subtle than “Selma” shows. I also did not find Tom Wilkinson’s portrayal of Johnson at all convincing. It just didn’t ring right for me. Personally, I was particulary bothered by the absence of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who was replaced by a Greek Orthodox figure. This photo of King and Heschel from the Selma march is iconic, and one has to wonder what was the motive for air-brushing out a prominent Jewish activist. Does this say something about current Jewish-Christian and African-American-Jewish relations? Was this an attempt at Christianizing a more diverse event? Is this about Israel? Or is there something else going on, some kind of Hollywood soap opera? Anyway, I think it’s fair to say that many Jews were saddened by this.

That said, “Selma” was a powerful film with brilliant portrayals of Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King. It shows a flawed hero and the importance of community activism. King did not come out of nowhere, but emerges out of a broad movement (which also includes women).

Where was the same criticism of “Lincoln,” which edited out the prominent role of Frederick Douglas? More recently, the “Imitation Game” played fast and loose with the story of Alan Turing. Turing was not as difficult and rude a person as Cumberbatch portrays (though I thought his portrayal was nevertheless also brilliant). The Turing machine was much smaller than the one depicted. There were others that worked on this project before Turing, particularly Polish mathematicians (never once mentioned). And the depiction of Commander Denniston as a hectoring, bureaucratic bully is not accurate either (thanks to Dianne Bazell for this info).

Ben Affleck’s “Argo” won an Oscar for best picture in 2013, and yet the entire film was essentially a fiction that had little to do with the historical event depicted with Iran and the Khomeini revolution. “Argo” makes “Selma,” “Lincoln,” and “imitation Game” look like milquetoast documentaries (which I realize is unfair to documentaries–a genre that I love). Looking at “Argo” is no better than watching “Quo Vadis” in order to understand the historical Roman world and early Christianity. I noted this in an essay on my blog in 2013, and there were others who did so as well, but the bigger-click oped writers carried the day: and they loved “Argo.” There was very little prominent or strong criticism of “Argo.”

Why do “Argo” and others get of the hook, while “Selma” receives such deep historical analysis? Why didn’t David Oyelowo and Carmen Ejogo receive Oscar nominations for Best Actor and Best Actress?

I think the answer is clear. There is an element of prejudice and racism in the focus on “Selma.” Critics (particularly white liberal critics) are much more defensive of “Selma,” because they feel a personal connection to the event which is not the case with most other films. And they feel hurt and slighted, because they feel lumped together with LBJ as resistant to civil rights progress.

I have never understood why drama and historical accuracy have to be opposed to be one another, but that is the way Hollywood screenwriters, directors, and producers seem to view the matter. That is the reality of these films. Critics, who know this full well, have to be consistent in their critiques. If you criticize historical inaccuracies, then you should do it consistently. Don’t lower the boom on one film, while letting the others slip through the cracks. If you do, be prepared for the return volleys that you will inevitably receive from the other side. This is rightfully so.

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/21/maureen_dowds_clueless_white_gaze_whats_really_behind_the_selma_backlash/

 

Addendum:I keep looking at the thumbnail photo accompanying, and I just can’t it out of my mind how Heschel is air-brushed out. I still find “Selma” a superb film, but this erasure saddens me deeply. So here’s the original photo:

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2015 Laurence Kant

Charlie Hebdo and the Comic Tradition

CHARLIE HEBDO AND THE COMIC TRADITION

I’ve read and watched an awful lot of news analysis of Charlie Hebdo, but rarely do pundits mention some of the salient facts about what Charlie Hebdo actually does and about the tradition of satire:

1) Charlie Hebdo mocks all three Abrahamic religions, not just Islam, and it does so offensively with no special favorites, but Jews and Christians do not attack and demonize Charlie Hebdo;

2) The tradition of satire and caricatures or religion in France is very old going, back to at least the French Revolution, and is tied to the deep distrust of religious institutions (the Catholic Church primarily) that was closely linked to the royal dictatorship that crushed economic, social, and political freedoms in France;

3) Charlie Hebdo does not only mock religion; it mocks other institutions and prominent public figures;

4) Charlie Hebdo is a part of a tradition of offensive satire that goes back to ancient Greek comedy. It includes writers such as Aristophanes whom many profess to love (mainly because they don’t understand, or care about, the ancient references). However, if Aristophanes were alive today, he would probably engender hatred among the people he would gleefully pillory and mock.

5) Commentators are shocked by all the sexual references in Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons. However, ancient comedy (and drama), which is the literary predecessor of Charlie Hebdo, was associated with phallus processions, accompanied by obscenities and verbal abuse.

So what some consider juvenile, stupid, and offensive in Charlie Hebdo has roots in literature and dramatic traditions that we profess to admire and call “classic.” We in the U.S. live in a culture that is still relatively Puritanical in its approach to public sexuality, and that is coming out in the U.S. media coverage.Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2015 Laurence Kant

Avigdor Lieberman Promotes Peace Deal and Lashes out at Netanyahu

To say the least, Lieberman’s comments are significant. Overnight they change the electoral landscape of Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.633470

LiebermanNetanyahuElection2014ACopyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

Time Never Stops: Except on Shabbat

Time never stops. It is inexorable. In moments of joy and tragedy, the earth continues to rotate and the seasons continue to alternate. Shabbat and meditation offer a glimpse of existence outside of time. There we reside in the presence of the Source: no limits, no boundaries, only the vibrations of no/thing.Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

The Kastonowicz Family c. 1900 in Pinsk, Belarus

 

These are photos of my maternal family, the Kastonowiczs, c. 1900 in Pinsk, Belarus. The first photo from left to right: My great-grandmother, Rivka; Uncle Joe; Uncle Oscar; and my great-grandfather, Ya’akov. Uncle Oscar was a wonderful human being, beloved in our family.

I don’t know the names of the children in the second photo: on the far left is my Aunt Bunya (murdered in 1943 in Bobruysk by the Nazis in the Holocaust); the older man on the left is my great-grandfather, Ya’akov. Sitting to his left (our right) is my great-grandmother, Rivka; standing in the center is my grandmother, Leah. Of the four children, I would assume that one or two were murdered by the Nazis in Pinsk, but I’m not certain about that. At least one survived. There were others probably murdered as well (not all born yet presumably), but names and numbers are unclear.

Bunya attempted to come to this country in 1920, but was rejected by the Immigration Service at Ellis Island because of Red Eye (conjuncitivitis). She went back to Pinsk and Bobruysk in Belarus. Afterwards her husband followed her, because he could not live without her. Some of the children went as well. Later they all ended up murdered by the Nazis. My grandmother wept about this loss for as long as I knew her. It left a hole and a traumatic legacy for our family that persists to this day. When President Obama announced his executive order, I felt a measure of relief for my Aunt Bunya that justice had been served in some small way.

While there are several factors, the story of Bunya has a role to play in why I chose to enter the field of history of religion, New Testament studies, and Jewish studies. It is part of who I am today and why I do what I do. It always will be.

Idolatry

Anything can be idolatrous. Therefore, question everything.

Dead Sea Relaxation

Floating and relaxing in the Dead Sea in Israel in October 2012 (with Dianne Bazell).

Suzanna in Neve Tzedek, Tel Aviv

 

And here’s a 2012 photo from Suzanna, a restaurant in Neve Tzedek, Tel Aviv, the oldest neighborhood in Tel Aviv (southwest part of the city near the Arab city, Jaffa) with Irit Averbuch: Great food as always in Tel Aviv.

Tel Aviv: Eating at Benny HaDayag

Conspicuous food consumption in Tel Aviv. The first pictures are from Benny HaDayag (Benny the Fisherman–בני הדייג) on the Tel Aviv waterfront. I learned a lot of Hebrew names for fish–I don’t even know all their names in English (see the very last picture). Fish is a big deal Israel–and it’s really good, prepared in all sorts of interesting ways–along with all kinds of great salads, eggplant dishes, and other accompaniments. Dianne and I are eating with our good friend, Irit Averbuch, lover of all things Tel Aviv and Japanese.

And here’s the mouth-watering menu: http://www.bennyhadayag.co.il/

U.S. Official Calls Netanyahu “Chickenshit”

Whoever in the U.S. government said that Netanyahu is “chickenshit,” is basically right. The only thing Netanyahu cares about is his political survival. He has no overarching principles other than political success. He’s not a leader, but a finger in the wind kind of guy. My guess is that Iran does not think that he’ll ever attack their nuclear sites, because Netanyahu would worry about the political implications–of course, Iran would probably be wrong about that, because other Israelis would likely force Netanyahu’s hand if Iran were to move quickly toward nuclear weapons. And Netanyahu would never challenge the far-right settler movement, because he might lose a coalition partner and a slice of his vote. That’s partly why the vast majority of Israelis don’t really like him (in addition to opposition to his domestic economic policies). He got elected to prime minister in spite of that (and in spite of Likud losses in 2013), mainly because Israelis are fragmented and divided in their support for various parties. It was not an affirmation of Netanyahu, but he was the least bad choice for enough Israelis.

Plus the slur is rather tame considering what Israelis call Netanyahu and other Israeli political leaders. Americans and American Jews aren’t used to this kind of playground foul-mouthing. But it’s not a big deal for Israelis when Israelis do it. I wish American Jews were less prudish and more ready to mix it up where Israel is concerned, just as Israelis do.

And, yes, I realize it’s different when Israelis use foul language than when U.S. officials do it (even unnamed ones). But this kerfuffle was way overblown. It’s making a mountain out of a molehilll.

 

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.623410

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/30/john-kerry-condems-official-insult-netanyahuCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

Mizrahi Nation: Middle Eastern Jews in Israel and a Brief History of Jews in the Middle East

A superb article by Matti Friedman, one of the best of I have seen not only on the history of the Mizrahi (Middle Eastern Jews) in Israel, but on what it means to be Israeli, Jewish, and living in the Middle East. This article offers a perspective that is rarely found in discussions about Israel and the Israel/Palestinian conflict. After reading it, you may find your views on Israel, Jews, and the Middle East at least a little different.

I particularly enjoyed his characterization of the “religious vs. secular” Jewish dichotomy as a Western/Ashkenazi labeling. For Mizrachi, that distinction doesn’t exist. They have their own “liberal” form of Judaism which is not Orthodox, but “traditional”/Masorti–the name for Conservative Judaism, but different, because it has its own history and application that is completely different from the European-based movement. For example, some Mizrachi may go to Synagogue in the morning, head to the beach in the afternoon, text to one another, while celebrating Havdalah (end of Shabbat) later.

Overall the Mizrachi are much more “liberal” in practice than the Ashkenazi (European-based) religious, but more politically conservative than many Ashkenazi. Their conservatism is not based on ideology (as is typical of Ashkenazi on all sides of the political spectrum), however, but more on experience in having lived in the Middle East for many centuries (well before Islam ever got there).

http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2014/06/mizrahi-nation/

 Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

Media Bias and Israel

More on the bias of Western media coverage of Israel by a former AP reporter, Matti Friedman: hostile fixation on Jews and Israel; censorship of Gaza coverage under pressure from Hamas and failure to report Hamas using civilians as human shields; and failure to report on an Israeli peace proposal. The original story discussed the failure of Western media to report on the corruption of the Palestinian Authority; the all-consuming media criticism of Israeli society and politics, with virtually no criticism of Palestinian society and politics; intense documenting of Israeli violence against Palestinians, with no corresponding, remotely equivalent documenting of Hamas’ brutality and vast military infrastructure; failure to report on Hamas intimidation of reporters; failure to describe the Hamas charter, which call for the genocide of Jews and uses the notorious Jew-hating Protocols of Zion to call for the murder of Jews; failure to report on Israeli peace proposals prior to the Netanyahu government; failure to report on the tiny size (both geographically and demographically) of Israel in contrast to the Arab/Muslim world; failure to connect Hamas to other extreme, exclusivist, violent Muslim religious movements (e.g. al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Taliban); and the overall equivalence of Israel as bad oppressors and Palestinians as sympathetic victims.

I am a strong critic of many Israeli policies (settlements, racism against Arabs, too much religion in government, the Netanyahu’s goverment failure to engage the Palestinian Authority), but it’s appalling how media coverage is so one-sided and tilted against Israel (and Jews as well) and so relatively non-critical of Hamas (which advocates genocide of Jews, believes in forced conversion to Islam, supports brutality and violence, and opposes democratic and secular values) and the Palestinian Authority (which is notoriously corrupt, inept, suspicious of democratic values, and refuses to accept Israel as Jewish): http://tabletmag.com/scroll/184707/ongoing-controversy-around-the-most-important-story-on-earth

Here’s the original article by Friedman: http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/183033/israel-insider-guide?all=1Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

The Christian Left and Jew-Hatred

Hard to see how anyone can rationalize Jew-hatred (antisemitism) by blaming it on Israeli policy, but many are doing just that now. Shipman and anyone else have the right to criticize Israel as they reasonably see fit (and I would do so as well), but they don’t have the right to excuse hatred–which is exactly what Shipman and others are doing. Attacking Jews on the street and putting swastikas on synagogues and fraternities does not happen because of Israeli policy. It happens because some people hate Jews. Period.

No one on the left (which is what many apparently consider me) would attribute assaults on women to provocative dress or police brutality toward African Americans on black-on-black violence, but somehow it’s OK for liberal Christian activists to do so when it comes to Jew-hatred. They don’t see how they’re drawing on 2000 years of ugly history. All this exposes the ugly underside of Christian prejudice toward Jews. Jewish-Christian dialogue has made progress since the Holocaust, but not as much as we had thought. We’re now seeing the public viewing of what was always there, but hidden.

All people have prejudices that are unknown even to them. I’m no exception to that. It’s part of the human condition. However, the most dangerous people are those who act as if they are immune to prejudice. If Shipman had apologized and reframed what he said differently, we could have moved beyond this. Not only does he refuse to do so, but he plans to continue in his crusade. Clearly we still have a long way to go: http://time.com/3340634/yale-chaplain-bruce-shipman-israel-anti-semitism/

Breaking the Grind of Israel-Gaza Violence

For those of you have seen my defense of the Operation Protective Edge, I also agree with what David Grossman says below. While Israel’s Gaza incursion is certainly justifiable, Grossman is also right when he says that Israeli leaders (especially Netanyahu and Likud generally) have not reached out anywhere near sufficiently to Palestinian leaders on the West Bank. This was short-sighted on their part, and it’s part of the problem now. They were missing in action when, in previous years, they should have been out there doing diplomacy and relating:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/28/opinion/david-grossman-end-the-grindstone-of-israeli-palestinian-violence.htmlCopyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

New Alliances in the Middle East

It seems that Egypt, the PLO, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE–more or less in conjunction with Israel–now find themselves in alliance against Hamas, Qatar, and Turkey.

You would not know this from PLO rhetoric against the Israeli attacks on Gaza, but, behind the scenes, Netanyahu and the Israeli coalition are generally on relatively good terms with PLO/Egypt/Saudi Arabia/UAE at the moment. They are also all mad at Kerry and Obama for helping out Qatar and Turkey who are helping Hamas (at least that’s their point of view).

There is a powerful desire on the part of many Arab leaders, including the PLO, to get rid of Hamas once and for all. What no one says publicly is that quietly they support Israel’s incursion into Gaza.

It’s not clear, however, whether getting rid of Hamas is actually a good idea–which may be what’s motivating Kerry/Obama. In Hamas’ place, more radical leadership of Gaza could emerge, like Iranian-supported Islamic Jihad. Or Gaza could turn into Beirut from the 1970s and 1980s.

More likely the Egypt/PLO/Saudi Arabia/UAE/Israel alliance may be looking to weaken Hamas to such an extent that it can no longer threaten the PLO/Fatah or Israel. When you’re engaged in a massive operation like Protective Edge, that’s a narrow bridge to traverse (weaken, but don’t destroy, Hamas), and they may or may not find themselves successful.

I’m sure U.S. leaders are concerned about this. They also want to use Qatar and Turkey as intermediaries to reach out to Hamas. However, I’m not sure they know what they’re doing. By supporting the Qatar/Tukey proposal and dissing the PLO and al-Sisi (Egypt), they may (I worry) be undermining Netanyahu and Yaalon who have never wanted a full frontal attack on Hamas. But I don’t have all the information and reserve judgement at this time.

Of course, coalitions like these are moving targets and change shape at a moment’s notice. These could be alliances of very short-term convenience. We shall see where they all end up, but, given modern history, the newshape of Middle East diplomacy is fascinating (though painful and tragic), to say the least.

 

**I’m really not sure where Iran is on this. On the one hand, they are opposed to Hamas (Sunni Muslim Brotherhood vs. Shia; and Hamas supported Sunni insurgents against Syrian Assad). However, they have changed their tune a bit recently. By supporting Hamas against Israel and against PLO/Fatah, Iran could get a lot of brownie points from the broader Arab populace which supports Palestinians in general. The Iranians are probably playing it both ways actually.Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

Gaza, Israel, and Media Coverage

Why are the global protests all focused on Gaza? Many more are dying in Syria: 700 over a two-day period.

Israel is the bogeyman for world media, but no one gives a hoot if Arabs are slaughtering other Arabs. What does this say about Israel and about antisemitism (yesterday protesters looted and ransacked Jewish businesses in a Paris suburb)?

Part 1: RESPONSE TO A COLLEAGUE ARGING THAT MEDIA COVERAGE OF GAZA IS SO EXTENSIVE BECAUSE OF ISRAEL’S FAILURE TO AGREE TO A CEASEFIRE

I don’t agree with you that the ceasefire issue is what drives the media.

The reason everyone pays attention to Gaza, and not to Syria, is because no one in the West gives a darn about Arabs and Muslims dying, but they do enjoy scapegoating Jews wherever they are. Whatever problems there are in the Middle East, blame it on the Jews. Now Muslims and Arabs have joined in on this. Take a look at Paris and its suburbs, where protesters have now burned and decimated French Jewish businesses. This is not primarily because of Gaza, but because fundamentally, at root, people blame Jews for whatever problems exists in their communities and cultures.

It’s sad, but it’s a fact. I don’t see a lot of people in Europe attacking Russian churches and community centers, because Russian separatists shot down a passenger jet. Where are the protesters on Iran’s treatment of the Bahai? Israelis are trying to protect their civilian population. You can argue about their tactics and effectiveness, but they do have a good argument based on self-defense.

No, fundamentally, the media and most people are fixated on Jews. This is a 2500-year-old problem, deeply rooted in history and culture. Those of us who devote our lives to working on antisemitism, Jewish-Christian-Muslim relations, must face this on a daily basis. That’s the reality, and no amount of rationalizations get around this fact.

PART 2: RESPONSE TO A COLLEAGUE ARGUING THAT EXTENSIVE MEDIA COVERAGE OF GAZA IS DUE TO LIMITED FINANCIAL RESOURCES

a) It’s not just Syria that the media ignores. Last I heard France is pretty good digs for reporters. Yet how much media attention is focused on protesters burning down Jewish shops and businesses, calling Jews “pigs” and shouting “kill the Jews,” vandalizing and storming synagogues, and hunting Jews on the streets? There were similar (though less destructive) events in Germany. I don’t see much on the TV about that. Iran is a police state, but it’s relatively safe to travel in. Where is the attention on the Iranian treatment of the Bahai, who are viciously persecuted and murdered? What about the Iranian treatment of their native Arab population and political dissidents, whom they like to hang from cranes? Where is the attention on the destruction of indigenous communities worldwide (including in the US and Canada) for corporate profit (oil, minerals, gems, whatever)? What about China and Tibet? What about the treatment of women and gays in the Arab/Muslim world? How much media attention is there on that compared to Israel? I could go on and on. The fact of the matter is, the media, and people in general, are obsessed with Jews. Israel is a good proxy for that.

There is one financial factor you did not mention: Israel coverage markets well to a public that is focused on Jews and Judaism. In other words, “Israel” sells. As the newspaper people used to say, “Israel” makes good copy.

That said, I do agree that the safety and cheapness of travel to Israel is a factor in media coverage of Israel. Part of the attraction is also that Israel is a pleasant place to which to travel and a democracy with a free press. There’s just a lot more to it than your explanation.

b) Israel is in the news all the time. The media always has stories about the Palestinian situation–not as intensely as Gaza right now, but these stories are all over the place regularly. They’re hard to miss. I don’t see nearly as much attention on the stuff I describe above as I do on Israel, even when Israel is not involved in a war.

Beyond that, there has been massive violence (with concentrated deaths in short periods of time) in other locations over the past decades with relatively little media attention: Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Congo, Ivory Coast. Back in the 1960s through the 1990s we saw hideous numbers of deaths in conflicts in South America, Africa, and East Asia (remember East Timor) without comparable attention. Naturally disasters such as occur in Bangladesh and India attract relatively little attention. These are not all impossible to cover (not as easy as Israel, but not Syria), and yet we saw very little on them. I would not expect the equivalence of Gaza, but I would have expected a lot more than we got.

Somehow the media figured out a way to cover our wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Vietnam. The media covered the breakup of Yugoslavia, including Bosnia/Serbia. They covered the Tiannamen Square uprising in China. They gave blanket coverage to the Indonesian tsunami. They focused on the 2009/10 election protests in Iran. In the U.S. the media covered the Tea Party, but much less the Occupy movement.

If it wanted to do so, the media could cover Syria to a greater extent than it has recently. Yes, it’s not easy, and, yes, it’s more expensive. Coverage of Syria would never equal coverage of Gaza, but the media could give Syria much more attention than it has–even without a lot of reporters on the ground. It chooses not to, because Syria, Arabs, and Muslims just don’t hold the attention of the public or of news decision-makers. They’re just not sexy or meaningful to enough people.

I’m not saying that it’s unreasonable to give Gaza a lot of attention. And I’m not saying that a Jewish fixation is the only reason the media focuses on Israel/Gaza/West Bank. I am saying that Gaza has attracted much more attention than other stories of similar magnitude and that part of it has to do with the public’s fascination (for both good and ill) with Israel and Jews. I’m also saying that the media picks and chooses what it decides to cover, in part based on what it thinks sells best. And Israel sells real well. And it has since 1948, especially since 1967.

And I can tell you this. Unless a miracle happens soon, stories about Israel’s conflicts with its neighbors will continue to abound (massive deaths or not), while stories about Ukraine and Russia will have long since faded into oblivion. This does have to do with the prominent place of Jews (in spite of their small numbers) and Israel in human culture and history.

c) All in all I just don’t buy this argument. It does not pass the smell test. The amount of coverage on Israel/Palestine (the former British Mandate), a tiny piece of land with a miniscule population of Jews and Arabs is massive and overwhelming, even without the current Gaza conflict. The overwhelming coverage cannot be explained away simply by reference to limited media resources. An alien from another solar system who dropped onto earth and saw the media coverage would assume that Israel/Palestine must comprise a large continent and a major portion of the world’s population. Obviously, that’s not the case. There are other reasons why the public and the media are obsessed with this little slice of our planet. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

d) I do think antisemitism is a major factor, but not the only one. It’s fixation on Jews that’s really at the core here. Even some supporters of Israel are motivated in part by the Bible and by their belief in Jews as part of God’s plan. And there are philosemitic non-Jews who focus on Jews and on Israel for a whole host of reasons. I wouldn’t call that antisemitism, but it does reflect a somewhat unhealthy obsession with Jews and Judaism. So fixation on Judaism is not simply antisemitism, but can actually be philosemitism as well. I would certainly rather have the latter than the former, but even that is a sword cutting more than one way.

I think it would be best for Jews if others would simply live their lives and leave us be. At the same time, I admit that Jews sometimes cultivate this fixation, and I’m certainly uncomfortable with that. There should be dialogue and conversation–not as an attempt to convert or to preach, but in order to learn and grow. I think it’s much better for Christians to become better Christians than to become Jews or something else, and I think it’s much better for Jews to become better Jews than to spend our time distinguishing ourselves from Christians and others.

As for one-sidedness, that’s a red herring. There are lot of one-sided conflicts in the world (some of which I already mentioned above) that do not get the same attention as Israel/Palestine. In Tibet, it’s mostly Tibetans getting killed, not Chinese. In Iran, no government officials get killed, only dissidents and disfavored minorities. In Central America, governments killed rebels and dissidents far more than the latter killed the former. In France, supporters of Israel are not attacking pro-Palestinian demonstrators, while Palestinians supporters are engaging in numerous attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions. Right now in Syria, ISIS seems to be inflicting most of the damage.

Actually, the death toll in Gaza is now over 700 Gazans and 32 Israeli soldiers, plus two civilians. Of course, that’s because Israelis try to protect their civilians, while the goal of Hamas is to have as many civilians as possible killed in order to promote their PR/media campaign. It’s amazing (though sadly not surprising) to me that the media mentions this only in passing or skeptically. Also, we have no way of knowing how many Gazan civilians vs. soldiers are being killed–Hamas is not exactly a trustworthy source for this kind of info.

In any case, the media would do well to spend more time looking more deeply at what’s going on and not simply reporting death numbers as if it’s a football game. From that perspective, however, Hamas is winning. For them the side with the most dead is the victor. So on the media scoreboard, Hamas is currently ahead of Israel, c. 1,058 vs. 53. That’s a lopsided victory for Hamas. I’m sure Hamas’ leaders are thrilled. The culture of death is winning in a landslide over the culture of life.

Perhaps, however, the distancing of other countries from Hamas that I have observed recently is a move in the right direction. That would certainly show some sophistication in not simply accepting Hamas’ explanations at face value. I hope the media will move in that direction as well.

 

PART 3: ON ISRAELI AND ARAB POSITIONS ON A PALESTINE STATE (INCLUDING THOMAS FRIEDMAN WHO WANTS ISRAEL TO FOCUS ON DEVELOPING THE WEST BANK AS A THRIVING DEMOCRACY)

I’m not a fan of Netanyahu and have never supported him or Likud. I’m not sure he’s as opposed to a Palestinian state as you think, but I’m not sure he believes in much of anything–except his own political survival. And I wrote on this blog that most Arab governments don’t want a Palestinian state either: see the same thing here-http://mysticscholar.org/whats-really-going-on-in-the…/

As far as the West Bank goes, Friedman is right in principle, but that’s no easy task either. Fatah is corrupt, inept, and non-democratic, and there is not much of a prospect for more salutary groups or institutions that could take the lead. The West Bank would need a massive shift in culture and outlook for what Friedman suggests to happen. And Arab governments, as well as Iran, have no interest in an autonomous, free, democratic Palestine. They will do everything possible to prevent that from happening. So that leaves essentially a mess for Israel to deal with. Netanyahu is not much of a leader, but I doubt that anyone or any Israeli party could deal with the current state of things. 

So what are the options? What should Israel do in light of all this? I have no idea. Neither does anyone else as far as I can make out. The best I can think of is play a waiting game and hope that the West Bank cleans up its act and that the Arab world develops some kind of democratic institutions (Tunisia??).

As far as handling Hamas, I don’t know what Israel should do. I’m not an Israeli, and I don’t live there. But I know I wouldn’t put up with rockets firing on my land and tunnels with terrorists pouring out. Perhaps there’s a better way to deal with Hamas, but I don’t know what it is, and I haven’t heard anything plausible. Demilitarizing Gaza would make sense, but that seems impossible, given Hamas and given the sentiments of Gazans. 

If you have something practical to suggest, I really would listen–really. But most of what I’ve heard out there is, quite frankly, naive, totally impractical, or simply wrong. I’m waiting–but sometimes, you just have to tread water for a while. 

Friedman can talk and talk, but his ideas are not really pragmatic or feasible; they just sound nice and thoughtful. He’s not really suggesting anything workable, just a lot of hopeful words.

In the meantime, I have to deal with the antisemitism that’s out there and that’s integrally related to the media’s depiction of Israel. France is a mess, and the attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions is reminiscent of Nazi-era events. And this is happening across Europe. The situation is ugly and screwed-up, and the media is making it worse by not explaining what’s going on.

It does bother me that Israel gets singled out for its deplorable conduct, while the other nations you mention get a pass. The BDS movement focuses on Israel, but shows no interest in advocating divestment in other countries with far worse human rights violations (in the Middle East, that would include Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, among others). This too is ugly and antisemitic, and the media does not address it at all. When you’re dealing with the detritus of the Holocaust that still remains with us and the burgeoning global antisemitism, this is very disturbing indeed.

 

Part 4: ON ISRAEL LEAVING THE WEST BANK AND THE CREATION OF A PALESTINIAN STATE THERE

The problem is: if Israelis pull out and declare a Palestinian state (so called Plan B, which many Israelis are discussing, by the way, including Netanyahu), then you are left with a disfunctional Palestinian government/society and major security issues right on Israel’s border. The West Bank Palestinian economy is not good, and no amount of help from Israel can fix a broken system. Israel has limited resources with its own enormous economic issues: a large population of young who do not have much upward mobility (just as is the case globally), an excessively high cost of living, a minority of ultra-orthodox who profit from the current welfare system without putting much back into it, an electoral system that promotes fragmentation (giving excess weight to small parties), and a military budget that will not diminish just because Israel leaves the West Bank.

Therefore, if Israel leaves the West Bank on its own or with an agreement, it will be faced with a restive, frustrated Palestinian population in the West Bank, a corrupt government that is anti-democratic and probably unable to improve the economy much at all, and the potential for a neighbor that will continue its war and terrorism against Israel as a way of casting blame away from itself. And you cannot forget that the Fatah government would have limited ability to govern, given that Hamas has considerable influence in the West Bank and that there are numerous other splinter groups in the West Bank committed to the destruction of Israel. There is no guarantee that Hamas, a fanatic group committed to the destruction of Israel and Jews worldwide, would not take over there. As we learned in Iraq, a democracy/free society does not emerge just because you wish it to be so. A lot has to be in place before that can happen. If it doesn’t, Israel will be in an even more precarious position.

Further, Arab/Muslim governments for the most part do not want an independent, free, democratic Palestinian state for a simple reason: they would be forced to face their own populations and explain themselves. Their opposition would create further difficulties for both Israel and Palestine and make the situation potentially even more volatile..

I do not support the continued building of new settlement outposts, and I’m not going to defend that. I think it’s wrong. But I don’t know what the way out is. There are many critics of Israel (including Israelis), but I have not heard much about how to solve this pragmatically other than hopeful words and pleasant thoughts. If anyone out there has read something or heard something that is practical and specific, I would be thrilled to read or hear it.

As to the media, I stand by what I’ve said. Israel/Gaza/West Bank is a tiny strip of land with a miniscule population. Even when there’s no major conflict, the media focus is enormous and disproportionate. That’s because it sells globally: in the U.S., in Europe, and in the Muslim world. It’s because it’s the land of the Bible. And it’s because Jews are involved.

PART 5: RESPONSE TO A COLLEAGUE ARGUING THAT THE CONCEPT OF THE “CHOSEN PEOPLE” AND OF “DIFFERENCE ARE WHAT DRIVE SOME OF THE ANIMOSITY TOWARD ISRAELIS AND JEWS

On the whole “chosen people” business, I rarely hear Jews, including most Israelis, talk about this. Most of the Israeli settlers are looking for suburban plots near Jerusalem and have no interest in theology. There are extreme settlers who talk about the Chosen People (Hebron, for example–and quite a number of them are American immigrants), but they are a small minority, and most Israelis (even religious ones) strongly dislike them.

It’s mostly Christians who talk about Jews as the Chosen People. I’ve led a lot of Jewish study groups, and that topic hardly ever comes us, except in response to Christians. Conservative/Evangelical Christians love the whole “Chosen People” trope and run with it non-stop. They have their own agenda, with end-time theology and mass conversion. Mainline and liberal Christians hate the whole idea of it and complain incessantly about Jewish superiority and tribalism.

Jewish sources talk about the Chosen People, but mostly not with pride. In Jewish tradition, God asked every other people to be the chosen ones, and they all refused. The Jews were the last, and they finally agreed to it–with a lot of complaints that have continued through the centuries. The concept of being “chosen” is not necessarily positive at all, but a burden that Jews are stuck with, forcing them to live difficult lives without much reward.

Even so, most Jews today don’t talk about it much, because it’s not an important part of daily life, of identity, or of practice. It’s mainly Christians (and now Muslims) who obsess over it.

Now, on the concept of “difference,” that’s a different matter. Lots of individuals and groups think of themselves as different. And, in fact, they are.

Teilhard de Chardin (who was a Catholic evolutionary biologist and theologian) had a concept known as the Omega Point, which he believed was the ultimate level of collective consciousness that human beings could attain in the distant future. He thought that collective consciousness depended not on homogeneity, but on hyper-individuality–each person’s authentic uniqueness.

We’re all different, and, yes, we’re all similar too, but Jews focus more on the “difference” part. They’re not the only group to do that. I don’t think that everyone should have to be the same. There should be a place (I hope) on the planet and in the human species for individuals and groups who focus more on difference.

 

ON THE DIFFICULTIES OF A TWO-STATE SOLUTION

The problem is: if Israelis pull out and declare a Palestinian state (so called Plan B, which many Israelis are discussing, by the way, including Netanyahu), then you are left with a disfunctional Palestinian government/society and major security issues right on Israel’s border. The West Bank Palestinian economy is not good, and no amount of help from Israel can fix a broken system. Israel has limited resources with its own enormous economic issues: a large population of young who do not have much upward mobility (just as is the case globally), an excessively high cost of living, a minority of ultra-orthodox who profit from the current welfare system without putting much back into it, an electoral system that promotes fragmentation (giving excess weight to small parties), and a military budget that will not diminish just because Israel leaves the West Bank.

Therefore, if Israel leaves the West Bank on its own or with an agreement, it will be faced with a restive, frustrated Palestinian population in the West Bank, a corrupt government that is anti-democratic and probably unable to improve the economy much at all, and the potential for a neighbor that will continue its war and terrorism against Israel as a way of casting blame away from itself. And you cannot forget that the Fatah government would have limited ability to govern, given that Hamas has considerable influence in the West Bank and that there are numerous other splinter groups in the West Bank committed to the destruction of Israel. There is no guarantee that Hamas, a fanatic group committed to the destruction of Israel and Jews worldwide, would not take over there. As we learned in Iraq, a democracy/free society does not emerge just because you wish it to be so. A lot has to be in place before that can happen. If it doesn’t, Israel will be in an even more precarious position.

Further, Arab/Muslim governments for the most part do not want an independent, free, democratic Palestinian state for a simple reason: they would be forced to face their own populations and explain themselves. Their opposition would create further difficulties for both Israel and Palestine and make the situation potentially even more volatile..

I do not support the continued building of new settlement outposts, and I’m not going to defend that. I think it’s wrong. But I don’t know what the way out is. There are many critics of Israel (including Israelis), but I have not heard much about how to solve this pragmatically other than hopeful words and pleasant thoughts. If anyone out there has read something or heard something that is practical and specific, I would be thrilled to read or hear it.

As to the media, I stand by what I’ve said. Israel/Gaza/West Bank is a tiny strip of land with a miniscule population. Even when there’s no major conflict, the media focus is enormous and disproportionate. That’s because it sells globally: in the U.S., in Europe, and in the Muslim world. It’s because it’s the land of the Bible. And it’s because Jews are involved.

 

ON PROSPECTS FOR A TWO-STATE SOLUTION

Actually, believe it or not, I think there will be peace some day. So I’m not pessimistic in the long term. I may be wrong, but, in my view, the Arab/Muslim world will have to move toward a more democratic system of governance before a two-state solution works. That’s going to take time. In spite of its shortcomings, the “Arab Spring” (which is not Spring in some places I realize) was a positive step. Tunisia will be interesting to watch.

Dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians will also help over time. This will not transform the region over night, but it is slowly affecting the situation and will continue to do so..

As for your idea, Ehud Barak offered something similar in 1999. Arafat and the PLO rejected it. It may not have been the right time, and Barak was a terrible negotiator.

Israel did not “seize” Gaza and the West Bank. Israel entered them in 1967 after facing a massive Arab attack. When the Arab world decides to accept a Jewish state in the Middle East (which governments are beginning to), then it will be easier to deal with the logistics of this problem.

On the Arab right of return, this is obviously a thorny issue and will involve compensation. The Palestinians are the only group in the world given “refugee” status after multiple generations of absence from a territory. When the Arab countries expelled Jews after 1948, Israel accepted them as full citizens of the state of Israel. On the other hand, Arab governments forced Palestinians to live in refugee camps and did not integrate them into Arab societies.

Israel will have to deal with this issue financially, but it’s not as one-sided as your words imply. There are two stories here, each having legitimacy: two peoples with two painful histories and competing narratives and claims to the land.

As for Hamas, I’m glad you’re confident in Gaza tossing them out under the right conditions. I’m not. And I don’t think Israelis can assume anything. All I have to do is look at other parts of the Middle East to draw another conclusion.

Nevertheless, at some point, the day will come when a two-state solution can be put into action. I just don’t think that day has arrived yet. Let’s hope it comes soon.

RESPONSE TO A COLLEAGUE WHO ARGUES THAT ISRAEL IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, COMPARING IT TO ALABAMA 100 YEARS AGO

KantGazaExchange1

 Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

What’s Really Going on in the Middle East and Gaza

Arab governments, and even Iran, are keeping a distance from Gaza and especially Hamas. The Palestinian situation in Gaza is awful and cruel, but Arab leadership despises Hamas: its radical fundamentalism and fanaticism, its promotion of terrorism in the Sinai, its goading of Israel into war, its use of civilians as human shields, and its political alliances. In fact, many in the Arab world hope that Israel will crush Hamas once and for all. I doubt, however, that Israel wants to do that (unless there’s some other group in Gaza that’s actually sane).

What the article also does not mention is the dirty little secret of the Middle East: Most Arab governments do not really want an autonomous Palestinian state. They would much rather have Israel and the Palestinians at each other’s throats in small-scale conflicts. To have a Palestinian viable, democratic state would potentially show them up and would force them to deal with their own problems.

So what’s the solution? I have no idea. And, if they’re honest, neither does anyone else. This is so much more complex than the media let on. Maybe the reporters have no clue themselves.Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

Evolution Gaining Greater Acceptance in the U.S.

Public views in U.S. are shifting toward support for evolution. I never understood this one. Maybe it because I’m Jewish and the child of a scientist, but I never saw the conflict with Genesis or the Bible. Genesis doesn’t really weigh in on the subject. Even a literalist view (which I certainly don’t have admittedly) could leave a lot of room for alternative interpretation. Opposition to evolution in the developed world is peculiar to the United States and is primarily found among evangelicals. Most others do not share this belief. I would truly like to better understand the reasons for opposition to evolution, because it’s so foreign to me. Perhaps there is a much deeper issue at play. If we could get at that, we might be able to address the real difficulty.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

« Previous Entries