Miscellaneous Thoughts on Antisemitism and Israel

Criticism of Netanyahu, of Israel’s government is absolutely NOT antisemitism. Calling Netanyahu a war criminal might or might not be correct, but it’s not in and of itself antisemitism. Criticizing Israel’s Gaza war or West Bank policy is certainly not antisemitism.

I criticize Netanyahu and his government all the time, as do most American Jews and most (believe it or not) Israelis. In fact, Netanyahu isn’t popular at all right now with Jewish Israelis. I don’t know what will happen tomorrow, but that’s where it is right now.

Obviously when critics of the Israeli government say that Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish state, that’s almost certainly antisemitism. Unless you’re willing to criticize every country with ethnicity or religion enshrined by law (including virtually every country in the Middle East, many counties in Europe, India, Japan, and many other nations), you are singling out Jews for special criticism. That is wildly inconsistent and therefore antisemitism. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen anyone actually do this. It’s possible, but it’s really more theoretical and than actual.

When people start using the words “Zionist” as a slur, that’s antisemitism. While the word, “Zionism” has come to mean Netanyahu and his policies to some, it really means the right of Jews to have their own state (as countless other ethnic/religious groups do). Whether or not Jews call themselves “Zionists,” about 90% of American Jews believe in the legitimacy and desirability of a Jewish state (i.e. Israel). Clearly for some on the far-left, the word, “Zionist,” is simply a proxy for Jews. If 90% of Jews believe in a Jewish state, and people slur them, well we know how Jews view that. We also know that much of the rhetoric is not ultimately about Israel, but about Jews themselves.

Even worse than “Zionist” is “Zio.” That’s clearly not an abbreviation for ease of speech, but out-and-out hate speech. It’s not much different from other slurs used against various minority groups

Zio” is everywhere in far-left circles, especially on social media. On X/Twitter I see it every day–unless I stop myself from looking at post comments (but I don’t have enough self-discipline for that).

Personally I don’t regard “Free Palestine” as inherently antisemitic. Palestinians have a right to their own state IMHO (as do Kurds, for example). So in isolation it’s not a problematic phrase.

If “Free Palestine means “Free of Jews” (as some have clearly said), that’s antisemitism. If “Free Palestine” is accompanied by attacks on the idea of a Jewish state or a desire to annihilate Jews, that is antisemitism. If Free Palestine is used alongside “From the River to the Sea,” that’s a promise of annihilating Jews, which is clearly antisemitic.

I support a two-state solution. So for me “Free Palestine” is reasonable as long as it’s about Palestinians getting their own state.

“AIPAC” is another hot word these days. I should say that I have criticized AIPAC for years now. Honestly I can’t stand them, and I have been ripped for criticizing them. I have told a few AIPAC reps what I think and I’ve said a certain amount on social media, and they just ignored me and moved on.

The problem is that politicians are using the word “AIPAC” repeatedly as if it’s a magic word or an obscenity. It’s essentially become e a code word for “Zionist.” While it’s certainly not antisemitic to criticize AIPAC (I’ve done so for years well before the current flood), to repeat it ad nauseam is a problem–especially if you don’t criticize other ethnic advocacy groups (Armenian, Turkish, Irish, etc.). If all you do is repeat “AIPAC” as a mantra, yes, you are wandering into the land of antisemitism.

Using “AIPAC” repeatedly also enters in the classic antisemitic trope of accusing Jews of ‘dual loyalty’. This goes back hundreds of years. This was one of the main accusations Nazis hurled against Jews and was effective in their murderous propaganda.

If you want to criticize AIPAC (as I have), explain precisely what you’re criticizing them for and make sure that you don’t solely focus on Jews when you discuss loyalty to foreign governments.

If you want to criticize AIPAC and not be problematic, you have an obligation not to simply repeat the word as a slur, but to explain what exactly you’re criticizing.

Another word thrown around regularly is “genocide.” I have taught courses on the Holocaust/Shoah, genocide generally, and mass murder,. I have studied it quite a bit, though I’m not an international lawyer. With that caveat, the word is deeply problematic.

For one thing, the population of Gaza is approximately the same as it was before the conflict (there are competing statistics here, but all in all there’s not much of change in population totals). Genocide laws require that a perpetrator target wiping out an entire population or wiping out a substantial portion of the population. No such evidence exists, however.

Second, you can’t just kill a lot of people in a genocide. You have to prove “intent” to eradicate a group or large part of a group. Without getting into the weeds (there are a lot of weeds), there’s not enough evidence that the IDF are attempting to do this.

So I think this is very likely not a genocide in a legal sense. Is it possible for a kangaroo court to conclude otherwise? Possibly I suppose (though the evidence is almost non-existent). People hate Jews for whatever reasons. In fact, the accusation of genocide is echoed in Nazi propaganda of the 1930s. The Nazis claimed that they had to kill Jews because Jews were trying to annihilate (exterminate–a word I don’t like) Aryans and Germany. You might think this sounds silly or crazy, but this is precisely what Nazi propagandists argued.

So in some ways, the word, “genocide,” is for Jews a kind of red herring–because it’s not based on facts or truth. Rather it’s an old trope without evidentiary basis that allows people to treat Israel and Jews badly. In fact, it’s the kind of language that encourages physical attacks on Jews globally–as some of the perpetrators themselves have acknowledged.

Also a substantial portion of those killed are members of the Hamas military. Hamas recently said that it was sending out payments to about 30,000 widows of Hamas soldiers. That makes a genocide accusation even less likely.’

Jews have been accused of targeting children since the 4th century C.E. This is one of the most common tropes used against Jews. Many of the Jews in the USA today have grandparents who fled Eastern Europe partly because they were facing mass attacks of local populations. We call them pogroms. The mobs murdered Jews in part because they accused Jews of killing Christian children or putting children’s blood in their matzoh during Passover. So when Jews hear about Israelis targeting children, and there’s not much evidence of intentional targeting, then Jews hear the sounds of 2,000 years of people calling Jews child murderers.

Also many of the deaths in Gaza occurred because Hamas used civilian locations, including neighborhoods and hospitals, to protect their soldiers and equipment. This is clearly an issue for any war crimes charges. This policy is often referred to as using “human shields.” It would be a difficult legal argument to overcome in any prosecution of war crimes.

Again I’m not an international lawyer, but killing civilians is not a war crime per se–especially if Hamas embeds itself in civilian locations. In war, militaries have the right to attack civilian areas if military units are located there. This is an intentional Hamas strategy. At Nuremberg and in other trials, Nazis (including Herman Göring) claimed that Allied bombing campaigns like Dresden were war crimes. This was rejected consistently by the courts. If we were to examine the Allied bombing campaign, we would be horrified by the level of death and destruction. We have seen how awful things were recently in the battles of Mosul and Fallujah in Iraq. If we examined WWII battles and civilian casualties and property destruction, we would be horrified. War is always brutal, but that in itself doesn’t make it a war crime. War may be wrong or even immoral, but that doesn’t make it necessarily a crime.

Netanyahu might well have committed war crimes in certain areas, such as denying food to come into Gaza. Also obstructing medical assistance could be a war crime conceivably. There are probably other potential crimes I have not thought of. I don’t know the evidence, and obviously the fighting isn’t over, but we would have to wait and see what might qualify as a war crime legally.

If we were to examine the Allied campaign in WWII, both in Europe and Japan, there were very likely war crimes committed. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes? Didn’t the atomic bombs intentionally target civilian populations? This is a subject of debate.

In Europe, Allied soldiers often killed POWs (because having to use fighting soldiers as POW guards was viewed as hindering Allied military advances). Allied troops sometimes denied medical care to German and Japanese soldiers in WWII. Are these not war crimes? These kind of things happen in virtually ever war I’ve studied. The question is: are they isolated incidents or are they part of an intentional policy?

The biggest issue for me when it comes to Gaza is proportionality of protest.

This is very, very important. In Syria, there were between 500,000 and 1,000,000 killed by the Assad government in Syria. Most of them were civilians. We did not see protesters marching in the streets about that even though the total number of dead and wounded was far greater than in Gaza.

In Yemen approximately 150,000 people have so far died in the civil war (most civilians) and another 225,000 died of malnourishment. This was caused by the Houthi (Shiite-Iranian) revolt. Where have been and are the protests against this?

2.5 million people have died in the ongoing conflict in Sudan over the years. Where are the protests about this?

In February of this year, the Iranian government murdered (executed) between 30,000 and 40,000 people simply for the crime of protesting against the current government. Did we see protests in the streets of NYC or SF or anywhere? No we did not. In fact, many on the far-left have defended the Iranian government and criticized the protesters.

The Chinese government has placed 1,000,000 Muslim Uighurs over the past two decades in concentration camps and murdered thousands more. Are there people on the streets about this?

I could go on and on. The question is: Why do protesters focus on Israel and not on other countries? Why do some on the far-left and the far-right defend Assad in Syria and the Iranian government for what are more obvious violations of morality and war codes? If protesters treated all these cases seriously, including Israel, then we would have a far different landscape to look at. Why don’t protesters do this: For most Jews the answer is obvious.

If protesters were consistent (more or less) and applied their protests tactics equitably on various forms of violence, the Jewish community would feel a lot differently. But they don’t and have shown no indication of doing so. Criticism of Israel doesn’t occur in a vacuum. There’s over 2,000 years of history. Christians don’t have a lot of credibility here, given centuries of persecution of Jews, including the Crusades (which targeted Jews along the way, as well as Muslims). They are not neutral arbiters or observers. So when protesters focus on Israel at the expense of other brutal situations, this is what it looks like to Jews and those who understand the history.

Btw, I would say the same about Christian Zionists who blindly support Israel and Netanyahu. They honestly have no clue what they’re talking about. Sure the Israeli government loves their support and their money, but they’re wrong IMHO. They care about themselves and their theology and want Jews to convert. Many younger Evangelicals are not supportive of Israel or Jews. So the landscape is going to shift again probably–not too far away either. In any case, I’m under no illusion that they care about us. They don’t.

Some have argued that disproportionate criticism of Israel is justifiable, since the U.S. provides significant military and economic assistance. As far as economic and military ties go, do observers really think that there would be no protests against Israel if this had not been the case? In Europe where there is much less connection (and a lot more connection to Arab governments), there are massive protests against Israel and more attacks against Jews than in the USA. It’s clearly worse now there than in the USA for Jews. The diminished connections between European countries and Israel has not changed the protest landscape at all. There are no significant protests for any of the countries I mentioned.

Israel knows its days of U.S. support are coming to a close. It’s already established close relations with the Gulf countries (especially UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia). It has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. With Hezbollah weakened there are now talks with the Lebanese government–which is weak but wants a change from constant war status. It’s in a state of non-belligerence with Syria. It is developing close relations with India–and is probably cutting deals with China. It has relations with several countries in West Africa and improving relations with Morocco.

In fact, many in Israeli leadership would be happy not to have U.S. support at some point in the future. It would give them more freedom to operate independently. This might not be a good thing for Israel because the USA has had a positive influence overall. And it won’t probably be a good thing for the USA–since it provides jobs for Americans and since it gives the USA a lot of influence over an important area of the world. U.S. influence is already dissipating with the Iran war and with our current incompetent government, but the dissipation of influence will accelerate as U.S. aid diminishes to Israel. That is the reality of where we’re headed I think.

Jews in the diaspora are a whole different story. Many of our neighbors dislike us and conflate us with Israel. There’s also the 2,500 years of antisemitic history that we have to face daily. Israelis think all Jews should live in Israel and so they don’t really care that much about our lives here. We’re alone at this moment.

As I talk with my friends in the Jewish community, I hear lots of talk of moving outside the USA. We’re a nation of travelers, migrants, and nomads. That might happen again. But where? Is it really a good idea for all Jews to live in one place (Israel)? One or a few bombs can kill us all. I don’t think that Israelis have thought the diaspora issue through.

There’s a scene in Schindler’s List where a Russian soldier finds the Schindler Jews wandering around somewhere after Schindler had to flee. They’re trying to figure out where to go. He tells them that whichever way they travel, the people they meet will hate them (and probably murder them–which actually happened historically). So most of them ended up in the USA or Israel. It was a very claustrophobic situation, and it is now once again.

I still believe in the USA, even with MAGA, Trump, an authoritarian government, and the massively increasing antisemitism. It still can be a good place for Jews. I believe most Americans don’t like what they see with antisemitism on the far-right and the far-left. I believe that they’re overplaying their hands, but … I’m not sure about that. We just don’t know what’s going to happen on anything these days. I’m still an optimist at heart, but I’m a realistic optimist. Much as it pains me, I have to embrace uncertainty.

I’m betting that Jews in the USA will eventually get through this and that Israel will be ok.

Israel’s problem is no longer primarily strategic, but political. Except for Iran, Israel’s relations with its neighbors are much better than they’ve ever been. That said, Israel’s Public Relations are just dreadful across the globe. If the Israeli government can think of something to alienate people–even its supporters–then they almost always do it. It’s honestly breathtakingly dumb. How can really smart leaders do stuff so stupid?

Also Netanyahu has been pushing hard against democracy and freedom in his own country. Like Trump he’s trying to rig the courts and the political system so that he can stay in power and avoid prison time. This is is a serious problem, though it could prove (I hope) temporary. We’ll see. The next government after Netanyahu will be a big test.

In the USA, we’re experiencing a massive wave of antisemitism and Jew hatred, especially on the far left and far right. Jews in the U.S. have never experienced anything quite like it. Ultimately this has almost nothing to do with Israel, and everything to do with Jews. A lot of people despise and resent Jews in ways that they previously hid. How do we get past that? As someone who spent a large part of my life trying to address antisemitism, it’s disheartening to say the least. This is part of a populist surge, however, and those kind of waves usually wear themselves out over time and dissipate–as we just saw in Hungary.

“Populism” is almost never good for Jews. Historically, when the lid comes off and people start expressing (and acting on) how they really feel about one another, then the resentment and frustration almost always turns to attacking Jews–who are the world’s eternal scapegoat. It’s clockwork.

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

Mount Everest

Just click on the link: http://www.komando.com/coolsites/index.aspx?id=13780&utm_medium=nl&utm_source=notd&utm_content=2012-12-19-article_6-title

Political Turbulence and the Coming World Transformation

I just saw Rachel Maddow’s program this evening. Did you know the extent to which Democrats have been winning unexpectedly in heavenly Republican districts? Obviously there’s the stunning victory in New York 26, but there’s much more going on.  Democrats are winning everywhere: for Jacksonville mayor, for Tampa mayor, in New Hampshire for a state senate seat, and in Wisconsin for a state assembly seat.  In a 50-50 Maine state senate district, the Democrat won by over 40 percentage points. In Ohio a Republican state senator who voted for the union busting bill resigned after relentless criticism for that vote. In Alabama, a state senator flipped from Republican to Democrat. The Republican governor of Florida (Rick Scott) has a 29% approval rating, while Republican John Kasich in Ohio is cratering in the polls and Republican Scott Walker is doing poorly in Wisconsin. In Ohio a poll showed an 18% lead for the opponents of the union busting bill.

What’s going on? I don’t think I’ve ever seen this quick of a political turn-around? This is more dramatic than what happened after the government shut-down in 1994-95. Now you never know what will happen down the road, but what were the Republicans thinking? Their strategy makes no political sense. It’s as if the end of the world were coming, and the Republicans tried to grab as much stuff as they possibly could before all hell broke loose. Busting unions, destroying Medicare, eviscerating social programs, offering tax-give-aways to the super-rich and corporations, gutting the environment, criminalizing abortion, and much more does not seem to be working out so well for them politically.

Honestly, I can’t make sense of what they’re thinking politically. It’s totally illogical and just plain bizarre. They could have caused a lot of damage and still maintained some semblance of political viability, but they chose instead to take a wrecking ball. The only thing that I can postulate is that Republicans were not thinking politically, but were instead doing the bidding of a few very powerful super-rich people such as the Koch Brothers. In other words,, Republicans had marching orders and happily walked the plank. Somehow, I guess, they think that these guys will rescue them or do something.  I’m not sure, but that’s all I came come up with.

They are handing the 2012 general election on a silver platter to the Democrats. Why?????  Do you have any ideas out there? It makes no sense. I’m perplexed.

Now, that said, I am concerned for our country. Yes, I want far-right-wing crazies, nut-jobs, and loony-tunes to lose, but our country needs at least two viable competing parties. Without that either party will probably mess things up even more. I can’t imagine that Democrats will know what to do with the massive majorities they might win in next election if things go as they seem to be going. We need two real parties with serious ideas that must compete with the serious ideas of the other party. Right now the Republicans are nuts, like invading locusts destroying everything in their paths, while Democrats are gleefully watching the self-destruction, but they don’t have any real ideas. Now Obama, I believe, has a vision, but the Democrats as a whole are pretty much empty.  So where does that leave us as a country?

What I wish for are two parties: one which is expansive, trying to move the nation forward by advocating expenditures that will improve our quality of life and develop a new strategy to keep our economic global prominence; and another party that stands for fiscal responsibility that creatively figures our ways to save money, keep taxes reasonable, and act as good managers and stewards of our resources.

What’s happened? Where are these parties? I consider myself a progressive independent, a strong supporter of Obama, who has no alternative but to vote Democrat in light of the madness that currently passes for Republican policy.  But that’s not what I want. I want a Democrat party that stands for something meaningful and hopeful and a Republican party that recognizes itself as a solid citizen watching over expenditures carefully and supporting change while also understanding the value of tradition. Instead, the Democrats just kind of float along living in FDR’s shadow, while the Republicans have gone off the deep end. Where is the imagination and creativity? Where is honor and responsibility. It exists with a few individuals, but it’s absent from political groups as wholes.

This is a wild time. Maybe we have to go through it as a country, but we are sure facing tremendous uncertainty and volatility unlike anything I can remember and really know about historically, at least since the Civil War. This is, I think, part of the great shift happening at a global level. We are entering a new period of history and consciousness, watching the collapse of old systems (including political ones) while new ones emerge.  Perhaps we should not get caught up in the day-to-day, political and social earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, but look through and beyond that to the world that is coming–for us and the globe. Perhaps nation-states will disintegrate as new forms of governance emerge that act at both global and local levels. A lot of people focus on up-and-coming countries like China, but perhaps we need to look toward the new structures that are emerging that have nothing to do with nations or political parties, but with movements–such as environmental activism or freedom movements in the Middle East or micro-financing or the post-religious “spiritual but nor religious” phenomenon or whatever –that are creating systems that we can’t even really seen just yet.

I have for a long time sensed a global shift and world transformation bubbling up from the depths, but experiencing it is completely different from envisioning it.

Any thoughts out there in the blogosphere and web world?

U.S. Resists China Investment

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/business/global/04yuan.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25 (via Nelson French)

Art as Protest

Art is one of the most potent means of protesting authoritarianism and affirming freedom, but artists face threats in many nations, including China.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/opinion/20Rushdie.html

Tibetan Karmapa Cleared of Wrongdoing in India

A fascinating discussion of religion and politics that relates to Tibet, India, and China
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4259/possible_heir_to_dalai_lama_cleared_of_corruption_charges/

Protests Spreading Beyond Middle East–to China and Zimbabwe

Freedom is a global movement that has moved beyond the Middle East to China and Zimbabwe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/world/asia/21china.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/world/africa/22zimbabwe.html?hp

Theory and Practice: China Has an Economic Plan — The US Does Not

Robert Reich notes the fundamental difference between the economies of the US and China:  China has a plan, and we don’t.  This hands-off approach has characterized both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations.  In general, the US relies on faith in the free market place, while China assumes that the government must make careful plans to advance its interests.  Consequently, the Chinese invest heavily in green industries, even when there is no immediate profit and cost is high, because this technology is the future.  Whoever controls it will have an enormous advantage in global competition.  The US engages in talk, but not much action.

The US has an almost magical faith in the free market.  It’s almost as if the US believes that simply reciting an ideological creed will guarantee economic success.

The US still has one advantage:  the deep creativity and inventiveness that marks our culture.  Americans do not rely on the past and on tradition, but look for new and original ways of doing things.  This has always carried the US through before, and I hope it will continue to do so.  But can the US rely on this, while others make plans?

The whole issue relates to an even more fundamental matter.  Will human beings rely on ideology or on practical, integrative approaches to solve problems?  Ideology is  pure theory, ideas separate from concrete reality.  Communism, Marxism, radical free market capitalism, absolute pacifism, religious fundamentalism, and postmodern theory all fall into that category.  They are ideologies rather than evidence-based methods. Significantly ideologues exist on both the left and right. among both the secular and the religious.  Even when something contradicts the theory, followers of the theory simply ignore the data, because fundamentally day-to-day life is messy, confusing, ambiguous, contradictory, and therefore too difficult to interpret.

While the US has recently been primarily concerned with ideas about what should work, the Chinese and others are approaching matters pragmatically, testing for what actually does work.  The US would do well to return to its historical roots in pragmatism and develop more of a balance between theory and practice.

http://robertreich.org/post/2830348699

Revival of Taoism in China

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/magazine/07religion-t.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha29

A Tiny Apartment Transforms into 24 Rooms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg9qnWg9kak&feature=player_embedded

“In Hong Kong, because of the space, apartments are small and expensive. Gary Chang, an architect, decided to design a 344 sq. ft. apartment to be able to change into 24 different designs, all by just sliding panels and walls. …”

Africa as the New Asia

Africa is becoming the new China and India.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/18/how-africa-is-becoming-the-new-asia.html