Indeed, as the title suggests, there has developed a kind of irrational taboo, especially in the intellectual left-wing circles these interviewees represent, against defending Israel's foreign policy.
Posted by: Max | Nov 28, 2012 12:16:19 PM
"Another psychological phenomenon, well-documented in the Holocaust, is that of eventual acceptance by the vulnerable and persecuted of their dominant oppressors’ charges against them. After those in power – the authorities – and the majority of a society repeatedly tell you over an extended period of time that you are sub-human, swine-dogs, filth, and vermin…gradually you start to believe them. The unrelenting message of worthlessness penetrates the human psyche and cements despair within.
Psychiatrists would be quick to point out the fundamental frontier separating the neurotic from the psychotic. For some self-hating Jews, the understandable neurosis of being overwhelmed by the gentile majority merely results in placating and mollifying the non-Jewish masses; they withdraw and hide. However, other self-hating Jews are not content with such prostrations, instead giving over to vitriolic excoriations of Judaism, the Talmud, rabbis, and the universally-preferred punching bag, Israel. Israel-bashing is now the most accepted form of anti-Semitism in the world, less gauche than picking on individual Jews. Not to be outdone by mere outsiders, self-haters desirous of demonstrating the extent of their assimilation are in the front ranks of those pinning the yellow star on Israel’s breast (and thinking themselves liberal heroes for doing so).
Radical Leftists who have occupied university positions – Noam Chomsky and Norman Finklestein are exemplars – have used their professorships as platforms to launch blistering diatribes and spiteful rants against Israel, Zionism, World Jewry, etc. in the hope of the dominant gentile society elevating them to positions of high esteem. The fact that their personal success – their teaching roles, access to research grant funds, and ability to traditionally publish – degrades and alienates their own people is classified as a necessary casualty in the noble effort to assimilate and ascend within a popularly left-wing society.
Long after liberation from chains and emancipation from cloisters occur, the minds of those once oppressed struggle for freedom. Trauma lingers and spans generations, and pathologies can be inherited from parents and grandparents. Tragically, those unable to transcend their insecurities are awash in denial and self-hatred, and find themselves floundering among the few who range themselves against their own people." http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/08/26/understanding-the-unparalleled-phenomenon-of-jewish-self-hatred/
Excellent. The people who spoke on this film are quite courageous to do so, knowing that they will be attacked and called "self-hating Jews" by some, and others will claim they are mentally ill. Isn't it strange that a group of educated people who speak out against oppression and racism would be attacked, and those who support an oppressive racist and war-like regime would call themselves healthy.
It is undisputed that the Europeans who came to the middle east stole the land, destroyed the homes, ran off the Palestinians. It is undisputed that Israel has a specific program of stealing all the land and running off the rest of the Palestinians. These are not disputed facts. The zionists claim that they are justified in theft and murder, even the official program of starvation for Gaza, because god wants them to do so. Not my god.
I have found that any criticism of Israel is automatically met by vicious personal attacks. The only purpose served by those attacks is to silence other views and voices. There is no discussion, no debate, just attacks. The truth is, the U.S. needs to cut off all funding for Israel. If we did so, Israel would remarkably find a way to live in peace, and our politicians would remarkably find a way to live without the enormous bribes and kick-backs they receive from Israel. The citizens of both countries would be better off with less corruption and less war.
Posted by: NABNYC | Nov 28, 2012 6:30:06 PM
Having grown up in a country/environment with no jews around me, and very atheistic parents, I did not know that something called Judaism existed until I was 16.
So, I guess I'm being dense here, but I don't get how the title fits the speakers shown in this clip. They all seem to reject the state-sponsored Zionist activities in Gaza, etc. So far, most of the criticism I have encountered seems very clearly directed against Zionism and the government of Israel, not Jews/Judaism.
Two questions (sincere ones, as I am new to Middle East issues):
I recently watched this and found it very persuasive: http://youtu.be/ufLAitMq3zI
Can commenters more familiar with the history give me a sense of the positioning of this film in what I am learning is very complex terrain?
A new petition is circulating by Nobel prize winners protesting the supply of weaponry to the Israeli military by the US and EU. Thoughts about this gesture?
I would welcome recommendations for substantive, feature-length documentaries (preferably online) about the issue. thanks.
Posted by: middleeastnovice | Nov 28, 2012 8:03:45 PM
oops meant to post the link to the artcle about the petition; here it is:
Posted by: middleeastnovice | Nov 28, 2012 8:05:37 PM
Very powerful, Abbas.
Posted by: Khalid Mufti | Nov 28, 2012 9:02:17 PM
The opposite applies to the chattering classes here in the U.K (and, from what I gather from opinion polls, the rest of liberal Europe), where voicing and support for Israel and/or denouncing Hamas is viewed as tantamount to support for colonial and racist attitudes. The default position here among almost all societal groups is anti-Zionism.
Palestinian liberation has become equivalent to anti-racism, and people find it impossible to conceive of the two ideas separated.
The ignorance and errors defining "NABNYC"'s comment above is typical of the default anti-Israel media bias in the U.K.
Posted by: Oholibamah | Nov 29, 2012 4:15:30 AM
From the pain and frustration these people feel, it is clear that these people really love Israel in spite of her transgressions.
The Nobel Peace Laureate signatories of the petition for a military boycott of Israel includes Stéphane Hessel, a former French diplomat and Holocaust survivor who was co-author of the universal declaration of human rights. Sounds like he's a real self-hating radical leftist, poor deluded fellow.
Posted by: yakinsea | Nov 29, 2012 4:36:02 AM
I agree, Oholibamah. This documentary seems like an exercise in self-congratulating intellectuals taking a position that, far from a difficult one, is the easiest, almost mandatory position for them to take in their fields. This documentary would make more sense if their theme was interviewing public intellectuals that go against the grain, despite all the odds, to support israel.
kind of topsy turvy, but that's what one comes to expect from that side I suppose.
Posted by: Max | Nov 29, 2012 9:32:48 AM
Lie low and wag your little jew-tails. Maybe they'll be nice to you.
Posted by: aguy109 | Nov 29, 2012 11:17:38 AM
The proverbial Three Wise Monkeys ("see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil") exist on both sides of the divide.
Those taking a position against the occupation and repressive measures by the Israeli Government should not be considered "anti-Zionist": few of them are. Unfortunately, clamor of the hardcore fanatics buries arguments for any fair solution.
Posted by: waqnis | Nov 29, 2012 11:19:17 AM
@middleeastnovice
I'll try to answer, even that the continuous attacks on my country, Israel, that are here in those comments and postings make me very sad, as dialogue is not possible; probably it is not possible also with the Palestinians and maybe we are nearer now to a war than peace accords...
1/The movie clip " Some of my best ..." with the Jews that are speaking against Israel. Their opinion is worth the opinions of people of the street or 3Q...not a lot. They were Jews speaking against Israel and this was the cause why they were published and acclaimed: "even Jews are speaking against Israel"...
Now you are saying they didn't hate Jews and Judaism, but they hate Israel and Zionism. A very simple arithmetics: there are about 12-13 millions Jews in the world; from them 6 millions( Hitler's number) are living in Israel ; close to 1 million Israelis are living and working abroad, having contact with Israel; another 20% of the Jews are our relatives ...So 50% of the Jews are Israeli and another 20% are their relatives and at least another 20% are Zionist...So if if someone is saying that he is hating Israel but not the Jews he is hating only 50-70% of them.If hating the majority of your nation is not self-hate? antisemitism? Or not?... It will be funny if this was not so sad.
2/ the clip that you posted: pure propaganda, coming from the old (but good) school of Nazi and Soviet propaganda of information and disinformation
I may give you many other propaganda films that said the contrary and explain the Zionism as this: http://www.zionismontheweb.org/
However is better to read the history (the dry account) to form a true opinion of a conflict when a people after 2000 years of massacres, pogroms and holocaust returned to the only land that may have and entered in a conflict with those that were here and not accepted their alien presence in a Muslim world. I would start reading here in a site created by people (as myself) that hoped in a peace with the Palestinians:
ww.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm
Speaking out against Israeli oppression of Palestinians and the theft of their land outside of Israel's border is not "hating" either Israel or Jews. Where does this notion come from? It's especially onerous to label Jews who take a humanitarian view here as self-haters!
I have a problem when a people hold up values with a sense that this is a part of collective ethics that sets them above reproach, then refuse these same values to others. An example would be here in the USA where we have a right against indefinite detention, yet we do this to "illegal combatants" or "illegal aliens". This is a basic human right for all, not just for our citizens. Israel does this exact thing, too.
We are much alike. Pointing out these injustices in forums here would reliably result in being asked - "Why do you hate your country". We don't; we love our country and want it on a high path so that we could feel even better.
A country with probably the third strongest military in the world is systematically abusing powerless neighbors while crying out how badly it is picked on by world opinion. The world is tired of these drama queen games and wants fairness on the ground! Viewing these frustrated voices for justice as hatred is a misread. The frustration is high.
Posted by: yakinsea | Nov 29, 2012 5:22:13 PM
Thank you yakinsea. Your response here is the only one that has made any sense at all.
Everything else seems written in code.
Posted by: middleeastnovice | Nov 29, 2012 11:22:17 PM
Novice....First learn about the conflict- then judge.
The original post the clip " Some of my best..." host people- this time Jews - that deny ZIONISM ; my right to be on my ancestral land and denying my physical existence. They hate the Jewish state conquered and guarded by sword against all odds, a 64 years old reality that they deny. They are aligning with the terrorists of Hamas that wants an ethnic cleansing of Jews from ALL the country that is now Israel.It is not about borders or peace, but about life of myself, my children and my nation. If something is hate - this is hate.
Posted by: mirel | Nov 30, 2012 3:14:38 AM
People like Mirel must be so sad today. The UN General Assembly recognized the Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders. So now the entire West Bank is OCCUPIED! All the Jewish Settlers need to leave and go back to wherever they came from. East Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine and not part of Israel.
If the Palestinians truly denied Israel's existence, they would have said (rightfully) that they want their entire country back. But no-- they're willing to settle for only 10% of their land. It's NOT Jewish Land, no matter what God told you. God is not a real estate agent. It is Palestinian Arab Land and Israel should NOT be in the heart of the Arab world. But it is-- and the Palestinians have recognized reality and are only saying please stop stealing more and more of our land (what is left of it!).
If anything is "hate" it is Zionism. Which is a racist ideology that justifies land theft and the oppression of the native people. White European Jews do not and have never belonged in the Arab world. Sorry, too bad. Israel is a colonial settler state and anyone who is against colonialism must be against Israel.
"White European Jews do not and have never belonged in the Arab world. Sorry, too bad. Israel is a colonial settler state and anyone who is against colonialism must be against Israel."
Whilst many think Israel must make all the concessions, comments like this display the diminishing ambiguity of the situation for some and show the hard-wired mind set of the ummah for all to see. It's simply education, kindergarten to university.
Kabir, you must recognise the historical, cultural and linguistic ties of Jews to this parcel of land. They have a historically documented tie to the land that is robust. Furthermore, the Palestinians have a less robustly recorded tie to the land and the term 'Palestinian' was only first used in 1967, before this time they were known as Arabs. Why Jordan and Egypt decided to treat them in the way they did between 48 & 67 only you can answer. I have third generation Lebanese friends in Sydney, after what period of time do their legitimate ties to their homeland run out? Are they now 'Western' Lebanese with no claim to Lebanon?
Posted by: Troy | Nov 30, 2012 6:20:03 AM
Kabir
I have just put the call out for all the "White European" Lebenese in Sydney.... Do not come home for the holidays because "White European [Australian] Jews [Lebenese] do not and have never belonged in the Arab world.
Where's the cut-off line Kabir? When does their identity (white jews) change enough due to their surroundings and disqualify them from a legitimate claim to the land?
White Jews belongs in the Protocols of Zion Kabir.
Posted by: Troy | Nov 30, 2012 6:34:10 AM
Troy,
I don't care about the Jews' claim to the land! They can have Jerusalem as their spiritual home or whatever, but being there 2000 years ago does not justify coming back and taking over. They left or were driven out and in the ensuing 2000 years a different population settled that land--Arabs. You cannot just start coming back in the mid or late 19th century and then displace the native population. The Zionists were Europeans. They were colonial settlers. The Arabs are the natives of that land.
The Jews could have lived in Palestine without taking it over, but NO, they had to make a "Jewish State". On what grounds?
Anyway, Israel exists now. It is a fact and it cannot be undone. But there's no reason to keep Occupying what is left of Palestine and stealing more and more of their land through "settlements".
What you say is true. It has been largely Arab land for the last 2000 years. But if anything history is the story of the mass demographic shifts that war and oppression and conflict bring about. The Jews that immigrated to Palestine in the 19th and 20th century were themselves refugees from their lands and property (pogroms all over europe, esp in russia; the holocaust; refugees from Arab lands; etc.). Just as the religious zionists cannot freeze history in time and justify their claim to israel based on Torah references and ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judea, neither can Arabs freeze history in time and ignore the changes that mass demographic shifts and unprecedented political turmoil that occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries brought about. Was UN partition resolution 181 perfectly equitable if you just look at population? Of course not. But nations do not come into existence anointed on the pedestal of justice. They are invariably forged in the crucible of diplomatic and armed conflict. That is the way all nations are forged. To question the legitimacy of Israel's creation and existence b/c it was not the product of immaculate conception is to call into question the very principle of the nation-state.
Posted by: Max | Nov 30, 2012 10:27:08 AM
As a member of the Shitlist - that's the list that the Zionists have compiled to show all the self-hating Jews they have identified (including the Chief Rabbi of the UK's United Synagogue, very Orthodox) - I can say I'm actually rather fond of myself. Israel and its apologists are fairly good with the propaganda. Just take no notice.
As a factual point, I have a very large copy of Moshe Dayan's map of the area under dispute. Shows his signature on it. It's clearly labelled Palestine. 1948. Post the creation of Israel all the Arab names of areas were changed to Hebrew ones. Dayan said that it was no good looking for the original names, they'd been obliterated.
I wonder if people of Native Indian ancestry in South America should be allowed freely to return to North Americas? Wouldn't this be more justified than European settlements in Palestine, more recent i.e.500 vs 3000 years of history, greater victims of genocide i.e. 30m vs 6m.
Posted by: Raza Husain | Nov 30, 2012 12:26:27 PM
Max,
I'm not denying the principle of the nation-state. BUT it is interesting that at the time that the rest of the world was being rapidly de-colonized, a white European colony was created in the Middle East. White Europeans moved to Palestine and took over. I get that they were refugees from Europe, but what justification did they have to TAKE OVER Palestine? Why couldn't Jews have lived there and not attempted to take control? Why not live in a secular state with the Arabs? Why make a "Jewish State" and start trying to get rid of the natives? THAT is the sin of Israel's creation. It was and continues to be a colonial enterprise bent on dispossessing the natives.
You are right that most jewish immigrants to Palestine were white, that they were European, but you are wrong in saying that it was a colonial enterprise. Indeed, it is quite the opposite: it is a small, oppressed minority that has fought the oppressive powers of the area (British, Hashemite Jordan, Syrians pushing for "Greater Syria", etc.) that sought to deny its independence as a state.
You also ask why Jews couldn't live in a secular state alongside their Arab brothers and sisters. This is a legitimate question, but also a very thorny one too. For one, from my understanding of the history, the Arabs of the area already felt threatened by the waves of Jewish refugees arriving on their lands (perhaps rightly so, too), and there was, as is not uncommon in such situations of diversity, tensions building up and sometimes flaring. And already after WWI the Arabs of the region were agitating Britain to restrict Jewish immigration into the area (which the British did). So I think from a practical p.o.v. co-existence under a secular state would've been short-lived. In addition, following the holocaust, I think you can sympathize with the zionist movement in their desire to finally secure a homeland for this historically oppressed minority. So, I think that answers your question of "why" make a jewish state. And it can hardly be described as sinful.
Every nation has come into being through a series of injustices. And, as I said above, and still maintain, "Nations are invariably forged in the crucible of diplomatic and armed conflict. That is the way all nations are forged. To question the legitimacy of Israel's creation and existence b/c it was not the product of immaculate conception is to call into question the very principle of the nation-state."
Raza,
No one is allowed "freely to return" anywhere, and neither were the Jews: they had to fight, diplomatically and, regrettably, in armed conflict, to win their rights, which is how virtually every nation wins its independence since the beginning of time. But if what you are asking is if I think the native americans have a moral claim to some land or reparations, then yes, of course, I would never deny that. The difference is that while the natives have, after the European conquests and genocides, slowly integrated into the new society, the Jews, throughout their history, have been the subject of pogroms and persecution no matter how much they integrate (the german jews of the 1930s were as much culturally german as any blue-eyed aryan - indeed, more culturally german than the likes of hitler). So it makes sense that the Jews would agitate for a safe haven homeland, after millenia of oppression. But, by this logic of course, if the native populations of S. America, as in your example, continued to be the victims for hundreds of years of oppression, massacres, pogroms, and scapegoating, and genocide, with no end in site, and there was a movement among such persecuted natives to establish a safe haven homeland, then I would be rallying for the creation of such an independent state to be carved out of the land they feel the have the greatest ties to. And if that land happened to be where I live, and they demanded it, and I felt they didn;t have a good claim to my land, then I would oppose them and fight them, and if they won, I would move somewhere else and restart my life. I wouldn't give myself permanent refugee status and cry over the tomatoes I used to plant in my backyard. And I wouldn't launch rockets into their land to kill the great great grandchildren of the people I think unjustly took my land. The only counter-point I can see you raising to all this is to say that the Palestinians do not have anywhere else to go. And that is a fair point that deserves discussion b/c far too little responsibility for the refugee catastrophe has been leveled at the other state actors of the region like Jordan and Egypt. If I were Hamas I would turn those rocket launchers 180 degrees. Any other questions?
Posted by: Max | Nov 30, 2012 2:14:52 PM
Thank you Devra! We were waiting for you.
Posted by: yakinsea | Nov 30, 2012 4:00:40 PM
Max,
Even IF one concedes your argument that Israel wasn't INITIALLY a colonial enterprise, it certainly is now. Settler only roads (Jew-only roads) stealing Arab land, and Arab water.
Palestine BELONGS TO the Palestinians! The Jews are interlopers there and they should NOT be there. That is the plain and simple truth.
If I were Palestinian, I'd want to clear each and every Jew off of historic Palestine, if I had that kind of power. However, the Palestinian authority has realized that they can only realistically ask for 10% of their land! And they're not even going to get that because the bloody Zionists have no intention of parting with an inch of it!
Some observations:
@ Max: excelent comments, but the Arabs (Caliphate)ruled Palestine only 450 years and not 2000 years
The Greeks ruled 300 years
The Roman Empire and later the Byzantine (The East Roman Empire) ruled nearly 700 years.
Crusaders ruled 150 years.
Mamluks and Ottomans Turks ruled 700 years.
If the right on this land is given by number of years then the Europeans (Hellenic, Roman,Byzantine, Crusaders) have the longest number in the last 2000 years: 1150 years. My arithmetic is wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_periods_in_the_Palestine_region
In all those 2000 years Jews were present in Palestine: working, building, praying and studying. http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/presence.html
@ Kabir Special roads were built for the army and settlers and Israeli citizens (Israeli Jews and Arabs) due to suicide bombers and security problems; those very costly roads were built in ADDITION to existing roads that Palestinian are using. Of course that it will idiotic to let them use those roads without a special ID card. However there are a lot of Palestinians using those roads when they are going to work in building new houses in the Jewish settlements...yes...most of the contractors in buildings are Arabs. The constructions in the settlements are due to the natural growth of the settlement; the settlers,mostly religious, same as the Arabs have no birth control and family planning.
Posted by: mirel | Dec 1, 2012 9:26:07 AM
Kabir,
At this point you are just repeating yourself. It is not an effective strategy. I presented why I think the simple claims of "Palestine belongs to the Palestinians" and "jews should not be there" are historically naive positions, and instead of countering my argument you just repeat yourself. Sorry, you are getting no traction in explaining your reasoning.
Mirel, thanks for the historical correction. I was so eager to concede the point of Arab historical control of the area b/c I don't believe that that should even be a critical fact to the argument. But I guess that, too, lends support to our position.
Posted by: Max | Dec 1, 2012 10:22:00 AM
People in their arguments succeed to forgot that it was always a Jewish presence of farmers, merchants , workers, students, teachers and priests on those lands for 2000 years; some are trying to forget that the conflict did not started in 1948 but before -in 1921, Haj Amin el-Husseini began to organize larger scale fedayeen to terrorize Jews. Or the Hebron massacre (the killing of sixty-seven Jews on 24 August 1929 in Hebron).
If we are speaking THE TRUTH about the Palestinians before 1948, I may quote:
"The major conclusion is "The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times" Anyone who pretends otherwise is deliberately misleading you. We can reach some general conclusions - Palestine was not empty when Zionists started arriving, there was some Arab immigration as well etc. But we cannot give a precise number in any case, and even if we could, it would not constitute evidence to back any moral claims."
"Major Conclusions
1. The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times
2. Palestine was not an empty land when Zionist immigration began.
3. Zionist settlement between 1880 and 1948 did not displace or dispossess Palestinians.
4. Historic population data in Palestine during Ottoman times and during Mandatory times show significant discrepancies.
5. It is not possible to estimate illegal Arab immigration directly, but apparently there was some immigration.... It is probable that there were about 100,000 Arab immigrants into Palestine. An unknown number may also have migrated internally, from the Arab areas in the West Bank that were formerly the centers of commercial activity and population to the coastal plain and Galilee. The Arab population increase of areas with large Jewish settlement was about 10% greater than that in areas without Jewish settlement.
5. There are large discrepancies between official population figures and the number of Palestinian refugees
6. There are serious discrepancies in reporting of the number of refugees. In 1949, UNRWA reported 726,000 refugees. By 1950 they reported 914,000 according to one source (McCarthy), an increase of 26% that could not come either from births or further displacement of refugees, which were negligible.
7. The city of Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since about 1896 - The city of Jerusalem itself there was a Jewish majority since about 1896, but probably not before.
"I couldn't tear myself
away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on
this superb site."—Steven
Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.
"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard
Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.
"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.
Comments
Indeed, as the title suggests, there has developed a kind of irrational taboo, especially in the intellectual left-wing circles these interviewees represent, against defending Israel's foreign policy.
Posted by: Max | Nov 28, 2012 12:16:19 PM
"Another psychological phenomenon, well-documented in the Holocaust, is that of eventual acceptance by the vulnerable and persecuted of their dominant oppressors’ charges against them. After those in power – the authorities – and the majority of a society repeatedly tell you over an extended period of time that you are sub-human, swine-dogs, filth, and vermin…gradually you start to believe them. The unrelenting message of worthlessness penetrates the human psyche and cements despair within.
Psychiatrists would be quick to point out the fundamental frontier separating the neurotic from the psychotic. For some self-hating Jews, the understandable neurosis of being overwhelmed by the gentile majority merely results in placating and mollifying the non-Jewish masses; they withdraw and hide. However, other self-hating Jews are not content with such prostrations, instead giving over to vitriolic excoriations of Judaism, the Talmud, rabbis, and the universally-preferred punching bag, Israel. Israel-bashing is now the most accepted form of anti-Semitism in the world, less gauche than picking on individual Jews. Not to be outdone by mere outsiders, self-haters desirous of demonstrating the extent of their assimilation are in the front ranks of those pinning the yellow star on Israel’s breast (and thinking themselves liberal heroes for doing so).
Radical Leftists who have occupied university positions – Noam Chomsky and Norman Finklestein are exemplars – have used their professorships as platforms to launch blistering diatribes and spiteful rants against Israel, Zionism, World Jewry, etc. in the hope of the dominant gentile society elevating them to positions of high esteem. The fact that their personal success – their teaching roles, access to research grant funds, and ability to traditionally publish – degrades and alienates their own people is classified as a necessary casualty in the noble effort to assimilate and ascend within a popularly left-wing society.
Long after liberation from chains and emancipation from cloisters occur, the minds of those once oppressed struggle for freedom. Trauma lingers and spans generations, and pathologies can be inherited from parents and grandparents. Tragically, those unable to transcend their insecurities are awash in denial and self-hatred, and find themselves floundering among the few who range themselves against their own people."
http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/08/26/understanding-the-unparalleled-phenomenon-of-jewish-self-hatred/
Posted by: mirel | Nov 28, 2012 1:08:59 PM
Excellent. The people who spoke on this film are quite courageous to do so, knowing that they will be attacked and called "self-hating Jews" by some, and others will claim they are mentally ill. Isn't it strange that a group of educated people who speak out against oppression and racism would be attacked, and those who support an oppressive racist and war-like regime would call themselves healthy.
It is undisputed that the Europeans who came to the middle east stole the land, destroyed the homes, ran off the Palestinians. It is undisputed that Israel has a specific program of stealing all the land and running off the rest of the Palestinians. These are not disputed facts. The zionists claim that they are justified in theft and murder, even the official program of starvation for Gaza, because god wants them to do so. Not my god.
I have found that any criticism of Israel is automatically met by vicious personal attacks. The only purpose served by those attacks is to silence other views and voices. There is no discussion, no debate, just attacks. The truth is, the U.S. needs to cut off all funding for Israel. If we did so, Israel would remarkably find a way to live in peace, and our politicians would remarkably find a way to live without the enormous bribes and kick-backs they receive from Israel. The citizens of both countries would be better off with less corruption and less war.
Posted by: NABNYC | Nov 28, 2012 6:30:06 PM
Having grown up in a country/environment with no jews around me, and very atheistic parents, I did not know that something called Judaism existed until I was 16.
So, I guess I'm being dense here, but I don't get how the title fits the speakers shown in this clip. They all seem to reject the state-sponsored Zionist activities in Gaza, etc. So far, most of the criticism I have encountered seems very clearly directed against Zionism and the government of Israel, not Jews/Judaism.
Two questions (sincere ones, as I am new to Middle East issues):
I recently watched this and found it very persuasive: http://youtu.be/ufLAitMq3zI
Can commenters more familiar with the history give me a sense of the positioning of this film in what I am learning is very complex terrain?
A new petition is circulating by Nobel prize winners protesting the supply of weaponry to the Israeli military by the US and EU. Thoughts about this gesture?
I would welcome recommendations for substantive, feature-length documentaries (preferably online) about the issue. thanks.
Posted by: middleeastnovice | Nov 28, 2012 8:03:45 PM
oops meant to post the link to the artcle about the petition; here it is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/28/nobel-laureates-call-israel-boycott
Posted by: middleeastnovice | Nov 28, 2012 8:05:37 PM
Very powerful, Abbas.
Posted by: Khalid Mufti | Nov 28, 2012 9:02:17 PM
The opposite applies to the chattering classes here in the U.K (and, from what I gather from opinion polls, the rest of liberal Europe), where voicing and support for Israel and/or denouncing Hamas is viewed as tantamount to support for colonial and racist attitudes. The default position here among almost all societal groups is anti-Zionism.
Palestinian liberation has become equivalent to anti-racism, and people find it impossible to conceive of the two ideas separated.
The ignorance and errors defining "NABNYC"'s comment above is typical of the default anti-Israel media bias in the U.K.
Posted by: Oholibamah | Nov 29, 2012 4:15:30 AM
From the pain and frustration these people feel, it is clear that these people really love Israel in spite of her transgressions.
The Nobel Peace Laureate signatories of the petition for a military boycott of Israel includes Stéphane Hessel, a former French diplomat and Holocaust survivor who was co-author of the universal declaration of human rights. Sounds like he's a real self-hating radical leftist, poor deluded fellow.
Posted by: yakinsea | Nov 29, 2012 4:36:02 AM
I agree, Oholibamah. This documentary seems like an exercise in self-congratulating intellectuals taking a position that, far from a difficult one, is the easiest, almost mandatory position for them to take in their fields. This documentary would make more sense if their theme was interviewing public intellectuals that go against the grain, despite all the odds, to support israel.
kind of topsy turvy, but that's what one comes to expect from that side I suppose.
Posted by: Max | Nov 29, 2012 9:32:48 AM
Lie low and wag your little jew-tails. Maybe they'll be nice to you.
Posted by: aguy109 | Nov 29, 2012 11:17:38 AM
The proverbial Three Wise Monkeys ("see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil") exist on both sides of the divide.
Those taking a position against the occupation and repressive measures by the Israeli Government should not be considered "anti-Zionist": few of them are. Unfortunately, clamor of the hardcore fanatics buries arguments for any fair solution.
Posted by: waqnis | Nov 29, 2012 11:19:17 AM
@middleeastnovice
I'll try to answer, even that the continuous attacks on my country, Israel, that are here in those comments and postings make me very sad, as dialogue is not possible; probably it is not possible also with the Palestinians and maybe we are nearer now to a war than peace accords...
1/The movie clip " Some of my best ..." with the Jews that are speaking against Israel. Their opinion is worth the opinions of people of the street or 3Q...not a lot. They were Jews speaking against Israel and this was the cause why they were published and acclaimed: "even Jews are speaking against Israel"...
Now you are saying they didn't hate Jews and Judaism, but they hate Israel and Zionism. A very simple arithmetics: there are about 12-13 millions Jews in the world; from them 6 millions( Hitler's number) are living in Israel ; close to 1 million Israelis are living and working abroad, having contact with Israel; another 20% of the Jews are our relatives ...So 50% of the Jews are Israeli and another 20% are their relatives and at least another 20% are Zionist...So if if someone is saying that he is hating Israel but not the Jews he is hating only 50-70% of them.If hating the majority of your nation is not self-hate? antisemitism? Or not?... It will be funny if this was not so sad.
2/ the clip that you posted: pure propaganda, coming from the old (but good) school of Nazi and Soviet propaganda of information and disinformation
I may give you many other propaganda films that said the contrary and explain the Zionism as this:
http://www.zionismontheweb.org/
However is better to read the history (the dry account) to form a true opinion of a conflict when a people after 2000 years of massacres, pogroms and holocaust returned to the only land that may have and entered in a conflict with those that were here and not accepted their alien presence in a Muslim world. I would start reading here in a site created by people (as myself) that hoped in a peace with the Palestinians:
ww.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm
Posted by: mirel | Nov 29, 2012 12:35:49 PM
http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm
Posted by: mirel | Nov 29, 2012 12:45:47 PM
Speaking out against Israeli oppression of Palestinians and the theft of their land outside of Israel's border is not "hating" either Israel or Jews. Where does this notion come from? It's especially onerous to label Jews who take a humanitarian view here as self-haters!
I have a problem when a people hold up values with a sense that this is a part of collective ethics that sets them above reproach, then refuse these same values to others. An example would be here in the USA where we have a right against indefinite detention, yet we do this to "illegal combatants" or "illegal aliens". This is a basic human right for all, not just for our citizens. Israel does this exact thing, too.
We are much alike. Pointing out these injustices in forums here would reliably result in being asked - "Why do you hate your country". We don't; we love our country and want it on a high path so that we could feel even better.
A country with probably the third strongest military in the world is systematically abusing powerless neighbors while crying out how badly it is picked on by world opinion. The world is tired of these drama queen games and wants fairness on the ground! Viewing these frustrated voices for justice as hatred is a misread. The frustration is high.
Posted by: yakinsea | Nov 29, 2012 5:22:13 PM
Thank you yakinsea. Your response here is the only one that has made any sense at all.
Everything else seems written in code.
Posted by: middleeastnovice | Nov 29, 2012 11:22:17 PM
Novice....First learn about the conflict- then judge.
The original post the clip " Some of my best..." host people- this time Jews - that deny ZIONISM ; my right to be on my ancestral land and denying my physical existence. They hate the Jewish state conquered and guarded by sword against all odds, a 64 years old reality that they deny. They are aligning with the terrorists of Hamas that wants an ethnic cleansing of Jews from ALL the country that is now Israel.It is not about borders or peace, but about life of myself, my children and my nation. If something is hate - this is hate.
Posted by: mirel | Nov 30, 2012 3:14:38 AM
People like Mirel must be so sad today. The UN General Assembly recognized the Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders. So now the entire West Bank is OCCUPIED! All the Jewish Settlers need to leave and go back to wherever they came from. East Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine and not part of Israel.
If the Palestinians truly denied Israel's existence, they would have said (rightfully) that they want their entire country back. But no-- they're willing to settle for only 10% of their land. It's NOT Jewish Land, no matter what God told you. God is not a real estate agent. It is Palestinian Arab Land and Israel should NOT be in the heart of the Arab world. But it is-- and the Palestinians have recognized reality and are only saying please stop stealing more and more of our land (what is left of it!).
If anything is "hate" it is Zionism. Which is a racist ideology that justifies land theft and the oppression of the native people. White European Jews do not and have never belonged in the Arab world. Sorry, too bad. Israel is a colonial settler state and anyone who is against colonialism must be against Israel.
Posted by: Kabir | Nov 30, 2012 4:30:27 AM
"White European Jews do not and have never belonged in the Arab world. Sorry, too bad. Israel is a colonial settler state and anyone who is against colonialism must be against Israel."
Whilst many think Israel must make all the concessions, comments like this display the diminishing ambiguity of the situation for some and show the hard-wired mind set of the ummah for all to see. It's simply education, kindergarten to university.
Kabir, you must recognise the historical, cultural and linguistic ties of Jews to this parcel of land. They have a historically documented tie to the land that is robust. Furthermore, the Palestinians have a less robustly recorded tie to the land and the term 'Palestinian' was only first used in 1967, before this time they were known as Arabs. Why Jordan and Egypt decided to treat them in the way they did between 48 & 67 only you can answer. I have third generation Lebanese friends in Sydney, after what period of time do their legitimate ties to their homeland run out? Are they now 'Western' Lebanese with no claim to Lebanon?
Posted by: Troy | Nov 30, 2012 6:20:03 AM
Kabir
I have just put the call out for all the "White European" Lebenese in Sydney.... Do not come home for the holidays because "White European [Australian] Jews [Lebenese] do not and have never belonged in the Arab world.
Where's the cut-off line Kabir? When does their identity (white jews) change enough due to their surroundings and disqualify them from a legitimate claim to the land?
White Jews belongs in the Protocols of Zion Kabir.
Posted by: Troy | Nov 30, 2012 6:34:10 AM
Troy,
I don't care about the Jews' claim to the land! They can have Jerusalem as their spiritual home or whatever, but being there 2000 years ago does not justify coming back and taking over. They left or were driven out and in the ensuing 2000 years a different population settled that land--Arabs. You cannot just start coming back in the mid or late 19th century and then displace the native population. The Zionists were Europeans. They were colonial settlers. The Arabs are the natives of that land.
The Jews could have lived in Palestine without taking it over, but NO, they had to make a "Jewish State". On what grounds?
Anyway, Israel exists now. It is a fact and it cannot be undone. But there's no reason to keep Occupying what is left of Palestine and stealing more and more of their land through "settlements".
Posted by: Kabir | Nov 30, 2012 8:57:09 AM
Kabir,
What you say is true. It has been largely Arab land for the last 2000 years. But if anything history is the story of the mass demographic shifts that war and oppression and conflict bring about. The Jews that immigrated to Palestine in the 19th and 20th century were themselves refugees from their lands and property (pogroms all over europe, esp in russia; the holocaust; refugees from Arab lands; etc.). Just as the religious zionists cannot freeze history in time and justify their claim to israel based on Torah references and ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judea, neither can Arabs freeze history in time and ignore the changes that mass demographic shifts and unprecedented political turmoil that occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries brought about. Was UN partition resolution 181 perfectly equitable if you just look at population? Of course not. But nations do not come into existence anointed on the pedestal of justice. They are invariably forged in the crucible of diplomatic and armed conflict. That is the way all nations are forged. To question the legitimacy of Israel's creation and existence b/c it was not the product of immaculate conception is to call into question the very principle of the nation-state.
Posted by: Max | Nov 30, 2012 10:27:08 AM
As a member of the Shitlist - that's the list that the Zionists have compiled to show all the self-hating Jews they have identified (including the Chief Rabbi of the UK's United Synagogue, very Orthodox) - I can say I'm actually rather fond of myself. Israel and its apologists are fairly good with the propaganda. Just take no notice.
As a factual point, I have a very large copy of Moshe Dayan's map of the area under dispute. Shows his signature on it. It's clearly labelled Palestine. 1948. Post the creation of Israel all the Arab names of areas were changed to Hebrew ones. Dayan said that it was no good looking for the original names, they'd been obliterated.
Posted by: Devra | Nov 30, 2012 11:50:50 AM
I wonder if people of Native Indian ancestry in South America should be allowed freely to return to North Americas? Wouldn't this be more justified than European settlements in Palestine, more recent i.e.500 vs 3000 years of history, greater victims of genocide i.e. 30m vs 6m.
Posted by: Raza Husain | Nov 30, 2012 12:26:27 PM
Max,
I'm not denying the principle of the nation-state. BUT it is interesting that at the time that the rest of the world was being rapidly de-colonized, a white European colony was created in the Middle East. White Europeans moved to Palestine and took over. I get that they were refugees from Europe, but what justification did they have to TAKE OVER Palestine? Why couldn't Jews have lived there and not attempted to take control? Why not live in a secular state with the Arabs? Why make a "Jewish State" and start trying to get rid of the natives? THAT is the sin of Israel's creation. It was and continues to be a colonial enterprise bent on dispossessing the natives.
Posted by: Kabir | Nov 30, 2012 12:34:54 PM
Kabir,
You are right that most jewish immigrants to Palestine were white, that they were European, but you are wrong in saying that it was a colonial enterprise. Indeed, it is quite the opposite: it is a small, oppressed minority that has fought the oppressive powers of the area (British, Hashemite Jordan, Syrians pushing for "Greater Syria", etc.) that sought to deny its independence as a state.
You also ask why Jews couldn't live in a secular state alongside their Arab brothers and sisters. This is a legitimate question, but also a very thorny one too. For one, from my understanding of the history, the Arabs of the area already felt threatened by the waves of Jewish refugees arriving on their lands (perhaps rightly so, too), and there was, as is not uncommon in such situations of diversity, tensions building up and sometimes flaring. And already after WWI the Arabs of the region were agitating Britain to restrict Jewish immigration into the area (which the British did). So I think from a practical p.o.v. co-existence under a secular state would've been short-lived. In addition, following the holocaust, I think you can sympathize with the zionist movement in their desire to finally secure a homeland for this historically oppressed minority. So, I think that answers your question of "why" make a jewish state. And it can hardly be described as sinful.
Every nation has come into being through a series of injustices. And, as I said above, and still maintain, "Nations are invariably forged in the crucible of diplomatic and armed conflict. That is the way all nations are forged. To question the legitimacy of Israel's creation and existence b/c it was not the product of immaculate conception is to call into question the very principle of the nation-state."
Raza,
No one is allowed "freely to return" anywhere, and neither were the Jews: they had to fight, diplomatically and, regrettably, in armed conflict, to win their rights, which is how virtually every nation wins its independence since the beginning of time. But if what you are asking is if I think the native americans have a moral claim to some land or reparations, then yes, of course, I would never deny that. The difference is that while the natives have, after the European conquests and genocides, slowly integrated into the new society, the Jews, throughout their history, have been the subject of pogroms and persecution no matter how much they integrate (the german jews of the 1930s were as much culturally german as any blue-eyed aryan - indeed, more culturally german than the likes of hitler). So it makes sense that the Jews would agitate for a safe haven homeland, after millenia of oppression. But, by this logic of course, if the native populations of S. America, as in your example, continued to be the victims for hundreds of years of oppression, massacres, pogroms, and scapegoating, and genocide, with no end in site, and there was a movement among such persecuted natives to establish a safe haven homeland, then I would be rallying for the creation of such an independent state to be carved out of the land they feel the have the greatest ties to. And if that land happened to be where I live, and they demanded it, and I felt they didn;t have a good claim to my land, then I would oppose them and fight them, and if they won, I would move somewhere else and restart my life. I wouldn't give myself permanent refugee status and cry over the tomatoes I used to plant in my backyard. And I wouldn't launch rockets into their land to kill the great great grandchildren of the people I think unjustly took my land. The only counter-point I can see you raising to all this is to say that the Palestinians do not have anywhere else to go. And that is a fair point that deserves discussion b/c far too little responsibility for the refugee catastrophe has been leveled at the other state actors of the region like Jordan and Egypt. If I were Hamas I would turn those rocket launchers 180 degrees. Any other questions?
Posted by: Max | Nov 30, 2012 2:14:52 PM
Thank you Devra! We were waiting for you.
Posted by: yakinsea | Nov 30, 2012 4:00:40 PM
Max,
Even IF one concedes your argument that Israel wasn't INITIALLY a colonial enterprise, it certainly is now. Settler only roads (Jew-only roads) stealing Arab land, and Arab water.
Palestine BELONGS TO the Palestinians! The Jews are interlopers there and they should NOT be there. That is the plain and simple truth.
If I were Palestinian, I'd want to clear each and every Jew off of historic Palestine, if I had that kind of power. However, the Palestinian authority has realized that they can only realistically ask for 10% of their land! And they're not even going to get that because the bloody Zionists have no intention of parting with an inch of it!
Posted by: Kabir | Dec 1, 2012 1:29:34 AM
Some observations:
@ Max: excelent comments, but the Arabs (Caliphate)ruled Palestine only 450 years and not 2000 years
The Greeks ruled 300 years
The Roman Empire and later the Byzantine (The East Roman Empire) ruled nearly 700 years.
Crusaders ruled 150 years.
Mamluks and Ottomans Turks ruled 700 years.
If the right on this land is given by number of years then the Europeans (Hellenic, Roman,Byzantine, Crusaders) have the longest number in the last 2000 years: 1150 years. My arithmetic is wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_periods_in_the_Palestine_region
In all those 2000 years Jews were present in Palestine: working, building, praying and studying.
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/presence.html
@ Kabir Special roads were built for the army and settlers and Israeli citizens (Israeli Jews and Arabs) due to suicide bombers and security problems; those very costly roads were built in ADDITION to existing roads that Palestinian are using. Of course that it will idiotic to let them use those roads without a special ID card. However there are a lot of Palestinians using those roads when they are going to work in building new houses in the Jewish settlements...yes...most of the contractors in buildings are Arabs. The constructions in the settlements are due to the natural growth of the settlement; the settlers,mostly religious, same as the Arabs have no birth control and family planning.
Posted by: mirel | Dec 1, 2012 9:26:07 AM
Kabir,
At this point you are just repeating yourself. It is not an effective strategy. I presented why I think the simple claims of "Palestine belongs to the Palestinians" and "jews should not be there" are historically naive positions, and instead of countering my argument you just repeat yourself. Sorry, you are getting no traction in explaining your reasoning.
Mirel, thanks for the historical correction. I was so eager to concede the point of Arab historical control of the area b/c I don't believe that that should even be a critical fact to the argument. But I guess that, too, lends support to our position.
Posted by: Max | Dec 1, 2012 10:22:00 AM
People in their arguments succeed to forgot that it was always a Jewish presence of farmers, merchants , workers, students, teachers and priests on those lands for 2000 years; some are trying to forget that the conflict did not started in 1948 but before -in 1921, Haj Amin el-Husseini began to organize larger scale fedayeen to terrorize Jews. Or the Hebron massacre (the killing of sixty-seven Jews on 24 August 1929 in Hebron).
If we are speaking THE TRUTH about the Palestinians before 1948, I may quote:
"The major conclusion is "The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times" Anyone who pretends otherwise is deliberately misleading you. We can reach some general conclusions - Palestine was not empty when Zionists started arriving, there was some Arab immigration as well etc. But we cannot give a precise number in any case, and even if we could, it would not constitute evidence to back any moral claims."
"Major Conclusions
1. The nature of the data do not permit precise conclusions about the Arab population of Palestine in Ottoman and British times
2. Palestine was not an empty land when Zionist immigration began.
3. Zionist settlement between 1880 and 1948 did not displace or dispossess Palestinians.
4. Historic population data in Palestine during Ottoman times and during Mandatory times show significant discrepancies.
5. It is not possible to estimate illegal Arab immigration directly, but apparently there was some immigration.... It is probable that there were about 100,000 Arab immigrants into Palestine. An unknown number may also have migrated internally, from the Arab areas in the West Bank that were formerly the centers of commercial activity and population to the coastal plain and Galilee. The Arab population increase of areas with large Jewish settlement was about 10% greater than that in areas without Jewish settlement.
5. There are large discrepancies between official population figures and the number of Palestinian refugees
6. There are serious discrepancies in reporting of the number of refugees. In 1949, UNRWA reported 726,000 refugees. By 1950 they reported 914,000 according to one source (McCarthy), an increase of 26% that could not come either from births or further displacement of refugees, which were negligible.
7. The city of Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since about 1896 - The city of Jerusalem itself there was a Jewish majority since about 1896, but probably not before.
http://www.mideastweb.org/palpop.htm
But who needs the truth?
Posted by: mirel | Dec 1, 2012 5:58:29 PM
Post a comment