David Seaton's picture

    Palestine at the UN... masks fall, all stand naked

    By David Seaton on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 2:42pm |

    The entire rest of the world is in agreement: Palestine should be admitted to the UN. This whole controversy boils down to a problem of America's domestic politics, which is taking the USA down the path of throwing away any influence it might have gained in the Muslim world with the election of Barack Obama.

    Here is Gideon Levy writing in Haaretz:

    The riddle remains unsolved because it is difficult to comprehend how a black president, who believes in justice and equality, can bow down with such unbearable lightness to a right-wing government in Israel, to narrow election considerations in America, and to Jewish and Christian lobbies. It is difficult to comprehend how his America does not understand that it is shooting itself with a lethal bullet in the heart by supporting the Israeli refusal to make peace. After all, deep in his heart this American president knows that the Palestinians' demand is justified because they too are worthy, finally, of becoming independent - and that Israel supports occupation. Why does one have to wait for the book of memoirs that he will surely write one day in order to hear this? He knows that the Arab Spring, that erupted to a certain extent in the wake of his promising Cairo speech, will now turn its anger and hatred toward America, once more toward America, simply because of its insistent opposition to Palestinian freedom.

    The pressures that Levy speaks about are both brutal and naked.

    For example, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee who wants Congress to pass a bill cutting off all American funding for the United Nations if they vote freely to admit Palestine as member state.

    This naked and brutal pressure, which could eventually cause severe damage to America's world influence and its economy, could end up producing a disastrous domestic blow back.

    To give a clear example of what I mean, the ADL takes periodic polls to determine the ebb and flow of antisemitism in the USA. The question asked to determine if the respondent is an antisemite or not is the following: "Do you believe that Jews have too much influence in the United States?" To answer in the affirmative is to be classed as an antisemite.

    Read the following by Thomas Friedman in today's NYT:

    I’ve never been more worried about Israel’s future. The crumbling of key pillars of Israel’s security — the peace with Egypt, the stability of Syria and the friendship of Turkey and Jordan — coupled with the most diplomatically inept and strategically incompetent government in Israel’s history have put Israel in a very dangerous situation.

    This has also left the U.S. government fed up with Israel’s leadership but a hostage to its ineptitude, because the powerful pro-Israel lobby in an election season can force the administration to defend Israel at the U.N., even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America’s. (emphasis mine)

    I doubt if Thomas Friedman, of all people, is going to be accused of being a self-hating Jew, but, under a strict reading of the ADL's criteria, Thomas Friedman is an antisemite.

    Now if someone as unlikely as Thomas Friedman could ever be accused of antisemitism, then imagine what serious people. but who "don't have skin in the game" as he does, may be thinking right now or will certainly be thinking if Netanyahu's policies end up damaging the US economy at precisely this moment.

    Crossposted from: http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

    Comments

    I think that you meant "under a misreading of the ADL's criteria, Thomas Friedman is an antisemite."

    There is a tremendous difference between believing, "The pro-Israel lobby has too much influence," and believing, "Jews have too much influence," but those who believe the latter tend not to be able to comprehend the difference. That lack of comprehension is a symptom of the disease.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 6:53pm

    Genghis,       

    I think it is really up to American Jewish people, the entire community, to make that difference clearer by their actions and words. This clarification is vital right now, because the way you state it is much too subtle and lawyerly for political discourse. You'll have to admit that it is very easy and natural mistake to make  and the burden of proof can't be on those who make it, given the level of intellectual terrorism and brutality being employed by the Lobby, who claim to speak for all their people.

    In short this is a problem for the Jewish community to clarify, until then the rest of must muddle through the best we can.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 2:38am

    The "American Jewish people" have no obligation to you, Mr. Seaton. The American Jewish people are not on trial.

    Rather, you have a moral obligation, as all people have a moral obligation, to resist the seductive allure of racial and religious stereotypes.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 11:38am

    Genghis,  

    I said "community" not just "people".  America's unconditional support of Israel's maximalist positions, which is against both the interests of the USA and Israel itself, would hardly be possible without the organized assistance of significant members of that community. The consequences of America's unconditional support may be very harmful to the general interests of all Americans including individual, one at a time, Jewish ones. This is not a question of "stereotypes", all of this has real names, real addresses and real spokespersons... all of it is accountable. Frankly, it seems to me this sort of argument you are using ranks with "your parrot isn't dead sir, it's only sleeping."

    And the "obligation" is not to me... it is an obligation that the Jewish people owe first of all to themselves...


    by David Seaton on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 5:27am

    David, our "community" as you call it, has no leader, elected or appointed, and we do not act en masse or through committee.

    I am not a member of AIPAC or any other pro-Israeli organizations. Their leaders are not my friends, my family, or colleagues. I do not speak for them, and they do not speak for me. They do not represent any Americans, be they Jewish, Christian, or Zorastrian, except for those who have aligned themselves with such organizations.

    I have shared my own opinions on the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians on this blog. These opinions are mine and mine alone.

    As for any further insinuations from you about the alleged obligations of Jews to either endorse your opinions or remove themselves from politics, you can go to hell.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 12:59pm

    Genghis,       

    You certainly don't speak for them, but they claim to speak for you. That is why J-Street and Phil Weiss are doing such important work in making it clear that AIPAC does not represent all American Jews, they need more support, more volunteers etc.  And that is what I am talking about. I think that is perfectly obvious... I really don't see what you have be so ticked off about.

    I certainly didn't say anything like:

    as for any further insinuations from you about the alleged obligations of Jews to either endorse your opinions or remove themselves from politics, you can go to hell.

    As far as I know, it's still a "free country" and people can do or think whatever they want. However as an Indian guru once said, if you plant onions don't expect to harvest mangoes.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 2:31pm

    they claim to speak for you

    Link? I look at AIPAC's website, it seems pretty damn clear to me that they claim to speak for Israel. They don't say much of anything about Jews. On the contrary, they even push the idea that Israel has freedom of religion.

    And I never got the impression that Americans in general listen to Americans of the Jewish religion on this topic. Where did you get that impression?

    I think Americans in general support Israel, not "Jews." Many probably do because Palestinians have a p.r. problem with Americans about being anti-Western and about supporting terrorism, going decades back. And Israel (not Jews) doesn't, whether that's fair or not, whether that's because of "the lobby" or not.

    I also think that if I were Jewish, seeing people like you suggest that all American Jews should be responsible for fixing this p.r. problem about Israel and Palestine would make me more prone to supporting Israel if I hadn't much done so before. Because I might want a safe place to go if people who thought like you were in charge of the U.S.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 3:11pm

    I think the USA is the best deal that Jewish people have ever had in their entire history including the reign of King David and I think they are an essential part of America's culture and national fabric, the very flavor of American life...  and I am very worried about Zionism and the emotional blackmail it uses on Jewish people spoiling this... for all of us, Jews and non-Jews alike.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 3:23pm

    I likes me some flavor in my country.


    by Rootman on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:32pm

    The US has a bit too much goysenberry for my liking.

    Needs more vanilla.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 3:50pm

    David, if you were truly concerned that people might mistakenly think that AIPAC speaks for the Jews, then the logical approach would be for you to clearly distinguish between the pro-Israeli lobby and the Jewish people--just as Thomas Friedman does.

    But you have been doing exactly the opposite. You have repeatedly conflated "Jewish interests" with support for Israeli policy and then blamed the Jews for failing to clearly articulate our differences with AIPAC--despite the obvious fact that many Jewish writers, including Thomas Friedman and myself, have repeatedly done just that.

    I know, you are very, very concerned about "Jew fatigue" and the threat of "emotional blackmail." Concerned, concerned, concerned. There is a label for those who profess concern as a pretense for malice.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 3:54pm

    Genghis,    

    What I am "concerned" about is the further rupture of the already delicate American social fabric. We see this deterioration already in the rising political extremism of the American right wing.

    The Jewish component of American life is very important, vital,without it, the USA would only be a giant Australia... you could compare this component to the genuine vanilla extract in a top quality chocolate bar, objectively a small element, but essential for the high quality of the total product. There are only two countries where the flourishing of Jewish life has ever had the importance it has in the USA: Spain and Germany (Maimonides & Einstein). The breakdown of that flowering was not only tragic for the Jewish people, it had catastrophic consequences for the societies of Spain and Germany, from which neither country has fully recovered. THAT is what I am concerned about. I think that this concern is justified for anyone who reads history. Antisemitism is not only a Jewish problem, it concerns everyone.

    As far as my own particular "fatigue", in my opinion the only American politician that talks any sense right now is Michael Bloomberg and if he runs for president I would get off my ass and work for his election.


    by David Seaton on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:00am

    An odd thread convergence...

    On Friday, Mr Bloomberg raised the spectre of social unrest amid high unemployment among young Americans.

    "You have a lot of kids graduating college, can't find jobs," he said on a radio show.

    "That's what happened in Cairo. That's what happened in Madrid. You don't want those kind of riots here. The damage to a generation that can't find jobs will go on for many many years."


    by jollyroger on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 2:15am

    You wrote:

    The Jewish component of American life is very important, vital,without it, the USA would only be a giant Australia.

    WTF does this even mean, this is gibberish and you are trying to pass it off as though it has some sort of deep philosophical meaning. Sorry Dave, your reasoning is as muddled as a Michele Bachmann and/or Rick Perry, who above all never make any sense.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 9:08am

    WTF, indeed.


    by Red Planet on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 9:12am

    To begin with think of the cultural contributions... Hollywood itself is a cultural universe that has "conquered" the world... Jewish people have given an entire new dimension to American life. Try to imagine America without Hollywood.


    by David Seaton on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 9:38am

    More gibberish offered with side of red-herring, I should have expected as much.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:14am

    You seem to be intent on minimizing the massive contribution that the American Jewish people have made to the United States, its culture, its science and economy.


    by David Seaton on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 10:39am

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Australia

    Just sayin'...


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:03am

    Sure, great, you could say similar things about Argentina too. The fact is that America is many, many things, all kinds of synergies, a petri dish of economic power and cultural diversity that has encouraged Jewish people to reach levels of self-realization that they only previously achieved in Moorish Spain or pre-Hitler Germany.

    You might use the metaphor of George Gershwin or Lieber and Stoller.  These artists were able to create marvelous music using an African-American idiom, one that black people accept as their own and which has swept the world. There is no equivalent to that in the Tango or (is there any Australian music, except the digereedoo?).

    When you have only Jews though, not that much happens... Israel is quite mediocre despite its concentration of brains and energy. In a previous comment I compared American Jewish people to the pure vanilla extract used in the highest quality chocolate. Only a couple of drops make a huge difference in the flavor of the chocolate, but you wouldn't want to drink a glassful of vanilla extract.


    by David Seaton on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:34am

    I don't disagree with your sentiment that every culture has contributed something special to the United States, but many of your sub-points seem to miss their mark.

    For example: 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Israel

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3807725,00.html

    That's not to say Israel's the greatest or anything, but to suggest they're "quite mediocre" also seem like an incorrect statement. How many nations of fewer than 8 million people have a nuclear bomb*?

    *Not that they 'fess up to that or that it's a good thing. It's not, however, a mediocre thing.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:43am

    You might think that if I can do such fantastic things with 5,275,000 Jews and only 1.7% of the population (USA), what couldn't I do with 5,703,700 Jews and 75.5% of the population (Israel) but it doesn't work out that way.


    by David Seaton on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:53am

    If your argument is that heterogeneity is good for creativity, I agree.

    If your argument is that Jews are a special case with respect to the need for heterogeneity, I vehemently disagree. I can think of many other ethnic groups with outstanding disparities such as you mention.

    I'm just not seeing what Jewishness* specifically has to do with the discussion. 

    *Spell-check seems to think this is a word, so who am I to disagree?


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:00pm

    I

    am

    going

    to

    answer

    you

    at

    the

    bottom

    of

    the

    page

    because

    this

    is

    driving

    me

    nuts.


    by David Seaton on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:34pm

    Oh yes Dave it is me, it isn't you and your apparent obsession with writing about Jews and AIPAC and their monolithic control of American foreign policy. And it was me who twisted Friedman's column, and then pointed out that the ADL definition of anti-Semite makes Friedman an anti-Semite. I twisted his words, not you. And when you write stuff like

    The Jewish component of American life is very important, vital,without it, the USA would only be a giant Australia.

    I am supposed to take some greater meaning from that statement, when that statement really makes no sense, so yeah it is me, not you, it's me! Hahahahaha Then you continue by bringing some bizarre Hollywood analogy into your explanation, and suddenly it hits me, you are one twisted dude, who uses code to attack American's who happen to be Jewish.

    Yeah it's me Dave, not you, because as far as you know you are the smartest guy in the room.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:17am

    OK, if I say that Jewish people are making a massive contribution to American life and that I would like to vote for Michael Bloomberg for president, that makes me a rabid antisemite. I'm the one talking gibberish, right?


    by David Seaton on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 11:43am

    But Australia opposes recognition of the Palestinian state.


    by Rootman on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:35pm

    Australia is a client state totally dependent on the USA.


    by David Seaton on Thu, 09/22/2011 - 1:21am

    That's not a misreading of the ADL's criteria, Genghis. That's exactly how they chose to frame their survey. Respondents weren't asked about the pro-Israel lobby's influence; they were asked only to rate how much influence Jews had. So for the ADL, it's a win-win either way; a majority of right-thinking Americans presumably think the Jews do not exercise too much influence, and the rest are anti-Semites.

    The distinction you make would be a valid one -- if the ADL weren't deliberately setting out to fudge it. The ADL is basically implying that American Jews and the pro-Israel lobby are one, and if you are critical of one, you are critical of the other. Thank God for J Street (and yes, even Tom Friedman) who show that up as the lie it is. 

     


    by acanuck on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 2:41am

    Ac, what are you talking about? ADL doesn't mention Israel at all. They asked people about "Jewish influence." Friedman wrote about the "pro-Israel lobby." They are not the same thing at all. They only seem so to those who use one as a code word for the other.

    The only fudging going on here is courtesy of David Seaton, who has laid the examples side by side as if to imply that Tom Friedman is concerned about "Jewish influence," which is pure bullshit.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 11:27am

    Oh, c 'mon G.

    Do you think that the excessive influence alluded to refers to number of aisles at Pathmark carrying Matzoh before Passover?

    To the prevalence of those funny fur hats on 47th st?

    To the number of yiddish words mispronounced by blondes? (I love the sound of "shiska..." in the morning...it sounds like...victory)


    by jollyroger on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 7:02pm

    "Jewish influence" usually refers to the notion that Jews have a menacing level of control over politics and the economy, a notion that long predates the establishment of Israel. Had ADL run that poll in the 1930s, I expect that the "yes" responses would have been much higher--even though there was no matzoh to be found in the supermarkets and few enough Jews to be found in Palestine.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 7:26pm

    Genghis, 

    It is really difficult to sort all these things out. The reality is that Israel has put all its eggs in one basket, the American basket and is watching that basket. There is a Lobby and it works very hard to mobilize the American Jewish community and Christian fundamentalists. At this point two very significant things are happening, American hegemony is going wobbly and the Arab world is coming alive politically. This is making the Israelis understandably nervous... very nervous. They are transmitting that nervousness through the channels that they have created... the more nervous they get, the harder they transmit. We are experiencing a "full court press" right now. For those humans for whom Israel is not "the measure of all things", this is getting a little (you choose the adjective) as we have a lot of other stuff to worry about besides propping up an apartheid version of Club Med.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 12:07am

    Apartheid? Where did you ever get that idea, infidel?


    by Resistance on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 5:07am

    The riddle remains unsolved because it is difficult to comprehend how a black president, who believes in justice and equality, can bow down with such unbearable lightness to a right-wing government in Israel, to narrow election considerations in America, and to Jewish and Christian lobbies.

     

    Why in the world is that a riddle?

    A politician follows the most politically expedient path, and it's some kind of mystery?

    A few weeks into his administration, Barack Obama told Netanyahu that Israel must stop building settlements in the West Bank.  Netanyahu said, "No."   Obama said, "Umm ... OK ... I take it back."

    That was the end of the story as far as this particular US administration is concerned.  Obama might as well have painted a big green "L" on his forehead and taped a "kick me" sign to his back.

     


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 8:16pm

    So you would cut the frayed fragile thread that prevents the nearly defenseless and innocent State of Israel, the safest and only true home and refuge for the Jewish people, from being overwhelmed and thrown off the Holy Lands given to them by G-d, and into the sea by the bloodthirsty hordes of rabid Islamic terrorists, wreaking a second Holocaust on the world?


    by NCD on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 11:05am

    Why is it with Seaton that we so often wind up dividing the world up between Hebes who are good and Hebes who are bad?   Yea, and some of my best friends are Hebes too!  It gives this fence-straddling Hebe the willies.

    Why can't some of you people just make your fucking points about the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy and stop focusing on whether it's all because of the powerful Jewish or Israeli Lobby?

    And, acanuck, if you want to join Seaton in denigrating the ADL, that's fine.  But if  you want to convince even this absolutely, totally reasonable and kinda cute Jewish guy that the meme of extraordinary Israel Lobby control is wholly unrelated to centuries of your ancestors bemoaning the extraordinary control of the Jewish People, it's your nickel.  

    For whatever reason, the American and Canadian people are in the aggregate, in love with the State of Israel.  I posit that that is not exclusively the product of extraordinary control by anyone.


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 7:38am

    Bruce,  

    You are really exaggerating your disingenuousness. Of course there is a Lobby and it is very powerful, and this is causing both Israel and the USA a lot of harm... if you don't believe me read the Israeli press. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/dear-u-s-jews-please-don-t-let-netanyahu-deceive-you-1.385241


    by David Seaton on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 8:46am

    Perfect response David.  Always make sure to back up your thesis with one of the good Hebes, i.e. Haaretz.


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 10:22am

    There seem to be serious differences of opinion within the Jewish community both in the USA and in Israel itself. I think for you to call that a division between "good Hebes and bad Hebes" an abuse of your privilege (as Kirk Douglas put it) as a Jew, to be an antisemite.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 10:33am

    I'm just using the tropes of your buddy Mearsheimer, who at least was good enough to distinguish the righteous Hebes from those of us who will roast in a hell characterized by roasting marshmellows that one can smell but never quite reach.

    As to whether I abuse the privilege of being a Jew, David I luvs ya, but I will not be taking cues from you about what makes a good Hebe and what makes a bad Hebe.  Now, if you would like to talk to me about Spanish Reds, I'll listen.

     


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 10:55am

    I don't separate any group of people, including Jews, into "good ones" and "bad ones", I have friends whose political opinions I don't share, but who are good friends, when I need good friends and people whose opinions are similar to mine that are personally repellent to me. Of course it is best when both things coincide, but what counts in the crunch is how people behave, not how they say they think.

    BTW, one thing I learned in my year living in Tel Aviv is that Israelis are really sick of American Jews living vicariously through them and backing the most retrograde maximalists among them... As you might gather in the link I sent you, it is they who will do the bleeding if things go wrong.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 2:10pm

    In Tel Aviv, everywhere you see two Israelis you'll get three different opinions Seaton.  And I also know first hand about what many Israelis think, e.g. one of my best buddies, a veteran of the 1973 Sinai campaign and far more rabid than I am about things Israel, still has no trouble saying in the same breath that he would have no interest dying or having his kid die in the West Bank to protect a bunch of Jews from Brooklyn.

    In any event David, you've not been to Israel in awhile I take it.  You have to understand that many of those same folks you used to hang out in Tel Aviv with are singing a different tune these days.  And it's tragic, but real, and not without cause.

    And, finally, I don't think you get my principal beef, which is why is it that you always back up your arguments about Israel with what some American Jew or Israeli has said.  Like all people, we say all kinds of shit, dig?


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 5:53pm

    I quote Jewish people because they have a freedom to speak about this that the rest of us don't.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 6:40am

    Why have you no freedom to speak out David.  Have the Spaniards passed a law?


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 9:02am

    It's not permitted in the USA... In Spain you can say anything you want... even with Franco Spaniards have always used less euphemisms than Americans do. In an American conversation, if a Jewish person says that Israel sucks and that he is deadly tired of the whole Zionut mess... (I have know several Israelis and American Jews to express that to me directly) then, no problem, but if a goy should venture to murmur that he is suffering from the slightest "Jew fatigue" he is sure to be harassed and pilloried. That is why I always quote Jewish people on this question.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 9:21am

    Indeed. We have stifled again, and now here in the U.S.  So claims David from his soapbox across the pond! 


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 9:47am

    Europeans in general are much more frankly spoken than Americans. The British laugh till they cry at how Americans twist themselves into knots of euphemisms... and as for northern Europe, guess where the expression, "talk to somebody like a Dutch uncle" comes from... The Dutch take frankness to levels an American can't imagine... And I haven't mentioned the Israelis, who are world class for telling people exactly what is on their minds...


    by David Seaton on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 10:48am

    Ahhh, but David, we Brits also know you Spaniards as irredeemable Jew-haters. I mean, you're a good 500+ years into the hatreds and the pogroms and the expulsions, and, after a bit, one begins to worry after your health, and wishes to ask...

    Are you sure you're not actually suffering from anti-Jew fatigue?

    Because I'm sure there's a salve.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 12:07pm

    You must be right, that is why all of Woody Allen's last films have been financed by Spaniards and why he is hot box office here.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 12:22pm

    Well heck Seaton, everybody likes a funny Jew.


    by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 1:03pm

    So... you're saying there's some GOOD Spaniards, too, eh?

    Always nice to know.


    by Qnonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 12:50pm

    Actually Spanish people are super-nice, as anyone who has ever lived here can tell you... And BTW, thousands of Jews escaped Hitler through Spain and thence to South America... Definitely a better record than France or Italy... The USA refused to admit quite a few too, I believe.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 2:15pm

     

    Can't speak for Canadians, bslev, but Americans seem to be in love not so much with Israel, the modern political entity, as they are with two best-selling romance stories about Israel: the Bible, and Exodus.

    It's easy to conflate the real with the fictional, and there are fortunes to be made in doing it.


    by Red Planet on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 9:28am

    It seems to me that polls consistently show that Americans are infatuated, absolutely enamored of the State of Israel.   I just choose not to believe that it is all because they are being led by the nose by an all-powerful Lobby.  


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 10:19am

    Why should they be so infatuated? What exactly is there to be infatuated with? Are you sure they are?


    by David Seaton on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 10:27am

    You ask why? Israel is a both a kick-ass country that doesn't pander to or negotiate with Muslim terrorists, it blows them away in large numbers with no apology,  and keeps them behind walls and barbed wire fences. At the same time Israel is weak and always on the verge of being overrun by hordes of terrorists with whom reasonable peace loving people, like the Israelis, cannot possibly negotiate.  So it is natural to support Israel in their perpetual struggle for survival, and also to support their mission to keep the Holy Lands from falling to the infidels.


    by NCD on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 11:18am

    And so it goes .  .  . tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, I presume.  But I also presume that you really do believe, because you're not one of those Americans who foolishly love Israel because of works of fiction, that Israel keeps Palestinians behind, "walls and barbed wire fences."  There is a security fence protecting Israelis from Palestinian terrorists, whether that disturbs your sensitivities or not.  Thank G-d, it has worked, and hundreds if not thousands of innocent Israeli lives have been saved.  

    Of course, you're not stupid like all those other Americans and Canadians who love Israel, so I take it you believe that what you're writing is truthful.  Except that it's not. Par for the course. When it comes to Israel, the more hyperbole the better, while at the same time we accuse supporters of Israel of spouting off hyperbole.

    And so it goes . . .


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 11:33am

    Israel is a good enough country surrounded by countries that don't pass that test .Some  Americans support it for that reason.  Others for a variety of reasons.

    I wish it were better,  I wish we were better.

    Meanwhile we should steadfastly support its existence and steadfastly criticize its actions when that's merited.

    The Wall was a success we should approve of it. It's implementation was often unnecessarily painful for the Palestinians, we should criticize that.


    by Flavius on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 11:57am

    The Wall was a success

    Couldn't it have been just as "successful" if it were built entirely on the Israeli side of the Resolution 242 borders?


    by jollyroger on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 6:42pm

    Are you sure they are?

    See Gallup poll graph, Americans' answer from 1988 to Feb. 2011 to

    "In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?"

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/146408/americans-maintain-broad-support-israe...

    While the extent of love is not expressed, and may not extend in all cases to monetary and/or military support, I would say it's a pretty sure thing to say that the majority of Americans aren't infatuated with the Palestinians.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 6:33pm

     

    bslev, it is as you say. Americans do seem to be infatuated and enamored with Israel, and certainly not because of an all-powerful lobby (most Americans probably never having heard of AIPAC, the ADL or even the NCCJ.)

    Why is that?

    I suggest it is largely because the story of the Jewish people is foundational to us. We are, after all, a nation of Christians and Jews (as the original name of the NCCJ once acknowledged), and tales of persecution, exodus, redemption, chosenness, are a part of us. Archetypal.

    But the modern state of Israel was not of much interest to everyday Americans until three things happened:

    • The novel, Exodus, a 1958 publishing phenomenon. 
    • The 1960 motion picture, Exodus, based on the novel. 
    • The Six-Day War of 1967.

    We have been infatuated ever since, and all of this plays into the hands of populist Christian eschatologists who make an industry of preaching the central role of Israel in their retelling of the story of God's plan for the end of days. 

    In short, it seems that Americans cherish a special relationship with the notion of Israel, which may or may not have anything to do with the reality of the nation of Israel.


    by Red Planet on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 3:07pm

     romance stories about Israel: the Bible, and Exodus.

    Ferrante & Teicher have a lot to answer for...


    by jollyroger on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 2:24pm

    Heh, my 8th-grade graduating class at Blessed Sacrament School chose that as our class song (along with mint green and white as our colors. smiley) We did a beautiful rendition at graduation and the audience, our Catholic families, gave us a standing ovation.

    I don't think many of us saw the film nor did we know much about Israel. I believe that rather than just being influenced by Ferrante & Teicher (tho I do recall the song being played on the radio at the time,) we were influenced by a couple of years of John XXIII-mandated ecumenically-oriented religion class curricula. Some basics of jewish theology were taught to us as the foundation of our religion, by young nuns still going to college themselves, who also seemed to favor "liberation" theology and Teilhard de Chardin. They all approved of our choice. It used ta be considered "liberal" to support Israel, ya know.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 6:08pm

    Blessed Sacrament School

     

    Off topic (ed. note, "and outta line!") shall I commence to imagine you in one of those plaid skirts...you know, the short ones?


    by jollyroger on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 6:44pm

    I wish. We did not have uniforms, I believe as a nod to individuality as opposed to Soviet-style conformity. It just ended up with us poorer kids feeling bad about wearing cheap old-fashioned cotton dresses in comparison to the cool kids with bigger clothing budgets sporting the latest wool separates, madras shirts, and penny loafers, ala "collegian" or folk-singer style.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 6:48pm

    Well, I understand that Father Flaherty lobbied hard for the short skirts, but he was  evidently outvoted....probably just as well for him.


    by jollyroger on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 7:12pm

    Warning to those who don't like off-topic: more off-topic discussion

    You have let Hollywood and porn fantasies warp your memories. Girl children in grade schools of the boomer era, both parochial and public, were subjected to dress codes that mostly demanded skirts at mid-knee or covering the knee until the late 60's. Mini skirts were strictly non-school wear if allowed by parents at all. Yes, some did roll their skirts up at the waist once they left the school grounds and back down again when reaching the doors of home (and the waist roll did little for their waistline appearance.)


    by artappraiser on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 8:59pm

    oh Flaherty that old dog. He misled me

    by jollyroger on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 10:53pm

    My goodness, this has degenerated.


    by David Seaton on Mon, 09/19/2011 - 11:54pm

    Oh, sure...Blame the Visigoth...It's always the barbarians' fault.

    Just remember, David, that but for my feckless forebear, Roger I and his 2nd rate generalship, those stamps you use in Spain would have my picture on them, and not Juan Carlos.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 12:09am

    A Palestinian gives his views.

     

    http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/38830


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 2:46pm

    Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) introduces House resolution that supports annexation if the Palestinian Authority continues to push for UN vote.
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29166.htm


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 3:11pm

    Walsh owes $100K in child support, and he is spending his time planning an Israeli Anschluss minus the cheering crowds and the jackbooted goose stepping troops?

    Where are the jobs the GOP promised or are they just trying to gin up another Mideast war?


    by NCD on Tue, 09/20/2011 - 10:09pm

    One Semite, one vote.  One state, no Yahwists.

    Annex away, but be careful what you wish for...


    by jollyroger on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 1:53am

    Verified Atheist            

    If there is one thing that both Jewish people and rabid antisemites are in agreement, it is that Jewish people are a special case. Both Jewish people and their enemies are very ambivalent about this "specialness".

    As to your spell check doubts, "Jewishness" is a perfectly good translation of:

    yid·dish·keit/ˈyidiSHˌkīt/

    Noun: The quality of being Jewish; the Jewish way of life or its customs and practices.

    Wikipedia

    This is a whole universe, which I had the privilege of living very close up in the year I spent in Israel as a young man. I lived with a sabra kibutznik and shared in her family life, weddings, funerals, sitting shiva, bar mitzvahs, you name it. It is a warm, supportive and beautiful way of life... I just think they picked the wrong neighborhood to live it in and this fatal choice has been twisting them all out of shape.


    by David Seaton on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:50pm

    Every people are a special case. We're all unique.

    Another thought: if there's one thing that devil-worshipers and Christians agree on, it's that God exists. That does not increase the validity of that belief.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 12:56pm

    That's very cute, but the reason that it was possible to create Israel in the first place was that there were enough people, both Jewish and Christian that believed that the Jewish people were "special" to make it happen. This is a historical reality, like it or not.

    Many Jewish people over the centuries have found this "specialness" a curse and have left it, but enough have kept the faith to still be a recognizable people after all these hundreds of years (you don't hear much about Hittites and Babylonians anymore, do you?).

    So special is as special does.


    by David Seaton on Wed, 09/21/2011 - 1:06pm

    Latest Comments