There are a small number of well-known Jewish settlements on the West Bank - Yitzhar, Tapuach and the Jewish Quarter of Hebron spring to mind as the most obvious, but there are a few more, only slightly less malicious places - which are dominated by violent evil men, thugs of the worst degree. These thugs terrorize their Palestinian neighbors, and do so mostly unrestrained by the Israeli security forces who are in charge of those areas. The thugs are a blemish on our face and defilers of our honor, but the long-standing inability or unwillingness of our security forces to stop them is even worse, as they have the power to do so, but don't use it.So, the vast majority of Jews lie - this should be unsurprising to any serious anti-racist activist - within a fairly reasonable spectrum of reasonableness. Instead of trying to pit me against other Jews as the representative of collective Jewish thought, which is how the demand for additional Jewish voices functions, someone who doesn't know if my views are representative of other Jews should probably settle for dealing with me as an individual.
Monday, September 15, 2008
A broad spectrum of Jewish views
From time to time, I'm dismissed as one among many Jews. Of course, I am merely one among many, but the implication is that my view is hardly representative. The person implying this almost always means that someone like Norman Finkelstein should be included in debate, even though most Jews find him deplorable. There are a lot of problems with this, including that this "wide spectrum" of Jewish views is expected to speak out against the supposed abuses of the Jewish establishment - suggesting that there must be a silent majority of Jews who disagree with the vocal majority Jews. If the vocal majority were actually an insignificant minority, why would there be a need for anyone to speak out? If the silent majority aren't actually a tiny minority, why the need to include them as representative of anything? I thought I'd present a more honest spectrum of Jewish thought. I'm maybe one standard deviation to the left of center. I think I'm probably a fair bit more radical on anti-antisemitism than most Jews, and because of a specific focus on that I don't always speak out against Israeli abuses as often as some others (it's simply a matter of focus), but when it comes to Israel I'm pretty solidly among the Jewish left. Yaacov Lozowick is maybe one standard deviation to the right:
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Catholic Vote
Catholics are a more important swing demographic than Jews, but you almost never hear about them on the news.
An interesting article on Obama's troubles with Catholic voters:
An interesting article on Obama's troubles with Catholic voters:
If emotional and stirring, the Protestant cadences of African American speech, for example, resonate with a kind of moral uplift that seems alien to some Catholics. The moral earnestness in Martin Luther King’s talk sometimes made Bobby Kennedy cringe, for example. Not just too academic and cold, then, Obama may also be too emotional and “hot,” for Catholics who appreciate gritty ironies and earthy skepticism.
Translating Darwish
Darwish also wrote for us. Many of his poems address us-Jewish Israelis-directly. The poem "State of Siege" (translated by Ghaneim and edited by Anton Shammas) reads in Hebrew as if it was written in the language, and the first to call this to my attention was Darwish himself.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
DC area antisemitism
The Jewish community of Rockville, Maryland was shaken up over the weekend, after unknown perpetrators spray-painted several swastikas early Saturday on homes in a predominantly Israeli neighborhood in the Washington, D.C. suburb... Several months ago, Israeli children were attacked in what residents say was an anti-Semitic assault.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Suing PA in NY
This is an odd story.
The family of the sole American, Aharon Ellis, killed in the attack, charged the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority with orchestrating the shooting that killed him. The suit was brought under a law that allows American victims of international terrorism to sue for triple damages in federal court...
A federal judge awarded the family a default judgment of $192.7 million in damages after the P.L.O. and the Palestinian Authority refused to defend the suit on the merits.
But now the Palestinians, holding themselves out as a partner in the Middle East peace process, have changed lawyers, and asked the judge for a second chance. The judge, Victor Marrero of Federal District Court in Manhattan, has agreed to set aside the judgment and give them that chance.
But there’s a catch. He is requiring the Palestinians to post a bond of $192.7 million so that if they lose again, the damages would be paid.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
How To Tell People They Sound Antisemitic
There's a bit of a debate going on between David Hirsh and Eamonn McDonagh over something that kind of surprises me. It strikes me as something that's been pretty thoroughly hashed out in other contexts.
Hirsh likes to talk about institutional antisemitism. McDonagh has replied that there can be no antisemitism without antisemites, and Hirsh seems to have left standing the notion that there can be.
I'd like to recommend this video. As Jay Smooth says, "The most important thing that you've got to do is to remember the difference between the 'what they did' conversation and the 'what they are' conversation." There are a lot of reasons this is important, including, as Smooth says, it's a more productive conversation. But also, you can't determine whether anyone is antisemitic without first discussing what antisemitism is, which means the 'what they did' conversation has to come first.
To say of someone that they collude in institutional antisemitism is not a way of denying that they are antisemitic - or at least I don't think it should be. Instead it should be a way of not talking about what's in their soul and focusing on what they did. Even better, it can be a way of focusing the conversation on a Jewish view of the environment before even talking about who did what.
Hirsh likes to talk about institutional antisemitism. McDonagh has replied that there can be no antisemitism without antisemites, and Hirsh seems to have left standing the notion that there can be.
I'd like to recommend this video. As Jay Smooth says, "The most important thing that you've got to do is to remember the difference between the 'what they did' conversation and the 'what they are' conversation." There are a lot of reasons this is important, including, as Smooth says, it's a more productive conversation. But also, you can't determine whether anyone is antisemitic without first discussing what antisemitism is, which means the 'what they did' conversation has to come first.
To say of someone that they collude in institutional antisemitism is not a way of denying that they are antisemitic - or at least I don't think it should be. Instead it should be a way of not talking about what's in their soul and focusing on what they did. Even better, it can be a way of focusing the conversation on a Jewish view of the environment before even talking about who did what.
Addicted to Race
Worthwhile episode of Addicted to Race featuring John Safran on Racialicious. Safran is an Australian Jew, and it seems that informs his perspective significantly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)