|
<< 114 Countries Condemn War | Main | Intelligence: Genes Cause Environment >> February 23, 2003Who is a Jew- and Am I One?Hmm-- well I managed to get labelled a self-hating Jew AND an "insensitive gentile" all based on my post about Bethlehem and its echo of the ghettos. Over at Little Green Footballs, a comment said "no one can hate the Jews more than such a cunt of self-loathing delusional Jew as Nathan Newman." And the Goblin Queen less colorfully said about me and Ampersand that "he and a lot of other, well, gentiles, have a tin ear about what does and doesn’t constitute insensitivity." It appears that one cannot have a harsh view of the Israel government, whatever your faith, since Jews who have one are merely psychologically (and apparently sexually) disabled, and gentiles of course have no sympathy for the horrors Jews have suffered and therefore can't understand how to put starving of children in Gaza in its proper perspective. Now, Katie at the Goblin Queen quickly retreated from her ethnic labelling, admitting ignorance (Ampersand is Jewish as one example), but it does illustrate one of the things that makes the debate over Israel so terminal in American culture. It's not what is said but who says it that gets infinitely analyzed. So who am I-- not a Jew. My Mom is Anglo and Protestant, all my friends were mostly Irish Catholic with an occasional Protestant thrown in growing up, and I'd never been near a Jewish service until some Hillel friends took me to a nice Seder, saturated in politics of liberation against Apartheid and such, during college. But not a non-Jew precisely either, given a Jewish Dad and no identification as a Christian, an extended Jewish family throughout New York City where I now live, and fully recognizing that my Jewish grandmother was lucky to get out of Slovakia when her sister and others died in the Nazi camps. I know I'm Jewish enough that the Nazis wouldn't have noticed the difference. Maybe I'm just Jewish enough to hate myself but too Christian to be sensitive. But I'll champ on the other bit and say it's just as reasonable to say that I am Jewish enough to be very sensitive to the horrors and hatred that have swirled around Jews, yet have too much self-love to allow that identification to merge with a state that is now committing unspeakable acts that betray the values of that history. Being a Jew or not a Jew is not really the issue of who can speak on the issue. But who is a Jew goes to the heart of what makes Israel problematic. Not because it's an ethnically based state, but because whether you are a Jew gets measured (or withdraw from some) based on an odd combination of ethnicity, religion and cultural identification. Some criticize Israel as a racist state per se, which I reject out of hand, as I wrote in this email here: what immigration policies don't runI quoted this at some length, partly because it's a real problem in discussions of Israel, and partly to illustrate that I actually feel myself to be a "raging moderate" on the whole issue. See here and here for other defenses of Israel against its attackers. I firmly defend the right of Jews to have a nationalist state and even accept that carving out land for nationalism is almost never a completely just project (European nationalism's victims are just in less shallow graves). So all I am doing is making what I see as the moderate point that the methods of nationalism have stepped across the borderline between rough injustice and crimes against humanity in Israel. Yes, comparing Israel to 1938 Germany is not moderate language, but I've seen little indication that less telling analogies do anything but sooth Israel's defenders to say "well every nation does it." Maybe I could have settled for Apartheid as the metaphor, which worked as long as Palestinians were being allowed to work, but now that they are starving in Gaza, it seems too weak a comparison. Walk the dusty streets of Nablus then multiply that by all the other smaller towns, and the mass population squeezed into Gaza, and imagine that all as prisons without enough food and where your children can be shot down like dogs. There is nothing sensitive in trying to calibrate the horror of that oppression of the Palestinians. And while the Palestinian leadership are hardly the best tacticians and brutal in their own right, the worst delusion of Israel's defenders is that they were ever offered freedom and turned the offer down. Palestinians Never Were Offered a Real State: Let's put that lie to rest for those who weren't paying attention. The Palestinians were NEVER offered the West Bank as a contiguous area to be combined with Gaza. See this Slate article and this Nation article refuting the dangerous congratulatory delusion that Israel made a real offer of a Palestinian state that was turned down by the Palestinian leadership. At Camp David, the Palestinians were only offered 91% of the West Bank, much of the lost 9% land of key symbolic and economic importance to the Palestinians. And Israel would maintain an East-West road slicing the West Bank in half, patrolled by Israel and subject to closure at will by Israel. This would have effectively left the Palestinians divided into three physically separated enclaves subject to Israeli checkpoints between the two halves of the West Bank and Gaza. And the key issue of the status of the Temple Mount was not settled, which Sharon helped blow up with his provocation. And the right of Palestinian refugees outside the Occupied Territories was not really addressed at all. So there was no reasonable deal on the table, yet Israel was continuing to expand settlements on Palestinian land. It was in the context of Israel's refusal to offer a real state and the continued expansion of settlements that the second intifada exploded. After the intifada, Israel began to discuss a more reasonable offer at the less discussed Taba negotiations, but Barak was soon kicked out of office and all negotiations ceased. That almost every Israeli defender continues to believe an acceptable peace offer was made at Camp David just shows why who is speaking matters far less than what is said, and more importantly, what is heard. Posted by Nathan at February 23, 2003 09:13 AM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsEven though you acknowledged that I retreated in the text of your post, I just want to make it absolutely clear to all of your readers that I don't think some people have a right to speak whereas some people don't. In fact, when I wrote that line I was just being careless--it didn't even reflect my own cognizance of my ignorance at the time (in other words, I was aware that I was ignorant of people's ethnic backgrounds), or my knowledge that there are huge disputes about this within the Jewish community, and even two Jews, both of whom hate Sharon, can make each other very angry. I am all for criticizing the Israeli government, I just happen to think there are ways to do it that are more responsible, and more likely to foster dialogue, than others. But actually, in fairness, I never called you a gentile, even by implication. :-P But as I apologized to Ampersand, I want to again offer a general apology for describing a clear cut ethnic division that even I knew didn't exist. As my blog becomes more widely read, I think I'm going to have to start taking into account my own mental alertness and fitness to blog, especially when describing controversial subjects. Posted by: Katie at February 23, 2003 10:38 AM My father was always angry that he did not have the option of declaring himself Jewish rather than White on the census or any other government forms. The Jews are still largely if not entirely a semitic people, not a religion. My father's family was from eastern Europe but he looked like a sand nigger because he WAS a sand nigger. My uncle looks like Hosni Mubarak. And as to whether I am a Jew or not: Posted by: Seth Edenbaum at February 23, 2003 11:41 PM Yeah, that deal you described sounds a lot like the deal Hitler offered to the Jews. I believe that what happened next was that the Jews turned down the deal without making a counter-offer and then began a camapaign of indiscriminately murdering Israeli civilians. And then it was in response to that that the ghettos were created and the gas chambers fired up. And then of course Hitler had to put pressure on his allies the Italians to deport all their Jews to Germany to be killed, which is very similar to Ariel Sharon's policies. Very. Posted by: Matthew Yglesias at February 24, 2003 01:48 AM "It's time for Israel to consider the necessity of genocide" Posted by: Seth Edenbaum at February 24, 2003 09:31 AM its not your "harsh" view of Israeli politics thats at issue... Its your sly obfuscation and intellectual dishonesty that is offensive. and no...your not a Jew..you are only a Jew in the eyes of the Third Reich and other similarly confused individuals...LOL so relax... Posted by: ploome at February 24, 2003 12:17 PM Well-- I guess Israel is, like the Third Reich, confused, since under the Law of Return I am considered a Jew. As I said a tricky business identifying who and who is not a Jew. Posted by: Nathan Newman at February 24, 2003 01:45 PM Nathan.... no Synagogue would give you an aliah.. you cannot be buried in a Jewish cemetery... whats your problem, Nathan.. according to Halacha your not a Jew.. you wanna be...? convert.. you need to be a Jew to promote your biased crap.? what a sad individual you are.. go back to LGF, maybe you will get more people to visit this 3rd rate blog...fo a little while.. Posted by: ploome at February 24, 2003 02:43 PM Wow, ploome. I couldn't imagine a better post to illustrate the ugly prejudice of rightwing defenders of Israel. I don't claim to be Jewish -- if you missed the point-- but plenty of reform synagogues count me a Jew, as does the Law of Return in Israel. As I said, it's a rather fuzzy issue at times. Posted by: Nathan Newman at February 24, 2003 02:55 PM " I couldn't imagine a better post to illustrate the ugly prejudice of rightwing defenders of Israel" the issue here is are you a Jew or not... where does me being a defender of Israel come into this discussion..? someone who doesnt recognize the divine nature of Jesus is NOT a Christian....is that "right wing prejudice"....? someone who is not born of a Jewish mother or converted, is not a Jew.. grow up Posted by: ploome at February 24, 2003 03:49 PM Ploome-- you get to be ecumenical in your intolerance. Many Reform and other liberal Jewish currents believe that you are a Jew if either of your parents are Jewish. See here. And of course there are people who consider themselves Christians who don't consider Jesus to be divine. See these polls from England and I'm sure there are plenty of matching ones on the US. And yes, there is a link between the rightwing religious view of excluding many who consider themselves Jews or Christians from claiming that label, and the exclusionary political policies of rightwing Israel defenders. It's not surprising that the most narrow-minded, exclusive conservative Christians in the US are the strongest defenders of Israel's present government. Posted by: Nathan newman at February 24, 2003 04:08 PM Well, Jesus Christ! I'm a Jew after all. Posted by: Seth Edenbound at February 24, 2003 10:35 PM I mentioned this site at Ampersand, but will reference it again because it has analyzed the Jewish identity issue well and often: http://www.halfjew.com/ Posted by: Mac Diva at February 25, 2003 01:52 AM You state, incorrectly, that "Palestinians Never Were Offered a Real State," basing all your points on the Camp David accord. You neglect to reflect upon the original partition plan of 1947/48, which, while there is certainly debate over that, as well, was indeed rejected by the Palestinian leadership and the whole of the Arab world, and would have given the Palestinians the state you suggest they should have. There were other opportunities between 1948 and 1967 for a two state solution, and I feel that the Camp David plan would have been a positive first step on the road to a workable two state solution, a step highly preferable to the tragic violence which was the Palestinian response. While Mideast politics before 1948 was also filled with much deception by Western powers to both Jews and Arabs, the pre-1948 period also offered workable plans for a two state solution. Your statement that "Palestinians Never Were Offered a Real State," is, like many other posts I have seen on your website, a falsehood, even though I have seen you defend faslehoods previously by claiming that your opinion substitutes as fact - a claim, I sadly point out, a falsehood. Posted by: jeff at February 26, 2003 03:23 AM My comments are as follows you may want to read the new testament just for a spin and read a few of those lines you shall be very suprised about all of the facts it has for the future of Isreal and the current situations, call me crazy but I dare you to pick up the new trestament and read Posted by: Sarah at May 13, 2003 11:27 PM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|