Tuesday, June 27, 2017

 Never attribute to ignorance what can more easily 
be explained as malevolence

Comments follow up:

On Chicago Dyke March Official Statement on 2017 March and Solidarity with Palestine

I left the following comment (27 June 2017 ~ 6:40 pm). Awaiting moderation.

"That may be what the flag means to you, but other people find it offensive.”

In the Middle Ages, Easter times were hazardous for Jews in Christendom. The Christians for whom Easter was a time of mourning for Jesus’ death thought that the Jewish Passover which is more or less at the same time as Easter, was a celebration of the death of Jesus. One may wonder where they got that idea? Their priests encouraged them to interpret Jewish preparations for Passover in this light. With the result that Easter time was often a good time to stage pogroms, expulsions and other such Jewish delights.

When Jews tried to explain that there was nothing true in this perception, they were told:

That may be what the holiday means to you, but other people find it offensive.”
_____

What’s the difference between Far-Right antisemitism and Far-Left antisemitism?

Far-Right antisemitism is hatred and fear of Jews qua Jews, all Jews.

Far-Left antisemitism is hatred of what they call Zionists, those 98% of world Jews who either live in Israel or support Israel, or have no problem with the idea and existence of a Jewish state.

What makes it possible for Far Left Antisemitism to claim they are not antisemitic is the (possibly) 2%* of Jews who don’t support the Jewish state.

If there are 13M Jews in the world, Far Right antisemites hate all 13M of them.

Far Left antisemites hate “only” 12,740,000 of them.

So what is the difference between Far-Right antisemitism and Far-Left antisemitism?

Far Left antisemites believe they have a really good reason to hate most of the Jews, unlike Far Right antisemites who are much less bothered to look for good reasons to hate Jews.

Monday, May 29, 2017

Beinart's favourite posturing

From Beinart's feverish pen comes this latest gem:

Why Israel Should Embrace This ‘Palestinian Gandhi’ — Not Jail Him

"Unfortunately, the Israeli government does not yearn for Palestinian Gandhis." he laments later in the article.

No, no Israeli or Jew should yearn for any Gandhi.  As a Jew who likes to adorn himself with his pristine Jewishness, Beinart should know his people's history, as it actually unfolded, not as he arranges it in his imagination.

In what role can Gandhi, possibly, serve as a moral model for Jews, or anybody?

Never mind that Gandhi implacably stated:

"The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me."

Never mind that he openly admitted knowing that

 "the German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history."

What was his humanistic solution? Denial of national home on the one hand and German genocidal threats fully perceived as real on the other, what were the Jews to do?

But never fear. He had a solution. The saintly Mahatma calmly proposed in 1938:

" If I were a Jew and were born in Germany.. as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this, I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance but would have confidence that in the end the rest are bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can... But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep."

When asked by his biographer Louis Fischer,

“You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?” 

Gandhi answered


“Yes, that would have been heroism.”

In 1946, he said

“Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.” 

Gandhi was severely disappointed in the Jews for the Holocaust.

There is no winning with this guy, no survival, no life, no future for the Jews. This is the moral model that Beinart raises his gaze to, in utter cringe.

Friday, April 28, 2017

Corrie

 aligned herself sentimentally and seamlessly with suffering Palestinians, reserving for them her absolute anger and attendant pity to the extent that suffering Israelis merited nothing but a sneering hatred from her. Corrie’s idealism did not proceed from love but from ideologically induced hatred. She was a de-facto apologist for Palestinian terrorism, and she died trying to prevent the work of an Israeli bulldozer, which was searching for munitions buried in the ground . Contrary to Palestinian reports and what is generally claimed, the bulldozer was not there to demolish a house, (though houses used as cover for weapon-smuggling tunnels were demolished by the IDF, but not on that particular day). Any which way you slice it, those munitions were there to be utilized in attacks against innocent civilians. Corrie died protecting terrorist weapons. She was completely indifferent to the deaths these weapons spelled at a time when suicide bombings were a matter of daily, sometimes hourly, occurrence in Israel.

Btw, when I look at this photo of Corrie what strikes me is less her complete self-abandon to mindless hatred. What I notice is the difference between her semi-crazed demeanor and the baffled and smiling faces of the Palestinian kids, who surround her. What can it mean?


Saturday, December 10, 2016

What's the difference between Far-Right antisemitism and Far-Left antisemitism?


Far-Right antisemitism is hatred and fear of Jews qua Jews, all Jews.

Far-Left antisemitism is hatred of what they call Zionists, those 98% of world Jews who either live in Israel or support Israel, or have no problem with the idea and  existence of a Jewish state. 

What makes it possible for Far Left Antisemitism to claim they are not antisemitic is the (possibly) 2%* of Jews who don't support the Jewish state. 

If there are 13M Jews in the world,
Far Right antisemites hate all 13M of them.
Far Left antisemites hate "only" 12,740,000 of them.



So what is the difference between Far-Right antisemitism and Far-Left antisemitism?

Far Left antisemites believe they have a really good reason to hate most of the Jews, unlike Far Right antisemites who are much less bothered to look for good reasons to hate Jews.

_____
 
 * It's quite possible that I've exaggerated on the side of caution the percentage of Jews who don't favour Israel.

Friday, October 14, 2016

Sticks in his Craw:
Bob Dylan, the Nobel Prize and  Arab displeasure



Even if the Jews have not all been geniuses,their general average of intelligence and intellectuality is far above our general average--and that is one of our reasons for wishing to drive them out of the higher forms of business and the professions.
It is the swollen envy of pygmy minds--meanness, injustice.

(Mark Twain)

 

Asad Abukhalil, "Angry Arab News Letter",  professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus, has a different theory as to why Bob Dylan was awarded the Nobel prize for Literature this year:

"Did Bob Dylan win the Nobel Prize in literature for this poem [The Neighborhood Bully]?

He wrote this after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, when Dylan--who admired Meir Kahane--supported Israeli war crimes and massacres."

I'd also have liked to believe this song played a pivotal role in the decision of the Nobel committee but it's unlikely. However, I do derive a certain perverse pleasure  from imagining that this selection sticks in Angry Arab's craw to the point of incontinent vomiting.

This walking incarnation of ugliness, Arabofascism, and implacable irredentism, teaches young students on how to read texts and historical events. And then you wonder about the condition of American society these days.






Monday, October 10, 2016

Obama prepares to honour his Promise to Palestinians

Is anyone really surprised that Obama is making good on his promise to Ali AbuNimah*?

Is anybody really surprised that the bottom line of Obama's "diplomatic" assault on Israel is: It's the Jews ' fault, for wanting to live where they are not wanted?

Is anybody really surprised that Obama shares Black Lives Matter's ethos, according to which the darker the skin colour, the more virtuous you are?

"The Obama administration is manufacturing a crisis with Israel in anticipation of a post-election diplomatic push targeting the Jewish state, and this past week launched a series of broadsides criticizing the Israelis through the media and in press briefings, according to congressional sources and Jewish-American officials who spoke to THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The White House and State Department lashed out after the Israelis advanced plans to build in areas the administration considers to be off-limits to new Israeli construction, using language that reporters noted is usually reserved for terror attacks.

Asked by journalists why the administration stated that it "strongly condemn[ed]" Israel's plans to advance construction, a phrase ordinarily used "to denounce acts of terrorism," White House spokesman Josh Earnest replied that the construction "provoke[s] strong feelings in the administration." In that briefing, Earnest also suggested that Israel betrayed commitments to Washington, while a State Department official separately said Israel would be "cementing… perpetual occupation" if it built the houses."

________

 * By Abunimah's own testimonial, this is what Obama said to him in

"the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies.
As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

Monday, September 26, 2016



Hannah Arendt, on Intellectuals:
 


(On October 28, 1964, a conversation took place between Hannah 
Arendt and Gunter Gaus. Here is the relevant excerpt. 
Note the passages I highlighted):

 
Gaus: You mean that the shock in 1933 came from the fact that 
events went from the generally political to the personal? 
 
Arendt: Not even that. Or, that too. First of all, the generally 
political became a personal fate when one emigrated. Second . . . friends 
"co-ordinated" or got in line. The problem, the personal problem, was 
not what our enemies did but what our friends did. In the wave of 
Gleichschakung (co-ordination),* which was relatively voluntary — in any 
case, not yet under the pressure of terror — it was as if an empty space 
formed around one. I lived in an intellectual milieu, but I also knew 
other people. And among intellectuals Gleichschaltung was the rule, so 
to speak. But not among the others. And I never forgot that. I left 
Germany dominated by the idea — of course somewhat exaggerated: 
Never again! I shall never again get involved in any kind of intellectual 
business. I want nothing to do with that lot. Also I didn't believe then 
that Jews and German Jewish intellectuals would have acted any dif
ferently had their own circumstances been different. That was not my 
opinion. I thought that it had to do with this profession, with being an 
intellectual. I am speaking in the past tense. Today I know more about 
it. . . . 
 
Gaus: I was just about to ask you if you still believe that. 
 
Arendt: No longer to the same degree. But I still think that it 
belongs to the essence of being an intellectual that one fabricates ideas 
about everything. No one ever blamed someone if he "co-ordinated" 
because he had to take care of his wife or child. The worst thing was 
that some people really believed in Nazism! For a short time, many for 
a very short time. But that means that they made up ideas about Hitler, 
in part terrifically interesting things! Completely fantastic and interesting 
and complicated things! Things far above the ordinary level lf I found 
that grotesque. Today I would say that they were trapped by their own 
ideas. That is what happened. But then, at that time, I didn't see it so 
clearly. 
 
Gaus: And that was the reason that it was particularly important 
for you to get out of intellectual circles and start to do work of a practical 
nature? 
 
Arendt: Yes. The positive side is the following. I realized what  
I then expressed time and again in the sentence: If one is attacked as a 
Jew, one must defend oneself as a Jew. Not as a German, not as a world- 
citizen, not as an upholder of the Rights of Man, or whatever. But: 
What can I specifically do as a Jew?"