Here are the headlines from Mondoweiss for 09/27/2010:
‘A higher racism’: The new justifications for Islamophobia and pre-emptive violence
Sep 26, 2010 06:59 pm | David Green Our political culture has become more civilized, but also more sophisticated in its use of demonization. While overt hatred is no longer generally acceptable, it can be rationalized if it is clearly couched in allegations that assert the racism of our political enemies: their collective hatred puts us in danger. Similarly, conspiracy theories are anathema, except for those who claim that others conspire against us on the basis of conspiracy theories about us—that is, about Americans, Jews, Jewish Israelis, and western civilization.
These observations regarding “higher racism” must be kept in mind if we are to distinguish anti-Semitism from—to borrow a phrasing from Norman Finkelstein—the Anti-Semitism Industry. Since the 1960s, both the United States and Israel have required regular upsurges in the “new anti-Semitism,” always with evocations of the Nazi Holocaust, as one aspect of imperial ideology—especially as it applies to the Middle East and the Islamic world, but also wherever criticism of Israel is to be found in the U.S. and Europe.
The New York Times recently reviewed three books that exemplify this “higher racism” among academic writers and their reviewers.
In reviewing Anthony Julius’s book Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England, prominent literary scholar Harold Bloom (5/7/10) writes: “He (Julius) is a truth-teller, and authentic enough to stand against the English literary and academic establishment, which essentially opposes the right of the state of Israel to exist, while indulging in the humbuggery that its anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.”
More recently in the New York Times (7/5/10), Edward Rothstein published an essay review that incorporated his perspectives on Julius’s above-mentioned book; Robert Wistrich’s A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism From Antiquity to the Global Jihad; and Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World, by Jeffrey Herf. In discussing Herf's book, Rothstein asserts that Arab anti-Semitism should be understood in relation to Nazi anti-Semitism rather than imperial American/Israeli behavior. And anti-Semitism, among historical racisms, must be understood as uniquely conspiratorial and threatening.
Rothstein writes: “It is easy enough to discern when responsible criticisms of Israel veer into something reprehensible: the structure of anti-Semitic belief is not subtle. There is a wildly exaggerated scale of condemnation, in which extremes of contempt confront a country caricatured as the world’s worst enemy of peace; such attacks (and the use of Nazi analogies) are beyond evidence and beyond pragmatic political debate or protest. Israel’s autonomy—its very presence—is the problem.”
Rothstein approvingly quotes Julius's assertion that “Israel is the only state in the world whose legitimacy is widely denied and whose destruction is publicly advocated and threatened; Israelis are the only citizens of a state whose indiscriminate murder is widely considered justifiable.”
Finally, again in reference to Herf’s book, Rothstein concludes: “Nazi ideology bears many resemblances to that of contemporary Islamic extremism, some the consequence of careful teaching. That teaching is still present in the Arab world, amplified by political leaders and imams, often annexed to denigrations of Jews taken from Islamic sources.”
In comparing anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, Rothstein mitigates the latter and draws this bizarre conclusion: “Islamophobia is a concept developed within the last two decades by those who wish to elevate Islam’s reputation in the West; anti-Semitism was a concept eagerly embraced and expanded by haters of Jews. One was constructed by a group’s supporters, the other by a group’s enemies. Moreover, much of what is characterized as Islamophobia today arises out of taking seriously the impassioned claims of doctrinal allegiance made by Islamic terrorist groups and their supporters. Anti-Semitism, though, has nothing to do with any claims at all.”
This is sophistry. The fact that the term “Islamophobia” was not invented by its advocates can hardly serve to deny objective reality to Islamophobic paranoia and hatred, as we see now more clearly than ever. Moreover, to argue that anti-Semitism has “nothing to do with any claims at all” is transparent bad faith, whatever the perversity of genuine anti-Semites. No form of racism or conspiracism operates without reference to “evidence,” however distorted in its exploitation. Most revealing, Rothstein seriously asserts the merits of and justification for Islamophobia (thus implying it is not unreasonable at all), based on “doctrinal allegiance made by Islamic terrorist groups and their supporters.” He implies that their conspiracism and the legitimate need for our (or Israel’s) violent pre-emption is a matter of our survival. How different are these views from those of a serious Islamophobe such as Daniel Pipes? For example, Pipes wrote about Muslim Americans in a 1999 Commentary article: “Positive attitudes are very much the exception. At huge conventions closed to the press and public, in speeches and publications that tend to be couched in the historic Muslim languages rather than in English, nearly every Muslim organization in the United States—emphatically including those that carefully maintain a proper demeanor for public, English-language consumption—spews forth a blatant and vicious anti-Semitism, a barrage of bias, calumny, and conspiracy-mongering of a sort that has otherwise all but disappeared from American discourse.” In truth, modern anti-Semitism (that is, racially rather than religiously-based anti-Semitism) has been no more “unique” in its ideological tactics than racism associated with either slavery or apartheid. This was cogently demonstrated by the late historian George M. Fredrickson’s in his book Racism: A Short History (2003).
Thus neither anti-Semitism nor Islamophobia has been singular in hatred based on the alleged racism of the other, and pre-emption justified by the alleged conspiracy theorizing of the other. For example, current rhetoric about Iran echoes Nazi rhetoric about Poland, in both ferocity and lack of validity. Islamophobia, especially in its “higher” expressions, has become a central ideological and propaganda component of the American/Israeli “War on Terror,” and is clearly the most dangerous form of politically-driven demonization on the current scene.
In contrast, anti-Semitism in its most virulent European/Christian form is moribund, unique only in that it cannot be allowed to die a dishonorable death. Instead, it is cynically revitalized as the lurid propaganda of anti-anti-Semitism; i.e., Islamophobia; and the memory of its real victims debased. This fabricated anti-Semitism is projected onto the Islamic world in service of the imperial regimes. Academics, journalists, and think tank propagandists are called to present all of this as consistent with scholarly understanding. As can be seen, they do the best they can.
David Green (davegreen84@yahoo.com), a 60-year-old Jewish-American social researcher and policy analyst; he has been involved in pro-Palestinian activities since 1997. He lives in Champaign, IL. He has published his political work at websites such as Counterpunch, ZNet, Palestine Chronicle, and Electronic Intifada.   
Comment on this article >
     
‘J Street’ raised $11 million– and the right howls
Sep 26, 2010 01:50 pm | Philip Weiss J Street, the alternative Israel lobby, has raised a ton of money from 10,000 people. The Atlantic reports: According to estimates provided to The Atlantic by Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami, the group has brought in a total of $11.2 million since its inception: $1.2 million in 2008, $3.3 million in 2009, and $5 million so far in 2010 to its nonprofits, plus $576,000 in political contributions in the 2008 election cycle and $1.1 million since then. The group expects to grow its budget to $7 million in 2011.
Big contributions to J Street from George Soros and his family ($250,000 a year for three years) have stirred attacks on J Street in the conservative Jewish community--from the JTA's Ron Kampeas and Eli Lake of the Washington Times. Today Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street has responded to the criticism on the J Street blog, admitting that he was "less than clear" about Soros's involvement, but emphasizing the divide here inside the organized Jewish community/lobby: You and I have built something spectacular in J Street.... J Street is providing hope for those who’ve lost it on this issue and a voice for those who feel they have been silenced. We’re giving inspiration to moderate Israelis and, yes, to Palestinians who still believe there is a way to live side-by-side in two states in peace and security. We’ve built a base of 160,000 supporters, established local groups in 35 communities and on over 50 college campuses. Our 45 staff are in 8 cities around the country. We’ve tapped into a pent-up longing in the Jewish community and beyond for a home that marries a love of Israel with a deep desire for long-term peace and security through a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And a lot of people don’t like that.
Comment on this article >
Between ‘09 and ‘10, Obama dropped demand for an ‘end to occupation’
Sep 26, 2010 12:54 pm | Philip Weiss President Obama's Sept. 23, 2009 speech to the UN General Assembly: The time has come -- the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security -- a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.
His Sept. 23, 2010, speech to the same body: Last year, I pledged my best efforts to support the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, as part of a comprehensive peace between Israel and all of its neighbors.
The 2010 speech does not mention "occupation" or "refugees" or "1967." All its references to Jerusalem are elliptical. 
Comment on this article >
Israel Museum features art work honoring the right of return
Sep 26, 2010 12:34 pm | Philip Weiss I went to the Israel Museum in Jerusalem the other day and was stunned to see a work of art that dramatizes the Palestinian right of return. The piece is called "Al Awda (The Return)." It is a video created by the Jerusalem artist Jumana Emil Abboud, in an exhibition of contemporary art that opened in July and is curated by the American artist Susan Hiller. In Abboud's piece, a woman dressed in black, who looks to me to be of Arab descent, wanders out a trail into the forest, pausing to drop bread crumbs behind her so that she can find her way back. The video goes on for about 5 minutes. You keep waiting for her to return, but she never does, she just keeps dropping bread crumbs and wandering out that trail. The spiritual/political thrust of the piece is clear: This gentle person wants to go home. And of course international law recognizes her right. I have not found any Israeli coverage of the piece. A European museum describes the video: "[H]er journey - a search of a home - is endless: the video shows her going over the same ground again and again in a continual loop." The Israel Museum also includes, in its halls of Israeli art, Palestinian artist Sharif Waked's dark video of 2003, "Chic Point," which imagines Palestinian fashion for Israeli checkpoints-- clothes for men that open up around the torso so that security can examine them for possible bombs. I saw several American Jews stopped at the video, clucking over it. Own it. This is a hopeful post. As Joel Kovel has said, the terrible guilt that Jews feel over the Nakba has resulted in denial; but that denial is beginning to ease. An awareness of the grievous damage done to Palestinian human rights by Israel is leaking into American Jewish consciousness and even into Israeli society. 
Comment on this article >
Jewish boat to Gaza sets sail from Cyprus
Sep 26, 2010 11:24 am | Lillian Rosengarten 
 AFP reports that the Jewish boat to Gaza, Irene, (pictured at left) set forth from Cyprus some hours ago:
A boat carrying Jewish activists from Israel, Europe and the United States set sail Sunday from Cyprus bound for Gaza, in a bid to run Israel's blockade of the Palestinian territory, an AFP reporter said. The boat, named "Irene," left the port of Famagusta in the Turkish-held north of the divided eastern Mediterranean island in the early afternoon carrying eight activists, three of whom are crew members, and two journalists.
Here is the account we got from passenger Lillian Rosengarten--a New Yorker who escaped Nazi Germany as a little girl-- yesterday, embargoed till now. Rosengarten is pictured left, apparently with Edith Lutz behind her: The small saılboat wıth engıne saıls under a British flag. Our captaın ıs Glyn Secker, Brıtısh human rıghts actıvıst. 3 crew ıncludıng wonderful Yonatan Shapira. Two other passengers are Israelı: Reuven Moskovıtz, 82 year old camp survıvor, and Ramı Elhanen (husband to to Nurıt Peled-Elhanen), father of Smadar, who was killed by a suıcıde bomber in Jerusalem in 1997. Next ıs Edıth Lutz who ıs a German Jew and co- coordınator of the Jewısh boat, which is also being coordinated by the Brıtısh group Jews For Justıce For Palestıne. I left my computer ın London for securıty reasons. We hope and belıeve there ıs some possıbılıty that we can get to Gaza. We are nonvıolent but wıll practıce passıve resıstance, for we wıll not turn the boat around... It's a remarkable, small catamaran. I and another woman, and seven men. three crew. Yonatan Shapira is one of the crew with his brother Itamar. All the people are fantastic!
Update: JPost reports that the mother of newly-elected British Labour Party leader Ed Miliband-- Marion Kozak-- is a member of the Jewish group in England that has backed the Jewish boat to Gaza. 
Comment on this article >
No answer at the Egyptian office for Palestinian affairs
Sep 26, 2010 09:50 am | Susan Johnson We've run a few posts from Susan Johnson, a Pennsylvania grandmother who was invited to Gaza by two groups and has not been able to get in. Her latest, from Cairo: I know it's a Friday because there were Friday Prayers and a sermon was booming from a loudspeaker...that only happens on Friday. It is now September 24th, I think. and I am still sitting in my cheap little hotel. Time is moving slowly. There have been calls back and forth from the U.S. Embassy and from Gaza. I'm told The Egyptians won't answer their phones. The US Embassy and the Egyptian Foreign Ministry can not agree on a procedure for US citizens wanting to go to Gaza. The Egyptians will not agree to let me go to Gaza using the old procedure. There is no procedure right now....it's being negotiated. I'm also told the Egyptians won't answer their phone. Yolanda turns me over to her assistant Ann...I know it's not a good sign to be passed on to an assistant. I decide I must win Ann's interest and commitment, have her decide she's going to devote herself to getting me into Gaza....."Susan I'm trying they don't answer the phone....I am so sorry I don't have any thing to tell you. I'll get back to you with good news before the end of the day." The day ends and I haven't heard from Ann with good or bad news. I call Yolanda the next morning... Ann didn't find out any thing? She didn't get back to you? "Let me talk to..." I think she says her boss. When she returns the tone of her voice has changed "...Susan, this could take weeks to resolve...I don't want to give you false hope..We are negotiating a new procedure...the Egyptians aren't answering their phone...." There is a question running around in my head, "where does the information come from? The Egyptians won't answer their phones; fact or fiction?" They must be communicating...maybe by email? I try calling the Egyptian Ministry's man responsible for Palestinian Affairs...no answer....no answer..... And I'm surprised Palestinians are having affairs...and what's an Egyptian doing in charge of them...I apologize, I couldn't resist. If I lose my sense of humor, warped as it is, I'm sunk. I call a few times more and discover the Egyptians aren't answering their phones. I am sighing....Yolanda, maybe you should try using another phone. They may have caller ID...see it's you calling and not answer. Why not try another phone....What Susan? Another phone? oh, like a cell phone. Oh! Why don't they look for other solutions? Changing phones could be a good idea; it's worth a try. What about going to the Foreign Ministry on an errand...or appointment..and then stop by the office of the Palestinian Affairs man ...you just happened to be in the neighborhood. Those in Gaza have contacted everyone they can think of and run out of people to call. We have difficulty remaining cheerful; encouraging each other; maintaining a positive attitude.....actually we aren't maintaining positive attitudes...we're putting up good fronts...wearing masks...speaking in tongues. They have so many things to juggle, problems to solve, situations to work around....I wanted to be a help....not another problem. I email them and don't receive replies....why don't they email....we keep having power cuts.... it's best to text, use your mobile. I sigh...tell myself I can do it. I hate trying to send text messages. They take me forever....become lost...I wipe them out.....Worse I send them quickly, in the heat of the moment...zoom...they arrive right away. I don't wait, re-read them as I should....my grand daughter and her new husband were insulted and angry by one such email...and they were completely justified. I send my text messages to Gaza carefully watching each word ..don't want to cause those wonderful people even a tiny bit of concern....have them find out I'm so close to falling apart. What would happened if I send text messages to the Embassy, Yolanda, Ann, even to the Egyptian Foreign Ministry....people love cell phones...stop what they are doing as soon as they ring...read the message...take the call. Maybe I could reach people right away...even the Egyptians. Wow! I have to be careful...not slam out a text in the heat of the moment.....they control Gaza's comings and goings. On second thought maybe I could scare them into sending me out of Egypt....send that wild woman to Gaza, it would serve her right. Now...all I need are their cell phone numbers! 
Comment on this article >
Agnon: Israel gave us strength to stand up for our lives
Sep 26, 2010 09:48 am | Philip Weiss I'm reading A Book That Was Lost, stories by S.Y. Agnon, the Israeli writer who died in 1970, a few years after winning the Nobel Prize for literature. Agnon's posthumous story "The Sign" begins with a paragraph relating news of his native city, Buczacz, in Poland. Agnon got the news at his home in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Talpiyot, during World War II. I pass this along because it is moving, because it frames the postwar Jewish experience, and because it helps explain some of Israel's conduct. In the year when the news reached us that all the Jews in my town had been killed, I was living in a certain section of Jerusalem, in a house I had built for myself after the disturbances of 1929 (5629—which numerically is equal to “The Eternity of Israel”). On the night when the Arabs destroyed my home, I vowed that if God would save me from the hands of the enemy and I should live, I would build a house in this particular neighbourhood which the Arabs had tried to destroy. By the grace of God, I was saved from the hands of our despoilers and my wife and children and I remained alive in Jerusalem. Thus I fulfilled my vow and there built a house and made a garden. I planted a tree, and lived in that place with my wife and children, by the will of our Rock and Creator. Sometimes we dwelt in quiet and rest, and sometimes in fear and trembling because of the desert sword that waved in fuming anger over all the inhabitants of our holy land. And even though many troubles and evils passed over my head, I accepted all with good humor and without complaint. On the contrary, with every sorrow I used to say how much better it was to live in the Land of Israel than outside the land, for the Land of Israel has given us the strength to stand up for our lives, while outside the land we went to meet the enemy like sheep to the slaughter. Tens of thousands of Israel, none of whom the enemy was worthy even to touch, were killed and strangled and buried alive; among them my brothers and friends and family, who went through all kinds of great sufferings in their lives and in their deaths, by the wickedness of our blasphemers and our desecrators, a filthy people, blasphemers of God, whose wickedness had not been matched since man was placed upon the earth.
 
Comment on this article >
In 1967, Peretz and Walzer were on the ramparts
Sep 26, 2010 08:59 am | Philip Weiss The video Adam posted of Michael Walzer and Marty Peretz walking past Harvard demonstrators denouncing Peretz's nasty Islamophobia prompted one reader to offer a 1967 flashback to the days when Peretz and Walzer were seen as righteous: If you want a Chimes at Midnight feeling, compare the present moment with the 1967 anti-Vietnam protest against campus recruitment at Harvard and this article in the Harvard Crimson quoting Peretz and Walzer opposing the defense establishment's ties to Harvard.
Like signers of the 1848 Chartist Petition who have lived long enough to support the Boer War--baffled at how the radical young no longer share their sympathies.
Two excerpts from the piece. Walzer interview: Walzer acknowledged the rights of Faculty members to act freely in accepting classified research contracts, but added that "the danger is that the University may cease to be a community of detached, critical intellectuals. "Students have a right to know if their lecturers are under the employment of the State Department. You could force the Faculty to declare their interests as members of Parliament do. Professors who work for radical political organizations should also declare their commitments. Anything a professor may do to compromise his integrity--shouldn't that be made public? "Also, the maximum information should be made public on the relations of Harvard's various departments to the government. These connections call into question the integrity and independence of the University."
Peretz interview: "But Harvard is not self-conscious enough to realize its complicity with the war effort. It ignores the extent to which it is involved all the time. "The greatest involvement lies with the honorific agencies of the University--lectureships such as the Godkin series and honorary degrees. Great dissenters and heretics have not been given a platform here at Harvard. The commencement address has been repeatedly used to advance the cold war. "There is also involvement in those institutions that are policy-oriented. Because they are attached to the policy sciences, they have not been open to dissidence. "If the University cannot be neutral, it can at least find ways of making itself more open to dissent, recognize the limits of neutrality, tire of its rhetoric and its high-sounding phrases. If we can get an honest discussion of these issues, people will be more reflective."
Comment on this article >
| |
Send
RSS
