Dialogue Concerning Anti-Semitism in Z and in the Left
Michael Albert was a guest on an upper NY State talk radio show with host Jeremy Anderson. Jeremy accused Z of anti-semitism regarding publication of an article some years back. Subsequent E-Mail exchange led to this public ZNet forum exchange. Mitchell is a ZNet users who contributed, Sysop is Albert, and Nobody (that's his user id) is
Message from Jeremy Anderson (online name = Nobody) to begin the exchange.
Thank you for the invitation to either continue or restart our recent dialogue here in a Z forum. I suppose I shall do a little of both, but, for the benefit of others, I will recap a bit first.
This discussion started when you were a guest on my radio show, and I took that opportunity to read you a letter I had written to Z in 1993, which Z had neither published nor otherwise responded to.
The letter began:
"In your July/August issue, Edward Herman asserts that the 'exterminaiton of peoples standing in the way of God's chosen' has been a 'tradition in treating enemies, starting with Moses' that the Jews have kept 'well preserved' to the recent day (as exemplified by, among others, the heads of Israel's two main political parties). This is naked anti-semitism."
The letter ended:
"So I ask you, is Edward Herman still associated with Z Magazine, and if so, why? Do you think that being a leftist means embracing prejudice more fervently than the establishment you decry?
Tolerance for anti-semitism is the shame of the left. Z should apologize, and Herman should be bounced."
So far, neither one of us has been able to locate a copy of the original Herman article, though I will freely stipulate that the phrases above were embedded in a piece that was almost certainly more innocuous. But I would not care if they had been embedded in his grandmother's recipe for chicken soup. They are still vile and should not have been published. You do not, of course, see it that way.
So let me start by looking more closely at Heman's phrases. In the first place, they aren't true. The Jewish people plainly and simply do not have a tradition of exterminaion. As I said in my letter to Z:
"While it's true that the Bible approvingly records horrific massacres committed by the Israelites -- as was common practice at that time -- after the Biblical period, the Jews abandoned this form of conduct while the rest of the world carried it on. The Jews were not the ones who depopulated North and South America, committed the Holocaust or threatened to drive
I would have thought that the obvious falsehood of Herman's statement would have counted for something, but you have offered up a couple of defenses, writing at one point, "He is talking about a tradition of justifying atrocity in a particular manner." There are two points to be made about this defense. First, you are making it up out of whole cloth. Herman doesnt say what you say he says. Second, since there is no Jewish "tradition" of "extermination," there could not possibly be a Jewish tradition of justifying such a policy on any grounds. If you believe that there is such a tradition (Herman used the word "extermination" not "atrocity" so for clarity, if nothing else, let's stick to what he said), would you be kind enough to identify where you see it?
At another point you wrote, "Herman indicates an elite which uses a certain kind of rationale to substantiate its misdeeds." I do not know exactly what you meant by this. Herman was clearly talking about a "tradition" stretching from the present back to antiquity. Would you be kind enough to identify the "misdeeds" (exterminaitons) which you think have been pepetrated by Jewish elites through the centuries? Surely there have been Jews involved with the ruling classes in one capacity or another in many times and places. But if they committed "misdeeds," I hardly see any way in which their actions could be called a Jewish traditon. If, on the other hand, you are suggesting (in Herman's name) that Jewish elites have been rationalizing, manipulating, etc. in pursuit of objectives which somehow are Jewish, then you're making essentially the same case as is made in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," merely substituting the word "elites" for "elders."
I'll wait for your clarification, but in the meantime, I must point out that your defense of Herman might easily be seen as no less anti-semitic than his original statement. It is little wonder, therefore, that you report that you (and Noam Chomsky} have sometimes been called a self-hating Jew, in which regard you offered up this analogy: "Think for a minute of how some people would react to my commentaries about the
Okay, let's think about it then. If somebody accuses me of being un-American, as has happened in my life (especially during my opposition to the Vietnam war), I have no trouble answering that I believe I am acting within the best traditions of America, loyal to Ameica's highest ideals of freedom, democracy and equal rights for all. Others may agree or disagree, but I have no problem engaging in that discussion from a positive point of view, by defining what
I think if there were really such an apt parallel between being called a self-hating American and a self-hating Jew (and I think they are actually very different phenomena), then people accused of being self-hating Jews would be able to make the kinds of positive declarations people accused of being un-American can make. And it was just such a positive discussion I tried to have with Noam Chomsky when he was a guest on my show. But when I asked him what it meant to him to be a good Jew, he refused to answer saying (this is verbatim, I checked the tape), "I don't think it's anybody's business but my own." As I said to you on the air, I regard his refusal to discuss this as unfortunate. But that doesn't mean that the same question (and others) can't be directed toward you.
What does it mean to you to be a good Jew? What do you think Judaism is? Why do you think the Jews have been atacked so often? And last, but not least, what do you think anti-semitism is?
Jeremy Alderson
Reply from Michael Albert:
> Thank you for the invitation to either continue or restart our recent dialogue here in a Z forum. I suppose I shall do a little of both, but, for the benefit of others, I will recap a bit first.
Welcome. I hope you will partake of the forums more widely, as well. Updating our discussion will help people partake, I think...
I apologize at the outset for the fact that this post is bound to be quite long, bringing everyone up to date, as it does, on our exchanges, and involving some complicated materials.
> This discussion started when you were a guest on my radio show, and I took that opportunity to read you a letter I had written to Z in 1993, which Z had neither published nor otherwise responded to.
Correct. But was it 1993? July Aug 1993 is out of stock which may explain my inability to find the piece. And our online archive doesn't go back that far. Maybe someone out there will find the piece and quote in full for us. I found a three part series by Ed on
> The letter began:
> "In your July/August issue, Edward Herman asserts that the 'exterminaiton of peoples standing in the way of God's chosen' has been a 'tradition in treating enemies, starting with Moses' that the Jews have kept 'well preserved' to the recent day (as exemplified by, among others, the heads of Israel's two main political parties). This is naked anti-semitism."
Yep. That is what you wrote. The double quotes indicate content from your letter. The single quotes are around words taken directly from Ed, I presume. The extra words, I assume again, are your paraphrase or interpretation of additional words Ed wrote which are not themselves, however, quoted.
> The letter ended:
> "So I ask you, is Edward Herman still associated with Z Magazine, and if so, why? Do you think that being a leftist means embracing prejudice more fervently than the establishment you decry?
> Tolerance for anti-semitism is the shame of the left. Z should apologize, and Herman should be bounced."
Yes, that is how you ended.
But in between, we might note, you had quite a lot of commentary railing at Ed via a number of analogies meant to demonstrate just how vile the phrases you quoted were.
Here is part of what I wrote back to you, when you sent me the letter anew, after I was on your show...
---What the material you quoted, without full text, says to me, however, is that the article most likely argues that Israel's enemies have been attacked using the pretext that they stand in the way of "god's chosen" -- that is, the phrase God's Chosen isn't Herman's way of referring to Jews or citizens of Israel, but is, instead, that of those alibing the behavior via the "God on our Side" rationale--the leaders of Israel, and, in many instances, of various constituencies and parties within Israel. This to me is a statement that is checkable against the historical record. Doing so would reveal Ed was on strong ground, assuming I have read him properly, I believe.
---Herman also apparently argues, (I don't know for sure as you don't have much quoted text in your letter), that this horrible rationale (typical also of many others, such as our own government, in its own variant) is still being employed in
---I have to say I would predict these claims to be true, based on general knowledge of statecraft, religion, etc. (not general anti-Semitism, however). I would also predict that it has been the "tradition" for rationalizing such ventures in the past, and am confident Ed's claims to that effect are truthful, again. So as far as I can see, the little bit that you quoted is likely substantiated by evidence in the article and in history, and certainly true--unless it means something dramatically different than I take from your fragmentary quotes. For this one would need the whole article, presumably.
---Out of the phrases, which, in isolation, seem to me accurate and to say nothing about Judaism or Jews per se, you deduce that someone who has devoted decades to helping and fighting for social change, sometimes at risk, and who has evidenced not a whit of racist or anti-Semitic inclination in the whole time, to my knowledge, is horribly anti-Semitic and should be precluded from publishing in Z.
---I think that is a bit much....to say the least."
...so ends the section of my email reply to you.
> So far, neither one of us has been able to locate a copy of the original Herman article, though I will freely stipulate that the phrases above were embedded in a piece that was almost certainly more innocuous. But I would not care if they had been embedded in his grandmother's recipe for chicken soup. They are still vile and should not have been published. You do not, of course, see it that way.
Not at all. But you are certainly being very clear about it, which helps. The phrases, in and of themselves, you say, are vile. Well, no, I disagree.
And in fact, while I do think whole articles are often quite important for understanding single paragraphs, I find it overwhelmingly probable that had even just the whole paragraph with the phrases you quote, been quoted, there would be no problem at all to discuss.
> So let me start by looking more closely at Herman's phrases. In the first place, they aren't true. The Jewish people plainly and simply do not have a tradition of extermination. ...
The phrases aren't true as you read and interpret them -- I agree. But I don't accept your reading (for example, that they are about the Jewish People's inclinations or traditions as Jews as you imply, as Ed's intent or meaning or even hidden assumption, based on the context of 20 years of knowing him and all his writings, but, more, I doubt overwhelmingly that it is a credible reading, a plausible one, even on the basis of the one article, and likely even on the basis of the single paragraph where the phrases appear, should someone be able to turn that up.
This was conveyed in my email reply to you, quoted above...in extention of which, here, for example, is what I figure Ed said, more or less, based on your rendition only --
I expect that Ed argued (not asserted) that a 'tradition in treating enemies, starting with Moses' has been the 'extermination of peoples standing in the way of God's chosen' and that this has been 'well preserved' into the present (as exemplified by, among others, the heads of
Same phrases. Who is doing the killing here? Not the Jewish people per se (any more than the American people were killers, per se, in
But I will go futher. I don't have any problem with someone looking at the history of an ideology or religion and seeking to discern patterns of social choice, or moral outlook, etc., within it, if it is done carefully and soberly, with some sensible purpose -- not a racist one. And I think if that is done with most, perhaps all religious heritages, regrettably, there is much that is bad to be unearthed... I doubt, however, that Ed was doing that at the time. Though he may have been, for some reason.
> I would have thought that the obvious falsehood of Herman's statement would have counted for something, but you have offered up a couple of defenses, writing at one point, "He is talking about a tradition of justifying atrocity in a particular manner." There are two points to be made about this defense. First, you are making it up out of whole cloth. Herman doesnt say what you say he says.
Excuse me. So far, Herman says almost nothing. About 15 words or so. You and I are doing all the talking. What he said is missing, so far. I think it would be an excellent turn for us to be doing the talking entirely, as a matter of fact, since Ed isn't available here to defend himself and I am not his keeper. More, since I think you would probably take issue with me on various points re anti-semitism it would be a much easlier and less convoluted way to get at the heart of things.
> Second, since there is no Jewish "tradition" of "extermination," there could not possibly be a Jewish tradition of justifying such a policy on any grounds.
"Jewish tradition." I don't remember seeing that phrase. Is there a tradition of the state of
In fact, again, I would go further and say that one could even make such claims about a religion or culture or ideology, without being irrational and racist, and they would be subject to discussion and debate.
And could someone who is anti semitic make the argument either about the state or about ideas and cultures (more likely) and have an anti-semitic agenda? Yes, of course -- though most often anti-semites are a good deal more blunt, I think. But that isn't Ed, or me, or Z.
> If you believe that there is such a tradition (Herman used the word "extermination" not "atrocity" so for clarity, if nothing else, let's stick to what he said), would you be kind enough to identify where you see it?
But you never came close to sticking to what he said, is my guess. We don't have what we said. And actually, Herman did not use the word extermination, per se, even in your quote. But, again, I think it would be more instructive not to discuss Ed, but, instead, to discuss substantive issues we may differ on.
> At another point you wrote, "Herman indicates an elite which uses a certain kind of rationale to substantiate its misdeeds." I do not know exactly what you meant by this.
If I said that I meant individuals do not exterminate opposition. They do not wage war, as individuals. War is a collective endeavor. War is done collectively, and in virtually every instance I am aware of, under the auspices of elite decision makers with their own vested interests propelling the decisions and generally quite at odds with the interests of those carrying out the decisions.
> Herman was clearly talking about a "tradition" stretching from the present back to antiquity.
He wasn't clearly doing anything in what you offered. It would be clear if we had the whole article. It is clear to me some things that he no doubt wasn't doing, because I have dozens of articles and his whole life, but perhaps that's not fair.
> Would you be kind enough to identify the "misdeeds" (exterminaitons) which you think have been pepetrated by Jewish elites through the centuries?
No. I didn't write the article and I have no intention of writing one here. But I highly recommend, for example, the three articles by Ed on
I think, but I am not sure, there is also a piece or two by Israel Shahak in our archive. I recommend them as well.
> Surely there have been Jews involved with the ruling classes in one capacity or another in many times and places. But if they committed "misdeeds," I hardly see any way in which their actions could be called a Jewish traditon.
Does the phrase "Jewish tradition" appear in your quotes, even taken out of context? No.
> If, on the other hand, you are suggesting (in Herman's name) that Jewish elites have been rationalizing, manipulating, etc. in pursuit of objectives which somehow are Jewish, then you're making essentially the same case as is made in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," merely substituting the word "elites" for "elders."
Again, if you wear glasses that are green, you will see green. If you want to reintrepret all words to fit a certain cast, it is hard to intervene. Did I say the interests of the elites were "Jewish" interests? No. They are elite interests, class interests, political interests, geo-political interests. At times elites can also have racist interests, to be sure, but this too is different than "Jewish" just as white racist interests are not "white."
> I'll wait for your clarification, but in the meantime, I must point out that your defense of Herman might easily be seen as no less anti-semitic than his original statement.
By you, probably so. I think that is sad, to be honest about it.
And it might not make a whit of difference to you that I am Jewish, or my entire life history, for that matter -- you might just say, oh big deal, you are self hating, or something like that. You might say your intepretation has to be right, period. Even if it flies in the face of an entire lifetime of practice by another person and is based only on a few phrases taken out of context. I think that would be wrong.
> It is little wonder, therefore, that you report that you (and Noam Chomsky} have sometimes been called a self-hating Jew, in which regard you offered up this analogy: "Think for a minute of how some people would react to my commentaries about the
> "This parallels the logic of those who dismiss strong critics of
> Okay, let's think about it then. If somebody accuses me of being un-American, as has happened in my life (especially during my opposition to the Vietnam war), I have no trouble answering that I believe I am acting within the best traditions of America, loyal to Ameica's highest ideals of freedom, democracy and equal rights for all. Othes may agree or disagree, but I have no problem engaging in that discussion from a positive point of view, by defining what
I can't, being honest.
But this doesn't mean I am prejudiced about something called the "american people" and if we were all overwhelmingly white protestants, say, it wouldn't make me anti-white or anti-protestant. And anyone dismissing my criticisms of the behavior of american elites and of the defining institutions of
> I think if there were really such an apt parallel between being called a self-hating American and a self-hating Jew (and I think they are actually very different phenomena), then people accused of being self-hating Jews would be able to make the kinds of positive declarations people accused of being un-American can make.
And I can do exactly that. I can say I have nothing whatsoever against Jewish people and nothing against Jewish religion per se (any more than I have differences with virtually all organized religion, myself being an athiest). And so on. But I literally find it demeaning to myself and to others to make idiotic statements like that, as I would in the analogous case of saying I have nothing against Americans per se. If a person can't see that, in my work, life, writings, etc. Nothing I say will make a difference. Why should it? I am not my own proper judge.
> And it was just such a positive discussion I tried to have with Noam Chomsky when he was a guest on my show. But when I asked him what it meant to him to be a good Jew, he refused to answer saying (this is verbatim, I checked the tape), "I don't think it's anybody's business but my own."
It seems like a perfectly reasonable answer to me. One I might give to in certain circumstances. But here is another answer, one I wouldn't ordinarily give, but for the precise circumstanaces we are in.
If you asked me, what might it mean (after all there are countless ways) to be an exemplary person, a morally righteous and worthy person, who is Jewish, I might say, take a look at Noam Chomsky. Offhand, I can't think of a better exemplar.
> As I said to you on the air, I regard his refusal to discuss this as unfortunate. But that doesn't mean that the same question (and others) can't be directed toward you.
Noam talks about topics he feels he has something worthwhile to offer. Topics where he feels he has knowledge or thoughts, due to special preparation or research or connections with information sources, that can aid others. I suspect he felt, auite reasonably, who am I to tell anyone else what it means to be a good anything...
But you can go ask him, if you like.
> What does it mean to you to be a good Jew? What do you think Judaism is? Why do you think the Jews have been atacked so often? And last, but not least, what do you think anti-semitism is?
At the risk, of ridiculous over-simplification...
>>What does it mean to you to be a good Jew?
This question, I admit, simply does not arise for me. In my case, if I have to answer, it means the same as to be a good person. Literally no difference that I can think of. (Of course, I am not religious, so I don't have any norms of behavior or of custom, etc., that I feel I should respect simply due to their lineage/heritage. This sort of obediance is, in fact, the element of religion that I do not like.)
Okay, perhaps there is one arguable difference between a sensible answer to what is a good person and to what is a good Jew. By virtue of being Jewish I suppose that one MIGHT argue that one has a greater responsibility re opposing injustice against jews than other constituencies (due to having a higher consciousness of it through experience) but one could as easily argue the reverse, that the highest morality is to treat ALL equally, and to therefore be just as attuned to any injustice as to an injustice directed at oneself and one's community. Obviously, as to being unjust toward others, there is no difference...don't do it.
>> What do you think Judaism is?
A religion. A cultural heritage. The two overlap but are not identical by a long shot. Both are shot through with diverse stands and threads, sometimes quite at odds. As with any religion and cultural heritage. The Israeli state, is, of course, not Judaism, though, again, there are relations, regretably, in that a state--insofar as these exist--should certainly not be identifed with a single cultural community of any sort.
>> Why do you think the Jews have been atacked so often?
I think it is largely a historical phenomena having to do with the position they have held and the history that has evolved. I certainly don't think it is an intrinsic result of internal features of the religion, as compared to others.
>> And last, but not least, what do you think anti-semitism is?
I think this phrase can have a few meanings, like anti-black, say. It can be the systematic denial of rights and opportunities, the oppression of Jews (the label semitic is somewhat misleading, but that's another issue) by systemic institutional relations. It can also be the denigration of Jews as inferior, as a group, genetically or by virtue of collective traits and beliefs that are deeply held, as manifested in the behavior of other individuals or groups, with greater or lesser impact.
I am against homophobia, which happens to be very widespread in black communities, and, I think it is fair to say, in black culture. I don't think this makes me racist. If I thought that black homophobia was the result of a gene, that would be racist.
And so on.
That's it for me reply to your post here, but -- egad, am I going to go on still further? -- in response to your email letter to me I also reacted to your concluding paragraph (as well as the stuff in between the beginning and end). I think your clsoing is by far the most important part of what you wrote, in practical political terms, so I hope you won't mind if I drag that into the discussion.
You concluded your letter to Z, which you recently read to me and remailed to me:
>> "So I ask you, is Edward Herman still associated with Z Magazine, and if so, why? Do you think that being a leftist means embracing prejudice more fervently than the establishment you decry?
>> Tolerance for anti-semitism is the shame of the left. Z should apologize, and Herman should be bounced."
Here was my reaction quoted directly from my email to you:
---
All the above aside, which could be a matter of context, or missing information, or whatever, the most important line in your letter is arguably "tolerance of anti-Semitism is the shame of the left."
I think this is a serious misreading of reality, a few years ago and now, almost regardless of what you think the left is.
If anti-Semitism was rampant on the left in a substantive way, affecting the lives of Jews materially, for example, then the position of Jews within the left would be largely subordinate, disempowered, etc. That is a material outcome we can check, easily enough. And I think, from my experience, that it is not the case by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly not in and around Z.
The same can be said, for that matter, of the
What about the lesser claim you might have made -- that anti-Semitic comments and behavior are rampant on the left, and uncriticized, even though Jews on the left are not suffering lesser empowerment or returns. Well, it could be true and it is harder to check for than differences in material or authority differences. For myself, I have to say that I have never seen anything remotely resembling evidence that it is true, however.
Anti-Semitism is certainly a problem in many places and constituencies. However, the idea that tolerance of it is the shame of the left is, well, beyond my ken.
There is only one sense I can think of in which your claim would be demonstrably true. If you believe or feel that taking a stance highly critical of Israeli state policies is anti-Semitism, which many people do believe but which would make the word anti-Semitism into a concept having little to do with religious or racial prejudice, then, by all means, tolerance of and practice of those attitudes is widespread, relatively, on the left.
--
If we continue, I promise to be more succinct...and perhaps, if you wish to address a variety of points, it may be well to do it in a few messages.
Again, I hope to see you in many forums, as time passes.
Since we now each have a copy of the Edward Herman article in question, and since my response to it will, perforce, be quite lengthy, I hope you will understand why I will not, for now, be responding to your last post.
Perhaps you have a scanner or something that will permit the Herman article to be posted to the Z archive, but, in any case, I can summarize it as an examinaiton of our govenment's policy toward former enemies. This examination is prefaced by the comment that government's actions are said to be premised on "A Judeo-Christian ethical tradition," involving "words and phrases like 'forgiveness,' 'love thy neighbor,' and 'turn the other cheek.'" But, Herman wants us to know, there is a darker side to this religious tradition. Actually, I think Herman's brief dissertation on religion is completely gratuitous and not tied to the rest of his discussion, but that's neither here nor there insofar as his anti-semitism is concerned.
Herman's piece is (rather obviously) anti-semitic for very simple reasons. First, he judges Jews by different standards than he judges others. Second, he lies about Judaism and Jewish traditions and slanders the good name of the Jewish people.
First, te standards issue.
Herman does make a rather pro forma disclaimer that "Judaism has produced many noble souls and fighters for human betterment," but what else could he have said? I assume that even you, Michael, would have smelled a rat if he'd written that there'd never been a single good Jew. But he certainly doesn't credit any Jewish teaching or tradition with producing good Jews, and that's not the way he treats Christianity. He prefaces his criticism of Christianity by saying, "The Christian tradition, while producing saints and inspiring a great number of people to moral lives..." The Christian tradition has inspired moral lives, but not so the Jewish tradition.
Herman writes, "[T]he Jewish tradition as descibed in the Old Testament is rampantly ethno-centric and dehumanizes outsiders with a gusto that could hardly be exceeded." There is nothing ambiguous here. Clearly, he does not treat the Jews, in particular, the way he treats
Given te context, I find it impossible to imagine that he was using the phrase "rampantly ethno-centric" as a compliment. But what can be said about his use of this phrase as a slur? The Jewish scriptures are the historical record and sacred religious document of the Jewish people. Who would anyone think they'd be centered on? Were the Israelites supposed to have provided a public access channel on parchment?
The Iliad and the Book of the Hopi are similarly ethno-centric as are the stories and legends of all aboriginal peoples, but I have never heard anyone suggest that, as a result, there was anything wrong with either the peoples or the documents. In this instance, Herman is judging the Jews harshly by applying a critical standard that no one sane person would apply to any other people. This alone should have raised a warning flag at Z.
Now, as to the slanders Herman promulgates, let's start with the relatively minor matter of his use of the term "Old Testament." I would not expect you to know this, Michael, but this term is, itself, derogatory to Jews. It is based on the idea that the coming of Jesus meant that God's covenant with the Jews had been superseded by a new covenant or testament. It is a way of saying that there is something no good anymore about the Jewish faith. It's too long a story to go into here, but I'm sure it's no exaggeration to say that this doctrine has been at the root of tens of thousands of murders committed against Jews. It was a serious enough matter that the Catholic Church finally voided (partially) its doctrine of supersession at Vatican II.
Presumably, Z doesn't engage in negative sterotyping when it comes to calling gay men "faggots" or black men "niggers," but when it comes to casually printing a term derrogatory to Judaism there is, apparently, no problem. The only reason I consider this a minor matter is because the term "Old Testament" is so widely used one might not realize it is defamatory, but then again, I do think the study of anti-semitism is as incumbant upon the left as is the study of any other form of oppression, and this is clearly not the order of the day at Z.
Do the Jewish scriptures really "dehumanize outsiders" as Herman claims? Let's look at some passages he doesn't cite. We can start with Genesis 1:27, "And God created man in His own image." Judaism teaches that EVERY person has a divine spark. Is this a dehumanizing teaching? If it is, it's certainly not more so towards outsiders than Jews.
The word "outsiders" doesn't appear in the Jewish Scriptures one way or the other, but the analagous term "strangers" appears often. Here are some of the many references:
"There shall be one law for the citizen and for the stranger who dwells among you." Exodus 12:49
"You shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike: for I the Lord am your God." Leviticus 24:22
"There shall be one law for you and the resident stranger; it shall be a law for all time throughout the ages. You and the stranger shall be alike before the Lord." Numbers 15:15
"You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the
"You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in the
"Hear out your fellow man, and decide justly between any man and a fellow Israelite or a stranger." Deuteronomy 1:16
"The Lord your God is a God supreme and a Lord supreme, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who shows no favor and takes no bribe, but upholds the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and befriends the stranger, providing him with food and clothing. You too must befriend the stranger, for you were strangers in the
Herman goes on to write of the Jewish scriptures, "Page after page recounts Jewish destruction and extermination of peoples standing in the way of God's chosen." To support this, he offers two examples of massacres perpetrated by the Israelites as recorded in the Bible, one of which he even refers to as "my favorite," as though implying that he possesses some vast store of Biblical knowledge from which to make choices. Indeed, the Bible recounts mroe massacres than the two he cites, but the overall impression his limited citations create is altogether false and, as I've said, slanderous.
If Judaism impels Jews to think they're better than others and thus haughtily slaughter anyone in their way, you would think that such a teaching would appear in the Biblical account of the conquest of the Promised Land, but this is not the case. Consider the following quotes:
"When the Lord your God has thrust them from your path, say not to yourselves, 'The Lord has enabled us to possess this land because of our virtues,' it is rather because of the wickedness of those nations that the Lord is dispossessing htem before you. It is not because of your virtues and your rectitude that you will be able to possess their country, but it is because of their wickedness that the Lord your God is dispossessing those nations before you." Deuteronomy 9:4-5
"Do not defile yourselves in any of those ways, for it is by such that the nations I am casting out before you defiled themselves. Thus the land became defiled, and I called it to account for its iniquity, and the land spewed out its inhabitants. But you mujst keep My laws and My rules, and you must not do any of thse abhorrent things, neither the citizen nor the stranger who resides among you; for all those abhorrent things were done by the people who were in the land before you, and the land became defiled. So let the land not spew you out for defiling it, as it spewed out the nation that came before you." Leviticus 18:24-28.
As Noam Chomsky said on my show (and perhaps elsewhere), "If you want to just make up facts and believe in them, there's nothing to discuss." Edward Herman just made up this idea that the Jewish scriptures dehumanize outsiders or justify the exterminaiton of peoples because they stand "in the way of God's chosen."
This business of searching through Jewish teachings to find quotes which cast the Jews in the worst light and using them to construct a false, monstrous picture of the Jewish people was not invented by Herman: It's an old practice, and there's a name for people who do this. They're called "anti-semities."
There's a great deal mre to say, but as this post is already overlong, I'll just look at one last little piece of what Herman wrote. After describing the two massacres perpetrated by the Israelites he writes, "this tradition in treating enemies, strating with Moses, is well preserved in the Gush EMunim, Shamir, Netanyahu, and Rabin..." Again, please note, he is NOT saying that something in the Bible led modern Israelis to act in ways related to the ways of their forebears, prehaps for the first time in millenia. He is saying that there is a "tradition" that has been "preserved," and the tradition he is referring to is clearly, unequivocally, unmistakably, and incontrovertibly a tradition of exterminaiton and massacre. As I have already stated in our previous discussion, the Jewish people could not possibly have "preserved" such a tradition, because no such tradition exists among us.
There is no post-Biblical history of massacres or exterminations committed by the Jews (though there's a long history of massacres perpetrated against us). I think with any other people failure to engage in a practice for two thousand years or so would be proof that no such "tradition" has been "preserved."
I will stand by my original characterization of Herman's article as anti-semitic. Having published it brings shame upon Z.
Albert Responds, Again...
I took considerable time responding carefully to your last message, taking it at face value, and so on. You ignored -- whether for want of time or whatever other reasons -- what I wrote and offered a new assault on Ed. (and Z for publishing him). I have to say that at this point, about this article, I think we are going to hit diminishing returns quickly....
> Herman's piece is (rather obviously) anti-semitic for very simple reasons. First, he judges Jews by different standards than he judges others. Second, he lies about Judaism and Jewish traditions and slanders the good name of the Jewish people.
I see none of that ... not before and not even after reading your discussion. Logically it could be there, I suppose, and I am obtuse or anti-semitic, or otherwise incapable of comprehending. Or perhaps it isn't there, and you are reading in.
Well, I don't intend to argue with you about Ed Herman. I will take the time to type in the immediately relevant section of his article, which you kindly xeroxed and sent me, below (something you might have done, yourself, I think, if you want to castigate its author--taking much more time than I honestly think I ought to give to this, especially in light of your comment...
>> Herman does make a rather pro forma disclaimer that "Judaism has produced many noble souls and fighters for human betterment," but what else could he have said? I assume that even you, Michael, would have smelled a rat if he'd written that there'd never been a single good Jew.
With all due respect, what does "even you" mean? Even?
You have some insider knowledge about some aspect of me, perhaps?
But that aside -- here is how the article begins...so others can simply judge for themselves.
---
The freshly minted document on the U.S. POWs in Vienam, which has put on hold the growing pressure to abandon the 18-year long boycott and ostracism of a major victim of U./S. agreesion, highlights once more the remarkable vinditiveness of the
Judeo-Christian Tradition
Judaisn has produced many noble souls and fighters for human betterment, but the Jewish tradition as described in the Old Testament is rampantly ethno-centric and dehumanizes outsiders with a gusto that could hardly be exceeded. Page after page recounts Jewish destruction and extermination of peoples standing in the way of God's chosen: in chapter 3 of Deuteronomy "And we utterly destroying the men, women, and children of every city." My favorite, however, is in chapter 31 of Numbers, where at the Lords instruction to beat up the Midianites, they did this, "and they slew all the males...burnt all the cities," and brought back the women and children. But the payoff is that Moses was angry with the leader of the military expedition for having spared the women and children and said "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." This tradition in treating enemies, starting with Moses, is well preserved in the Gush Emunim, Shamir, Netanyahu, and Rabin (who several years ago as Defense Minister authorized the Isaeli forces to enter Palestinian homes and "break bones.")
The Christain tradition, while producing saints and inspiring a great number of people to moral lives, has been notable for adaptation, corruption, and capacity to rationalize special privilege, exploitation, and mass murder. Its evolution from condemnation of the "sin of usury" and support of "just prices" to accommodation to a full-fledged market system is described in Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. The history of the inquisition, slave trade, exploitation of the "new world," and colonialism shows the facility with which Christians have been able to maltreat their neighbors while proclaiming a rigorous Christian orthodoxy. The Bible, with its underlying acceptance of slavery and other traditional institutionalized exploitative arrangements, has affored a religious cover for almost anything. Robert Green Ingersoll, the great
---
From there onward the article deals with the
Make of it what you will. (For myself the only thing really surprising is the quote from Moses which is worse than "even I' would have anticipated, despite my low expectations for elite religious figures.) Would I have written a piece like Ed's, above? No.
(1) I couldn't for lack of knowledge and lack of interest in accruing the relevant knowledge.
(2) More important, unlike most anarchists and leftists, I think that it is unwise to rail at religion in the most religious country on the face of the planet. I am an athiest. And I find that virtually all organized religions, particularly insofar as they embody precepts and beliefs that one MUST adopt, not on evidence but on faith, are conducive to authoritarian and other anti-social results. But, at the same time, I think there is a "religious impulse," if you will, that is perfectly healthy and that isn't going to go away. So I myself spend more time criticizing the left for adopting a style and stance that makes people who are religious feel like they are unwanted and not respected -- which is not only tactically dumb and socially arrogant, but a considerable irony given that part of the church and temple have been the source of core elements of left activism in this country throughout its history.
But Ed wasn't actually railing at religion per se, but trying to unearth moral weakness in a particular heritage, I guess. At any rate, as to the above excerpt being anti-semitic, folks can judge for themselves. Ifind the claim entirely unconvincing.
If someone says
Nobody -- that is the name you go by, yes? -- if you want to pursue questions of anti-semitism in the left I am more than willing. But my last message which gave my views in reply to your comments, would seem to be the right starting place. Perhaps if we do that, when we are done, you will have educated me and I will come back and be horrified at what is written above, or I will have educated you and you will come back and wonder what you were so upset about, or we perhaps will just agree to disagree.
Mitchell (another ZNet user) Offers some New Insights
I've seperated this thread so that people could respond to me more clearly than in the middle of the debate between Michael and "Nobody". Also, I haven't read the Herman article in question and so will be writing here in that context.
Let me begin by stating that I'm Jewish, raised orthodox, though I'm no longer religious at all, and speak here from extensive study of the Talmud and of Jewish history.
"Nobody" bases his arguments on the 5 books of the Pentateuch, or the 5 books of Moses as they are often called. But Jewish lore, tradition and culture are based very little on these 5 books. Much more are they founded on the Talmud, the centuries of documents that interpreted the Torah in distinct steps; the first wave of interpretation, the Mishnah, derives the laws for Jews by which they should live their lives, the gemorrah further extrapolates these laws and resolves conflicts between them, as well as interpreting the words of the Mishnah, and then the commentaries in many tomes that interpreted these discussions. The result has been a very mixed bag of cultural messages.
To begin, the term "Old testament" is not at all anti-semitic, but rather a term coined by Christians to differentiate between the two distinct books they hold holy. It is often used by the most religious rabbis when speaking to non-Jewish audiences.
Now, most orthodox Jews consider the books of the prophets (beginning right after the last book of the Torah with the Book of Joshua) to be part of the Torah. In those books, the conquest of Canaan, and the further conquering of neighboring lands, as well as the political intrigue that led to the split into the two kingdoms of
Now, as to the idea of "dehumanizing" non-Jews, while it does not appear in the 5 books of Moses, this notion is replete throughout the Talmud. The laws permitting one to, for instance, violate the Sabbath to deliver medical aid do not apply if the person in need is not Jewish. While there is a dispensation allowing the aid to non_jews, it is solely on the grounds that if such aid is not given, people may then turn violent on the Jewish community. The general tone of the value of non-Jewish life, is not positive. For instance, here is what Maimonides had to say in the Mishneh Torah:
"As for gentiles with whom we are not at war...their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow' but a Gentile is not thy fellow".
Indeed, Maimonides' statement here is a recurring theme through much of the Talmud, particularly in the final of the three stages of interpretation I laid out above. hence, where "Nobody" points out the use of the word "stranger" in the 5 books, it is widely interpreted to apply only to Jews of other provinces. It should be further noted that these are INTERPRETATIONS, but most of the most prominent Jewish commentators, whose interpretations have the widest acceptance among religious Jews share this view, and indeed, the vast majority of Jewish sects certainly take Maimonides' word as law.
Now, perhaps Herman misspoke and referred to the 5 books, which are, for the most part, free of any hint of this sort of attitude, I don't know. But the 5 books are, essentially, the foundation of rabbinical teaching and have been interpreted very widely over time. The religious teaching, for at least the last 1300 years, of Jews have had very little connection to the 5 books themselves (even when they are taught to young children, they are usually taught with at least a few commentators with it).
Now, I must quote one part of "Nobody"s post at length. He writes:
"If Judaism impels Jews to think they're better than others and thius haughtily slaughter anyone in their way, you would think that such a teaching would appear in the Biblical account of the conquest of the promised Land, but this is not the case"
To begin with, the quote he uses is from Deuteronomy, which occurs before the Israelites entered the
Laws dealing with non-Jews have routinely been quite chauvanistic, and the attitudes toward non-Jews are expressed in Israeli politics today and are pretty clear to many people who have been inside those parts of Jewish culture (and there are many, though by no means all) which continue to reflect them full-force.
This can be called Jewish fundamentalism, though this appelation is greatly resisted by those who would contend that Judaism is above the sorts of pitfalls that have been seen in Christianity and Islam. But it is a powrful force, and makes its influence widely known in Israeli politics, as well as in the politics of the Jewish diaspora community. And these things I say here, while they may be shocking to most, would come as no surprise to anyone who has studied the Talmud in-depth (though I grant that, for the most part, these ideas are only communicated directly to scholars of the Talmud, and to others much more subtly). Still, there are a great many Jews (far more than in the past, in fact) who have turned to the study of the 5 books, and the positive messages therein, leading to revisionist movements in Orthodox Judaism (though these are small) and the more widespread reformed and reconstructionist movements, that largely dispense with the more silly and ethnocentric musings found in the Talmud. But in order to understand the history of the Jews and the evolution of Jewish culture and tradition, a far more honest appraisal than has ever been undertaken is needed.
As to Herman, I'd say that "Nobody" does not make a convincing case at all for any anti-semitism in the article. I'd like to read it and see what it does say, but nothing quoted here is remotely anti-semitic, though I can certainly see where it can feel very threatening to Jews unaware of their lore and history.
Mitchell with a quick follow-up
Michael: I post this here as a followup to the anti-semitism thread, but you might wnat to move it to a more aproriate forum.
I just read the exerpt Michael posted of Herman's article. Not only do I find nothing in it remotely anti-semitic, it strikes me that one would have to put a great deal of effort into interpreting it in the way "Nobody" did.
Michael, though, did raise an interesting issue when he spoke of the need, as I interpreted what he said, for the left to be more respectful of religion in general. I don't disagree, but I do think we need to differentiate between religion, which can indeed have many positive effects, and has historically been a place where progressive movements have been founded and operated, and religious institutions which breed fundamentalism, thoughtlessness and, indeed, a good deal of viciousness and contempt for all "infidels"and heretics. This is applicable to all major religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism (though this last, I think, to much lesser degree than the others). I think it important that we recognize that, however noble religious precepts are, they universally cause disaster when intertwined with state power, and even the noblest of them can, and often are perverted by lunatics or power hungry indiduals.
At the same time, it is certainly fair to say that the left has been far too harsh on religious believers. I think many of us have taken Marx's "opiate of the masses" statement (which is certainly true) as dogma. There seems to be great value in faith for many people, and I, as well as many others on the left, need to respect that, even if we don't see that value for our own selves.
Albert Replies to Mitchell
Mitchell, I think even the claim that religious institutions breed ill outcomes, or varients on it, has many important exceptions.
Consider the Church in the South and in Black communities throughout the
To what extent is the bad that has resided in and emanated from organized religion due to its own internal dynamics, and to what extent is it largely a reaction to other pressures and forces? I have no idea...
Create a religious institution that is truly democratic and participatory and will the fact that it believes, so to speak, corrupt it. When the question is asked that way, I think the answer is not so obviously negative.
Mitchell Responds to Albert
> Mitchell, I think even the claim that religious institutions breed ill outcomes, or varients on it, has many important exceptions.
Agreed. I was speaking far too broadly. Religion, like politics, has great pitfalls in that there will be brilliant, charismatic leaders whoi can sway people into dogmatic subservience to the program, sometimes even due to good intentions. Still, I misspoke when I used the word institutions without specifying more clearly that it was the mixture of state power and religious institutions that I would contend have been universally harmful.
As you know, Michael, I've been unable to rejoin this forum due to computer problems which have caused my replies to crash (maybe it's God's way of demanding rewrites). Regretably I am not computer literate enough to follow the suggestion you made at the present time (though I thank you for it) nor do I even understand the dozen or so suggestions made by my internet service provider, but at least they indicate that problems such as I've experienced are more common in the wet, windy weather we've been having so maybe it will clear up on its own as the storm passes. In any case, I'm going to try to break your message (excerpted, of course) into smaller bits and divide my promised reply to your comments into several posts.
...much quoting from the message above deleted...and
To my mind, many of your assumptions about what Ed Herman wrote were wrong. I do not say this to in any way impugn your argument. Your errors may have been my fault, because I selectively quoted in ways which mislead you or which you did not understand. But whatever the explanation, I will try here to respond to the remarks you made in your own right, not to your speculations about Herman's piece.
In this regard, you seem to be saying that a check of the historical record would probably bear out the hypothesis that the phrase "God's chosen" has been used to motivate Jews to attack their enemies. Okay, show me in the historical record where this is so.
I do not believe that any other phrase can properly be substitted for "God's chosen" except for the obvious analogues like "The chosen people," because this concept of chosenness has convinced many non-Jews of Jewish arogance. But, in reality, I don't think these phrases have the same significance for Jews that they do for non-Jews.
I can scarcely believe that you walk around all puffed up about being one of the chosen people, Michael. Well, neither do I, and I've never in m 48 years met a Jew who did. I have met one Jew who repeatedly cited the concept of chosenness as his reason for refusing to identify as a Jew, and I've met more than a few Jews who wondered what those phrases meant, but, as I said, I've never met any Jew who saw in those phrases what non-Jews often imagine Jews see in them.
Of course, I only know contemporary Jews. The history of Judaism is so long that if your hypothesis is correct, there ought to be lots of quotes from many eras in which Jewish leaders said "We're the chosen people and that makes us better than those infidels over there so lets go kill them" or some such. I'll be interested to see what you come up with.
> ---Out of the phrases, which, in isolation, seem to me accurate and to say nothing about Judaism or Jews per se, you deduce that someone who has devoted decades to helping and fighting for social change, sometimes at risk, and who has evidenced not a whit of racist or anti-Semitic inclination in the whole time, to my knowledge, is horribly anti-Semitic and should be precluded from publishing in Z.
> ---I think that is a bit much....to say the least."
I'm not sure I understand your point. Those phrases are too few to substantiate criticism of Ed Herman but enough to lead you to believe that his remarks about the breadth and depth of Judasm and Jewish history are probably justified? Ed Herman singly is more unfathomable than the Jews collectively?
Moreover, when it comes to dismissing my detailed criticisms of Herman's piece, you don't feel compelled to cite a single specific. It's enough just to say you're not convinced without evidence, logic or rational argument. To put it mildly I think your standards of required evidence are applied, shall we say, with too much elasticity. But even if they weren't, I don't think your point makes much sense.
If Herman had written "Death to the Jews. Gas them all. Heil Hitler!" in a context that was straightforward and non-ironic, would you say then that I had no right to conclude he was an anti-semite? The issue here isn't, it seems to me, the number of Herman's phrases that I quote, but the meaning of the phrases I quote. We disagree about what those phrases mean, of course, but I think your criticism that I didn't quote enough to make a judgment is arbitrary and wrong.
While we're on the topic of how much does it take to prove what, I'd like to turn to the broader question of anti-semtitism on the left versus other forms of prejudice. I rather suspect that on the left some will call you "racist" if you oppose affirmative action or "homophobic" if you oppose gay marriage. For many, I think, a higher threshhold is required to make such charges but, in any case, charges of racism and homo-phobia are ubiquitous on the left. The same is not true for anti-semtisim.
I do not remember ever hearing any leftist make a charge of anti-semtism against any other leftist or, for that matter, against any Palestinian or other Arab. The charge of anti-semitism seems vey hard to come by on the left which is probably why my fury at Z for publishing Ed Herman's article seems like such a bolt out of the blue. But this situation does seem very peculiar.
The left does not exactly shy away from controversial issues regarding
As you told me on the phone, Z has never once published an article on anti-semtiism, whereas it has, of course, published countless articles on racism, homophobia, bias against women, etc. Perhaps Z has given such short shrift to the problem of anti-semitism out of excessive modesty. Surely it's not because, as you told me, no one ever submitted such a maniuscript to you. You could have always commissioned such a piece or you or Ed erman could have written one yourselves or you have simply printed the letter I sent you six years ago and in tha way sparked some discussion.
No, the only plausible explanation for Z's and the left's) silence on anti-semitism is modesty, but I don't think you should be so modest! Write an article on anti-semiism for Z and in it
explain how we on the left succeeded in completely eliminating one of the world's oldest, most persistant and most pernicious forms of prejudice without ever studying it, discussing it or thinking about it. It's kind of inspirational, don't you think?
I'm going t try sending this now, and I'll reply to more of your post later.
Albert Replies
> In this regard, you seem to be saying that a check of the historical record would probably bear out the hypothesis that the phrase "God's chosen" has been used to motivate Jews to attack their enemies. Okay, show me in the historical record where this is so.
Actually, that it and like formulations have been and are used by elites to rationalize their military choices made for reasons of state and economy, mostly...as in the
And no, I am not going off on any research project. I didn't use the phrases, I didn't write the article, and I don't find the discussion or such an investigation particularly interesting...
To be honest, I haven't found any of these exchanges very enlightening becausse they seem very arcane and escoteric to me, at best. I was intrigued with the response you got from another user, in this forum, who is far more knowledgeable than I, I am confident, about these matters. You can argue with him, about the history and especially about religious doctrine, usage, etc., and I am sure I will enjoy reading what you each have to say.
I wrote earlier indicating the elements that I think are interesting, and which just maybe I might have something insightful to offer, such as the impact of anti-semitism relative to other forms of denigration and oppression, its role in the left (which my experience suggests is relatively tiny, though not non-existent) etc.
> I can scarcely believe that you walk around all puffed up about being one of the chosen people, Michael.
Well, you are correct. Other than in conversations like this, or sometimes on hearing an anti-semitic comment and reacting to it, as a matter of fact, I can't remember the last time even registering in my mind being Jewish. It just doesn't mean much to me, I freely admit.
> Well, neither do I, and I've never in m 48 years met a Jew who did. I have met one Jew who repeatedly cited the concept of chosenness as his reason for refusing to identify as a Jew, and I've met more than a few Jews who wondered what those phrases meant, but, as I said, I've never met any Jew who saw in those phrases what non-Jews often imagine Jews see in them.
So? What is the relevance of all this? Actually, I know what you think the relevance is: you think Ed, (or perhaps I) are making comments about Jews per se. He isn't. I'm not.
> > ---Out of the phrases, which, in isolation, seem to me accurate and to say nothing about Judaism or Jews per se, you deduce that someone who has devoted decades to helping and fighting for social change, sometimes at risk, and who has evidenced not a whit of racist or anti-Semitic inclination in the whole time, to my knowledge, is horribly anti-Semitic and should be precluded from publishing in Z.
> > ---I think that is a bit much....to say the least."
> I'm not sure I understand your point. Those phrases are too few to substantiate criticism of Ed Herman but enough to lead you to believe that his remarks about the breadth and depth of Judasm and Jewish history are probably justified?
The phrases, out of context, are all you have. I have his whole history, my understanding of the history of states and wars, and so on and so forth.
I think we are into the point of no return here. You read Ed's words differently than I do. I repostedd them so others could decide for themselves. I think a couple of folks have already posted on it. I have had my say re the article, which I think speaks for itself. In your reading the words are vile. Okay, so?
I have indicated why I think, unlike Ed and many other leftists, writing about the ills of religions and their misuse is a problematic choice for leftists -- not for fear of being racist or anti-semitic, but because it is likely to be taken as being anti-religious per se, which I think is wrong, and also tactically disastrous for the left. Now you want me to get into what's wrong with some of Jewish culture or heritage or history, and I am just not interested in doing that.
You have ignored what I have written about anti-semitism, per se, however, that is substantive, and that doesn't hinge on word usage. I don't know why. I have no interest in discussing the religion or its history. I make no pretense to be a scholar of either.
But I am happy to talk about anti-semitism and its breadth, scope, power, reach in the left, etc. I am no expert on these matters either, but I think everyone ought to have opinions about these. If you wnat to do that, let's. Otherwise, I don't have much more to say, I think...
> Ed Herman singly is more unfathomable than the Jews collectively?
(a) There is no commentary about Jews collectively, which I have repeated endlessly, and which you simply cannot seem to hear.
(b) Any individual is harder to peg or judge than a body of writing or beliefs is to assess, I should think.
And (c) IF Ed's comments are about the leadership of communities and states and how they act in that elite capacity, as they seem to me to be, then surely you will admit that, yes, it is far easier to arrive at strong and likely correct attitudes about such, than about the motivations and beliefs of a single individual, especially based on little evidence.
More important, how can any of this be more important to discuss than the scale of anti-semitism and the level of hurt and pain it produces within the
> Moreover, when it comes to dismissing my detailed criticisms of Herman's piece, you don't feel compelled to cite a single specific. It's enough just to say you're not convinced without evidence, logic or rational argument. To put it mildly I think your standards of required evidence are applied, shall we say, with too much elasticity. But even if they weren't, I don't think your point makes much sense.
Fine. We disagree about the article, and about my rading of it. So be it.
> If Herman had written "Death to the Jews. Gas them all. Heil Hitler!" in a context that was straightforward and non-ironic, would you say then that I had no right to conclude he was an anti-semite?
This is obscene. I don't have much patience for it.
> The issue here isn't, it seems to me, the number of Herman's phrases that I quote, but the meaning of the phrases I quote.
The meaning you attribute to them, or the meaning I attribute to them, or the meaning they have as Ed intended them? Never mind. The only meaning possible, in your mind, is ultimately yours. I cannot successfully argue with that, I believe.
> We disagree about what those phrases mean, of course, but I think your criticism that I didn't quote enough to make a judgment is arbitrary and wrong.
Fine. Perhaps. Others can judge since you have entered your out of context quoting and I have entered the full set of paragraphs the quotes are taken from.
> While we're on the topic of how much does it take to prove what, I'd like to turn to the broader question of anti-semtitism on the left versus other forms of prejudice.
Good. I hope this means you are now going to give me some indication of what you have in mind when you use the phrase "anti-semitism on the left." What actions, what social relations, what allocations of roles or power, what rhetoric, what cultural norms -- what - ever.
> I rather suspect that on the left some will call you "racist" if you oppose affirmative action or "homophobic" if you oppose gay marriage.
Probably, and you might or might not be. To know, one would have to know more, I think. And so a responsible approach, if one was interested, would be to look further.
> For many, I think, a higher threshhold is required to make such charges but, in any case, charges of racism and homophobia are ubiquitous on the left. The same is not true for anti-semtisim.
Ubiquitous is a bit vague and much, I think, but yes, so? You are pointing out that people aren't regularly called anti-semitic? And this shows, what, again? I don't call people anti-semitic very often, say, because I am afraid? Or because I don't encounter anti-semitism to confront and label?
> I do not remember ever hearing any leftist make a charge of anti-semtism against any other leftist or, for that matter, against any Palestinian or other Arab.
Weird given that you have levelled it at Ed and me. I have heard the charge levelled, I have levelled it myself -- not calling a person anti-semitic but an act or words, just as I would do hearing racist words or seeing a racist act -- not overly often, and definitely considerably less than charges about racism and homophobia, yes. So?
> The charge of anti-semitism seems vey hard to come by on the left which is probably why my fury at Z for publishing Ed Herman's article seems like such a bolt out of the blue. But this situation does seem very peculiar.
Oh it isn't hard to come by at all. I can't remember ever being called racist. But I have been called anti-semitic. Noam is regularly called anti-semitic, rarely if ever racist or homophobic, I bet. And the same goes for all critics of Israeli policy -- if they are not overt racist and homophobes, that is.
Your premise is that within the left there is rampant anti-semitism toward Jews in the left. By virtue of being Jewish, presumably, then, people are relegated to inferior roles and attain lower stature. They have less power and get paid less for similar work. They are looked at awry and deemed all manner of lowly things--dumb, wily, whatever.
Now if all this was true, and if, as well, there was no response to it by Jews or enlightened non-Jews encountering or witnessing it, you would have a very good point. It would indicate that the fight against this vile and rampant oppression was yet to surface in the left, yet to find its voice. That the forces of anti-semitism were still so much stronger than those for equity that the latter were literally silenced in fear. But my contention is that your premise is false.
If you won't examine that, then there will be nothing to discuss, I am afraid.
To understand this, suppose I said I have rarely if ever heard anyone on the left stand up against anti-Italian racism and then I said that that uncontested fact is proof positive that there is a horrible alignment of the left with anti-Italian sentiment, or at least an active acquiesence in it. If I won't examine the extent of anti-Italian sentiment or lack thereof present to react to, there is nothing to discuss.
> The left does not exactly shy away from controversial issues regarding
This, I think, is just nonsense. Leftists have no trouble whatever labeling folks anti-semitic or fascist, for that matter. Take al ook at the left studies of the right from people like Berlet and many others. There is close and significant attention to anti-semitism.
You were on stronger ground when you were claiming that it isn't a label heard often at left meetings and discussions. That, I think, is probably true, but the question arises is it because leftists are rarely engaged in anti-semitic actions, or is it because criticism of that is silenced.
> As you told me on the phone, Z has never once published an article on anti-semtiism, whereas it has, of course, published countless articles on racism, homophobia, bias against women, etc.
Yes, I said that was my guess, or thereabouts, anyhow -- though I am not sure it is right. But I also said I was quite sure we had never rejected any such article, or at least any ocherent one. One can't print what isn't submitted. And we are back where we started. Are there few articles written on the need for the left to purge itself of internal anti-semitism because people are too intimidated or self hating to write such pieces, or because there is no such need the problem not being very large (though certainly not non-existent, either)?
There is no want of articles about the anti-semitism in various sectors of the black community or black organizations, say, and no timidity whatever about the issue.
> You could have always commissioned such a piece or you or Ed erman could have written one yourselves or you have simply printed the letter I sent you six years ago and in tha way sparked some discussion.
But I have been about as forthright as possible in telling you that while I think anti-semiitism is vile, I don't think it is very much of a problem in the
> No, the only plausible explanation for Z's and the left's) silence on anti-semitism is modesty, but I don't think you should be so modest! Write an article on anti-semiism for Z and in it explain how we on the left succeeded in completely eliminating one of the world's oldest, most persistant and most pernicious forms of prejudice without ever studying it, discussing it or thinking about it. It's kind of inspirational, don't you think?
I think you are playing word games...
Anti-Semitism isn't gone. But its role in the left is relatively slight compared to various other also horrible dynamics, and its impact on Jews very light, in my experience, again in comparison, and in the left. You don't think so. Fine. You write the article revealing how Jewish people like myself suffer indignities, worse conditions, less power, lower pay, etc. etc. in the left. I would be fascinated to see that.
The fact that I would like to be educated, if I am in ignorance on the point, is why in the very first message I asked you precisely that question.
Another Rejoin from
I am continuing here, as promised, my response to the post of yours which I skipped over to deal with the Herman article:
Is there a tradition of the state of
I think it is difficult to separate the Jewish religion and the Jewish people from decisions made by the state of
I don't think statements about the elites of nations and the ways in which they justify aggression are impermissable nor do I think cogitating on the conduct of Israel's elites is inherantly anti-semitic, although I must note that the motive for the inquiry could be anti-semitic. In other words, someone bent on making trouble for the Jews might obsessively dig into Israeli politics. All of thier criticisms might be right, but their motive wouldn't be justice or enlightment only making trouble.
The question of whether or not the focus on Israel (as opposed to any specific charges anyone might make, true or false) is driven by anti-semitism is an open one to me. Let me mention a few facts, and perhaps we can both look at them.
I think it is just a fact that no matter what you may think of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, worse has been done elsewhere, e.g. in Cambodia and Rwanda. The Palestinians have been treated harshly elsewhere too, by the Jordanians, the Syrians, etc. The Kuwaitis expelled the resident Palestinians there, causing grievous economic hardship to the greater Palestinian community which had benefited from money sent home from Kuwait. And there have even been reports that death squads murdered Palestinians in Kuwait after the Gulf War.
Though there have been many other issues which the left has dealt with at great length, none of the ones mentioned above nor hundreds of other serious problems in the world have attracted the attention of the left the way the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has. Why not?
Certainly it's not merely a question of the body count or of U.S. aid and involvement, since body counts have been higher elsewhere and the U.S. has been involved in many ugly situations.
And certainly it's not a just a question of human rights, since the people of Tibet have lost their right to self-determination, have seen their culture decimated, etc. and yet don't get one-tenth the left-wing attention that the middle east does. Similarly, the religious conflicts between Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan which have resulted in many deaths, the desecration of holy sites, etc. but get virtually no left-wing attention.
I would be curious to know if you perceive this disparity the same way I do; and if you do, what you attribute it to. When I look at this, I can't help but notice that the heightened left-wing focus on the Jews bears a resemblance to certain historical features of anti-semitism.
You are no doubt aware that one feature of anti-semtism has been the ascribing of an undue prominance to the Jews as in the idea that a handful here and there in the right places could manipulate all the world's economies. And to me this has always been part of the larger package of Christianity's ties to Judaism.
The founding myths of Judaism do not depend on Christianity at all. After all, Judaism existed for a couple of millenia before Jesus. But the same is not true in reverse. Close to the heart of the Christian myth is the idea that the Jews falsely rejected Jesus, and this has been understood to mean the Jews
collectively, regardless of whether or not any such claim has historical validity (in reality, it should be obvious that not all the Jews of that time could have even heard of Jesus much less rejected him, but that's not the way Christianity, has seen it). From the standpoint of Christianity, the Jews had to be wrong to have rejected Jesus, because if they were right, then Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah. So Christianity has had to come up with explanations for why the Jews missed the boat, and many of those explanations have ultimately led to anti-Judaism, the precurser of modern anti-semitism.
Jewish survival could, itself, be seen as an affront to Christianity, becuae it didn't seem right for the Jews to be okay even though they had rejected Jesus and were living under the cloud of what Christians believed to be a false faith. This led to many discussions among Chrstians over the centuries about the conditions in which the Jews should be preserved, but never mind. The point is that there was a way in which many Christians couldn't get away from proccupation with the Jews, because of the connecion they interpreted into their own myth. They saw their own truth bound up in proving the falsehood of Judaism.
Flash forward to the present and again we see a preoccupation with the Jews, this time manifested as a preoccupation with the Jewish state. Of course, some Christians believed that the Jews weren't supposed to be able to return to their homeland until the coming of the Messiah, and so the existence of Israel at this time only intensifies past problems they've had with wondering why God might still do nice things for the Jews despite the Jews being so wrong about Jesus (and many Jews also believed that Israel shouldn't be established before the coming of the Messiah which is why many orthodox Jews were anti-zionists, but that's another story).
I realize you're not religious, Michael, but as you recognize, religion is a powerful force in the world. Do you think it is possible that the left-wing preoccupation with Israel is part of the much larger unhealthy preoccupation that many Christians have, historically, had with the Jews? Personally, I do believe that this is indeed posisble.
Preoccupation with the Jews doesn't mean that the criticisms of the one who is preoccupied are necessarily wrong, as I have said. But from the Jewish point of view, such preoccupation has always been dangerous. I mention all of this here not to say anything about Z magazine or the Herman article, but to establish a broader context for an examination of left-wing anti-semitism. Having extablished this context, I'll ask again, why does the left care so much about Israel at all, and not somuch about countries that are just as bad as the worst Israel is made out to be?
> In fact, again, I would go further and say that one could even make such claims about a religion or culture or ideology, without being irrational and racist, and they would be subject to discussion and debate.
I agree.
> And could someone who is anti semitic make the argument either about the state or about ideas and cultures (more likely) and have an anti-semitic agenda? Yes, of course -- though most often anti-semites are a good deal more blunt, I think. But that isn't Ed, or me, or Z.
No, I don't think anti-semites are always so blunt, but let me give you an example that has nothing to do with Jews. There's a debate now in New York Cty about reinstituting school uniforms for girls, but women who favor this proposal say that they're not for the old style uniforms of blouses and short skirts, because dressing school girls in short skirts was never more than a male fantasy. They're probably right, but no one in the past ever said "Let's put high school girls in short skirts because we like to look at their legs." It was subtler than that. Similarly, over the centuries innumerable policies have been directed against the Jews which were anti-semitic, but which weren't directly explained that way.
> I think it would be more instructive not to discuss Ed, but, instead, to discuss substantive issues we may differ on.
I'm trying.
> > At another point you wrote, "Herman indicates an elite which uses a certain kind of rationale to substantiate its misdeeds." I do not know exactly what you meant by this.
> If I said that I meant individuals do not exterminate opposition. They do not wage war, as individuals. War is a collective endeavor. War is done collectively, and in virtually every instance I am aware of, under the auspices of elite decision makers with their own vested interests propelling the decisions and generally quite at odds with the interests of those carrying out the decisions.
I agree with you that war is a collective endeavor, but I'm not sure that your theory about elites at odds with the troops holds up that well historically. Sometimes the populace seems to demand a "strong" leader. Sometimes the elites and the people are in accord. The picture you paint is, I suspect, pretty much true of modern warfare and much less true of tribal warfare, but, in any case. I still see each individual, regardless of his or her position, as an independent moral actor. In other words, if the elites tell you to commit murder and you do so, you're a murderer, regardless of who told you to do it or why.
> > Would you be kind enough to identify the "misdeeds" (exterminaitons) which you think have been pepetrated by Jewish elites through the centuries?
> No. I didn't write the article and I have no intention of writing one here. But I highly recommend, for example, the three articles by Ed on Israel that are online...if you want more background.
> I think, but I am not sure, there is also a piece or two by Israel Shahak in our archive. I recommend them as well.
Actually, I think you have consistently ducked my calls for specifics or evidence. To me, this greatly undermines your arguments.
> > If, on the other hand, you are suggesting (in Herman's name) that Jewish elites have been rationalizing, manipulating, etc. in pursuit of objectives which somehow are Jewish, then you're making essentially the same case as is made in "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," merely substituting the word "elites" for "elders."
> Again, if you wear glasses that are green, you will see green. If you want to reintrepret all words to fit a certain cast, it is hard to intervene. Did I say the interests of the elites were "Jewish" interests? No. They are elite interests, class interests, political interests, geo-political interests. At times elites can also have racist interests, to be sure, but this too is different than "Jewish" just as white racist interests are not "white."
Maybe. You have a sense of division here that is a little bit hard for me to comprehend. If Moses said to the Jewish people, "Go into the Red Sea," was he stating something that was an interest of the elites only or of the whole Jewish people? On the other hand, if Netanyahu is a jerk, does that prove that all Jews are jerks or there's a Jewish interest in jerkdom? I think this relationship between the elites and the community at large is more complex than you make it sound. Perhaps I don't understand you.
> > I'll wait for your clarification, but in the meantime, I must point out that your defense of Herman might easily be seen as no less anti-semitic than his original statement.
> By you, probably so. I think that is sad, to be honest about it.
Now just a minute here. I didn't say that your defense of Herman was anti-semitic, only that it might be seen as such. You're the one who told me you've been called a self-hating Jew (again, not by me). I'm simply giving you an example of what might have triggered such perceptions. You obviously think I'm way too quick to make allegations of anti-semitism and aren't shy about saying how "sad" that is. So I won't be shy about saying that I think you're way too careless in the statements you make about Jews. Judaism, Israel, etc. Unless you like being called a self-hating Jew you ought to think a little more about these things.
> And it might not make a whit of difference to you that I am Jewish, or my entire life history, for that matter -- you might just say, oh big deal, you are self hating, or something like that. You might say your intepretation has to be right, period. Even if it flies in the face of an entire lifetime of practice by another person and is based only on a few phrases taken out of context. I think that would be wrong.
I do not feel about you the way I feel about Ed Herman. His statements were, to my understanding, the mark of an anti-semite. You or anyone else may disagree, and I may be wrong, or the truth may be somewhere in between. Maybe if I knew more about you, I'd feel the same way about you, but so far, you haven't impressed me that way. I haven't accused you of being antisemitic, so obviously I haven't disregarded your entire life in order to make such an accusation. What I have said is that you shouldn't have published the Herman article and that doing so brought shame upon Z. Needless to say, nothing in this discussion has changed my mind about that.
> I can't, being honest. America, THE STATE, has no such good traditions. It's people do, in considerable part. But the state, the political, economic, cultural, and gender institutions, are something else entirely. I am against, unyieldingly against the history of internal and external violence and degradation imposed by the U.S. government and other major U.S. institutions, from their inception through the present, on diverse subordinate classes and constituencies.
You and I share a distaste for the predations of the American government, but I really just don't operate within the intellectual framework you do when it comes to assessing what is or isn't the state. Our Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech. We may not always get that guaranteed freedom of speech, but I think the promise in the document is a good one, and I think of that document as being part of the state. So yes, I would have to say that the American state has traditions which I not only support but revere.
> But this doesn't mean I am prejudiced about something called the "american people" and if we were all overwhelmingly white protestants, say, it wouldn't make me anti-white or anti-protestant.
True.
And anyone dismissing my criticisms of the behavior of american elites and of the defining institutions of america on grounds that its anger and intensity could only reflect anti-americanism and, in my case, therefore, the plaints of a self-hating american, would be, I think, saying much more about themselves and their close-mindednes to ideas challenging their beliefs, than about me.
If someone said your anger could "only" reflect anti-Americanism, I'd have to agree with you, just as I'd have to agree with you that someone could criticize Israel without being an anti-semite. But if someone said your criticisms "might" mean you're anti-Ameican, I'd have to agree with them. Anti-American is one of the things you could be, though I'd want to know what "Ameicanism" is, among other things, before making a judgment. Now, as it happens, outside of issues having to do with Israel, my politics are probably similar to yours in many respects and, as you noted, I also could be called anti-American. I'm quite sure I'm not, but I wouldn't say that the charge made against someone else could never have legitimacy. There are people who are anti-American (e.g. the Revolutionary Guards marching through the streets of Teheran chanting Death to America") and some of those people could be American. In general, though, I think this charge has been falsely hurled at the left.
> > I think if there were really such an apt parallel between being called a self-hating American and a self-hating Jew (and I think they are actually very different phenomena), then people accused of being self-hating Jews would be able to make the kinds of positive declarations people accused of being un-American can make.
> And I can do exactly that. I can say I have nothing whatsoever against Jewish people and nothing against Jewish religion per se (any more than I have differences with virtually all organized religion, myself being an athiest). And so on. But I literally find it demeaning to myself and to others to make idiotic statements like that, as I would in the analogous case of saying I have nothing against Americans per se. If a person can't see that, in my work, life, writings, etc. Nothing I say will make a difference. Why should it? I am not my own proper judge.
The fact that you have made statements in this discussion which, under other circumstances, you might have preferred not to make is something that I appreciate and take as indicative of your good will and intellectual integrity.
> > And it was just such a positive discussion I tried to have with Noam Chomsky when he was a guest on my show. But when I asked him what it meant to him to be a good Jew, he refused to answer saying (this is verbatim, I checked the tape), "I don't think it's anybody's business but my own."
> It seems like a perfectly reasonable answer to me. One I might give to in certain circumstances. But here is another answer, one I wouldn't ordinarily give, but for the precise circumstanaces we are in.
No, I don't think it's a reasonable answer, though it was one which Professor Chomsky was certainly within his rights to make. It's not reasonable because it's not communicative, and somewhere at the heart of the enterprise he's engaged in there has to be communication. Remember, there are people who make judgments about Israel on the basis of their faith, including right wing zealots, but others as well. I'm not prepared to write those people off. If they say to me, "Look, this is what the Bible says,and that's why I have thus and such attitude about the Palestinians," then I feel I owe them the respect of giving them a response. I might say that I interpret the Bible differently. I might say that the Bible isn't a proper basis for making policy decisions. I might say a lot of things, but if I don't address their concerns at all, then I think I'm dehumanizing them by saying that I don't think they matter enough to even merit a response to their concerns (this is different from when the concerns, themselves, don't merit a response as sometimes happens).
Chomsky is addressing a lot of people whose connection to Israel is based on faith (whether that faith is Jewish, Muslim, Christian or whatever). I tend to think he owes it to those people, if he is going to be so outspoken on Israel, to explain where this all fits into his personal faith, so that people can understand better how his outlook relates to their faiths. He's entitled no to feel the way he does about not discussing such matters and he certainly owes nothing to me that he has to answer MY questions. But as I've said, I do regard his stance as unfortunate.
> If you asked me, what might it mean (after all there are countless ways) to be an exemplary person, a morally righteous and worthy person, who is Jewish, I might say, take a look at Noam Chomsky. Offhand, I can't think of a better exemplar.
Okay.
> >>What does it mean to you to be a good Jew?
> This question, I admit, simply does not arise for me. In my case, if I have to answer, it means the same as to be a good person. Literally no difference that I can think of. (Of course, I am not religious, so I don't have any norms of behavior or of custom, etc., that I feel I should respect simply due to their lineage/heritage. This sort of obediance is, in fact, the element of religion that I do not like.)
I didn't ask you about this to quarrel with your beliefs, just to understand them better, and I thank you for your answer.
> Okay, perhaps there is one arguable difference between a sensible answer to what is a good person and to what is a good Jew. By virtue of being Jewish I suppose that one MIGHT argue that one has a greater responsibility re opposing injustice against jews than other constituencies (due to having a higher consciousness of it through experience) but one could as easily argue the reverse, that the highest morality is to treat ALL equally, and to therefore be just as attuned to any injustice as to an injustice directed at oneself and one's community. Obviously, as to being unjust toward others, there is no difference...don't do it.
> >> What do you think Judaism is?
> A religion. A cultural heritage. The two overlap but are not identical by a long shot. Both are shot through with diverse stands and threads, sometimes quite at odds. As with any religion and cultural heritage. The Israeli state, is, of course, not Judaism, though, again, there are relations, regretably, in that a state--insofar as these exist--should certainly not be identifed with a single cultural community of any sort.
I guess I was asking what KIND of religion you think Judaism is, but never mind.
> >> Why do you think the Jews have been atacked so often?
> I think it is largely a historical phenomena having to do with the position they have held and the history that has evolved. I certainly don't think it is an intrinsic result of internal features of the religion, as compared to others.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the position they have held" though I certainly think that this statement, as I understand it, is true. The Jews spent centuries in Europe being the lowest people on the totem pole and that kind of weakness invites abuse. So, in that sense, it's not surprising that the Jewish situation led to exploitation and persecution.
But I also think there are intrinsic features of Judaism which attract hostility. As I mentioned above, many Christians resent the fact that the Jews, as they see it, rejected Jesus and have gone about their not-always-so-merry way not caring about Jesus for centuries thereafter. Similarly, I don't think the pagan world was thrilled with the Jewish denunciation of idolatry. As I said to you on the phone, one theory of anti-semitism stipulates that it's a continuation of the struggle between paganism and monotheism, and that Christian anti-semites are really pagan anti-Christians who are displacing their resentment onto the Jews.
Maybe I'm taking off in a direction you never implied, though. If what you were saying is that you don't think there's something intrisically WRONG with the Jewish religion such that it should have atracted such hostility, then I agree with you.
> >> And last, but not least, what do you think anti-semitism is?
> I think this phrase can have a few meanings, like anti-black, say. It can be the systematic denial of rights and opportunities, the oppression of Jews (the label semitic is somewhat misleading, but that's another issue) by systemic institutional relations. It can also be the denigration of Jews as inferior, as a group, genetically or by virtue of collective traits and beliefs that are deeply held, as manifested in the behavior of other individuals or groups, with greater or lesser impact.
These are descriptive definitions, and I don't think they're wrong, but none of them really addresses the strength of anti-semitism. What could possibly explain the beliefs people have held about the Jews? We have been accused of drinking the blood of gentile babies, desecrating the eucharistic host, bringing on the bubonic plague by poisoning the wells of Europe and many other things which have no historical validitywhatsoever. This craziness never seems to stop. Today we have people claiming that the Holocaust, undoubtedly one of the best documented events in history, never happened.
All forms of prejudice have their special features, and this intense, insane willingness to believe any preposterous thing about the Jews (and to kill them for it) is a distincive feature of anti-semitism. Personally, I tend to view the often one-sided left-wing appraisal of Israel in there with these other wild beliefs. Sure, Israel has done plenty wrong, but the idea that the middle east conflict is between jack-booted, Nazi-like Israelis and poor innocent lamblike Palestinians is a charicature, but a charicature, nonetheless, which to some extent actually does seem to inform some left-wing views.
> That's it for my reply to your post here, but -- egad, am I going to go on still further? --
Yes, and I'm glad you did. I'll reply to the rest of what you had to say in my next post.
Albert Replies, yet again...
> I am continuing here, as promised, my response to the post of yours which I skipped over to deal with the Herman article:
So then this post will presumably deal with points raised not having to do with the content of the article -- which would be, I presume, my questions about and hypotheses about anti-semitism as a force int he U.S. and particularly in the U.S. left.
Good. Let's see...
> I think it is difficult to separate the Jewish religion and the Jewish people from decisions made by the state of Israel, though I agree with you that it can and should be done.
During the war in Vietnam the Vietnamese were nearly always quite careful to say, we hate the U.S. government but we love the U.S. people -- while being carpet bombed to oblivion. If they can make this distinction, under such conditions, I should think anyone could....
> As a Jew, I would like to see the Israeli government live up to the highest ethical standards of Judaism, but I wouldn't want its failure to do so to be a bad mark against the Jewish reliigon.
I think it is a bad mark against the religion for many people, though not for me, and not logically for anyone. But as a Jew concerned about anti-semitism, I feel that the Israeli state (along with some demented nazi-like lunatic elements) is the largest cause of actions and events that lead to anti-semitic belief and tendencies in the world today.
But listen, Nobody, these aren't things on my personal agenda to talk about...anti-semitism in the U.S. left, however, is, if you are interested.
> I don't think statements about the elites of nations and the ways in which they justify aggression are impermissable nor do I think cogitating on the conduct of Israel's elites is inherantly anti-semitic, although I must note that the motive for the inquiry could be anti-semitic.
True and true, we agree. As with the examination of any state.
> In other words, someone bent on making trouble for the Jews might obsessively dig into Israeli politics. All of thier criticisms might be right, but their motive wouldn't be justice or enlightment only making trouble.
It could be the case. yes. But if all their claims were correct, then the only way to unearth this fact about the person would be via other claims, or other choices and actions, quite clearly, it seems to me.
It is analogous to someone writing about anti-semitism or homophobia in the black community, or about African governments which practiced slavery, and so on. It could be honest research. It could be attempts at finding true justice. It could be racism. To know, you would need to find other behavior and writing, by the person, that was unequivicol in pointing to motive.
> The question of whether or not the focus on Israel (as opposed to any specific charges anyone might make, true or false) is driven by anti-semitism is an open one to me. Let me mention a few facts, and perhaps we can both look at them.
With all due respect, when you are talking about right wing lunatics, fine. When you are talking about people who have devoted themselves to honesty and justice, I think it is silly to presume the worst, rather than honest motivations, even if their main focus was Israel, which is very rarely the case, in fact.
> I think it is just a fact that no matter what you may think of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, worse has been done elsewhere, e.g. in Cambodia and Rwanda.
This is simply a non-sequitor. And it is certainly not relevant to people I know who criticize the state of Israel.
> The Palestinians have been treated harshly elsewhere too, by the Jordanians, the Syrians, etc.
Another non-sequitor. There are lots of articles about the mid-east and israel on line in our archives. I commend them to you.
A serious citizen of the U.S. concerned about world affairs, will exert their efforts in directions those efforts might do some good. That is, toward affecting U.S. elite choices. Israeli policy is quite beholden to U.S. elite support. Obviously. Some think Israel is the dog and we are the tail. I think we are the dog and Israel is the tail... That is, Israeli policy and conditions are dependent on U.S. choices, a fact that will become immensely clear should U.S. interests in the mideast and strategies for maintaining oil stability there ever dramatically alter.
> The Kuwaitis expelled the resident Palestinians there, causing grievous economic hardship to the greater Palestinian community which had benefited from money sent home from Kuwait. And there have even been reports that death squads murdered Palestinians in Kuwait after the Gulf War.
What is the point? What has any of this remotely got to do with the scope and scale of anti-semitism in the U.S. or the U.S. left, hmm? That is the remaining issue on the table.
Can you imagine a black or latino person, asked about their feelings regarding racism toward their community in the U.S. or the U.S. left talking about leftists relating to or ignoring events in Africa, say? It would be way down the list, if it ever got mentioned at all.
> Though there have been many other issues which the left has dealt with at great length, none of the ones mentioned above nor hundreds of other serious problems in the world have attracted the attention of the left the way the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has. Why not?
Your claim is grossly false.
The left's focus on Indochina (we are talking international phenomena) and later on Central America vastly exceeds attention to the Mideast, which has, in fact, been rather sparce -- other than during the Gulf War -- if you actually think about it.
The attention of the anti-war communities in the U.S., and the peace movements in the U.S. is, however, to a degree subject to "direction" shall we say, rather than exclusively objectively seeking its own focus in light of its own values.
The good side of how focus is settled on is that it focuses on world phenomena that it might impact. So, the peace movement paid much less attention to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan than the U.S. invasion of Panama, say -- at least in part for the obvious and sensible reason that U.S. movements could plausibly impact the latter, but not the former.
We respect this. Indeed, we don't have much regard for people running around NYC, say, compaining about Russia in Afghanistan and ignoring the U.S. in El Salvador. And reverse holds too. A Russian in Moscow decrying the U.S. invasion of El Salvador is no big deal, nothing worth admiring, for example. The same person attacking Russian policy in Afghanistan, on the other hand, if highly admirable.
But there are other less meritorious reasons for the focus chosen by U.S. anti-war movements at work, as well. Historically our movements have followed the focus of mainstream media and U.S. elites, largely ignoring parts of the world where U.S. interests are less visibly at stake or threatened, and largely ignoring non-white victims of injustice, save where we are culpable.
Look at Central and South America and the attention focus of peace-activists in the U.S. does it stick to sites of injustice regardless of immediate threat to U.S. interests and thus coverage in U.S. media, or does it flow with the focus of the broader U.S. media and elites? The latter, I am afraid, all too often.
This is again partly a matter of tactical possibility, I suppose, and partly a matter of a poverty of knowledge and sources, and partly a matter, I suspect, of greater orientation toward critique of the source of injustice (especiallly if it is easier to level at the U.S.--and partly a matter of the U.S. mainstream media being the dog, in this instance, and the rest of media the tail....
> I would be curious to know if you perceive this disparity the same way I do; and if you do, what you attribute it to.
For the most part, in fact, regarding the mideast there is often a huge pressure inside the movement AGAINST paying attention to te situation of the Palestinians. It comes from a variety of sources. A famous example is extrreme pressure to not discuss the violence then underway in the Mideast during the huge No Nukes NYC rally....
But, again, I think the focus on the Mideast, to the extent it exists and is critical of U.S/Israeli policy, has to do with the role of the U.S., the fact of the resistance and the ability of those resisting to be heard in various venues, the high priority given the whole area in the U.S. government and media (movement attention following this, mostly, rather than leading it), and so on.
But, again, when are we going to get to anti-semitism in the U.S. left that isn't merely criticism of Israel?
> When I look at this, I can't help but notice that the heightened left-wing focus on the Jews bears a resemblance to certain historical features of anti-semitism.
I know you can't. But earlier you mentioned how criticism could be motivated by honest appraisal, scholarship, distaste for injustice, etc., or by anti-semitism. I said yes, as that is quite obviously so. I then said to know one would have to look for other signs of anti-semitism, clearly. Finding a lot of that, the case would be strengthened. Not finding it, the case essentially disappears.
So I again ask the question which a member of any other community that I am aware of that claims to be seriously oppressed by racist sentitment and structure would have no problem addressing--either for a country or for a set of movements. That is, what are you referring to when you refer to anti-semitism on the left? So far, you have only mentioned left attitudes to Israel, which you freely admit are largely, perhaps entirely correct.
> You are no doubt aware that one feature of anti-semtism has been the ascribing of an undue prominance to the Jews as in the idea that a handful here and there in the right places could manipulate all the world's economies. And to me this has always been part of the larger package of Christianity's ties to Judaism.
Again, we are off into non-sequitors. Are you saying that left movements say that Jews are cabaling together and controling society? Certainly many right wing movements in the U.S. say such things (often while supporting Israel, no less). But I have never encountered such in the left.
...here I deleted another aside about the history of clashing religions, about which I have little personal interest and certainly no relevant knowledge.
> Flash forward to the present and again we see a preoccupation with the Jews, this time manifested as a preoccupation with the Jewish state.
I'm sorry, but I have had enough. You simply repeat broad sweeping claims but there is no basis I can see for them at all. And you give no basis.
Again, if you wish to reveal to me what you are referring to by anti-semitism in the left, other than critiques of Israeli policies, or U.S. policies for that matter, I would welcome such...without it, I have nothing more to offer. I think.another deletion about Jews and the messiah and so on...
> I realize you're not religious, Michael, but as you recognize, religion is a powerful force in the world.
Yes, indeed.
> Do you think it is possible that the left-wing preoccupation with Israel is part of the much larger unhealthy preoccupation that many Christians have, historically, had with the Jews?
Asking if it is possible is silly. It is like asking if it is possible that U.S. government policy toward Iraq is a manifestation of a U.S. cultural trait, say, or of hatred for Iraq's people say, or I don't even know what.
Some people's attention to Israel is motivated by anti-semitism (not many , ironically, because a lot of the truly anti-semitic movements and individuals in the U.S. actually support Israel, if I am not mistaken -- they just can't stand Jews...though again, this is certainly not an area of expertise for me.)
As to whether the attention given to Israel (and U.S.) policies re Palestinians and the Mideast more broadly that you see in Z, say, or in the Peace movement more broadly (with some rare exceptions) is motivated by some kind of anti-semitism -- No, quite obviously I do not think that is the case. And if it were the case, then I think it would extend to (actually that it would be coming from) strong anti-semitism against Jews per se, whose effects would therefore be quite visible here in our movements, etc. It isn't to my eyes.
> Personally, I do believe that this is indeed posisble.
Logically, of course. But it isn't the case and you have yet to offer a shred of argument even, that it is the case.
Or else I am obtuse. In either event, more on the same track is going to get us nowhere, I think, wasting both our time, I believe you would agree.
So, again, other than criticism of Israel what do you have in mind when you refer to anti-semitism in the U.S. left, please?
> No, I don't think anti-semites are always so blunt, but let me give you an example that has nothing to do with Jews.
Why aren't I surprised....
> There's a debate now in New York Cty about reinstituting school uniforms for girls, but women who favor this proposal say that they're not for the old style uniforms of blouses and short skirts, because dressing school girls in short skirts was never more than a male fantasy. They're probably right, but no one in the past ever said "Let's put high school girls in short skirts because we like to look at their legs." It was subtler than that. Similarly, over the centuries innumerable policies have been directed against the Jews which were anti-semitic, but which weren't directly explained that way.
Look, you want to convince me there is such a thing as anti-semitism -- you are wasting you time. I don't contest the point. If you want to convince me that it can take a host of forms, many quite subtle,others grossly overt and violent. You are wasting your time, I don't contest the point.
If you want to convince me that it has been a powerful factor historically, or, for that matter, that it plays a very important role in contemporary right wing ideology and belief systems. Again, you are wasting your time, I don't contest the point.
If you want to convince me there is anti-semitism to be found among leftists in the U.S. You are wasting your time, I don't contest the point.
But if you want to convince me that anti-semitism is a powerful force in the lives of Jewish people in the U.S., in the same sense that other forms of racism (against blacks, latinos, native americans are) seriously curtailing their life options and imposing on their freedom and security, or that anti-semitism is a powerful force within the U.S. left (like those others), having these effects on left Jews in the U.S. -- that is worth your time. I don't accept either claim and I would love to be enlightened if my doubt is due to ignorance.
If we are going to talk about something that we disagree on, and that I at least am going to be part of the exchange about, it is going to have to be that last set of points, I believe.
> In other words, if the elites tell you to commit murder and you do so, you're a murderer, regardless of who told you to do it or why.
This is a whole nother discussion.
But I can see how it plays on your take, making you feel that a critique of Isreal becomes a critique of the large majority of the Jewish population of Israel, becomes a critique of a set of people who are Jewish, becomes a critique of Jews, etc. In your mind, but not mine...
I suppose it means that during the Vietnam War say, you felt that some kid sucked up into the war machine, stripped bare and rebuilt, and then engaging in all manner of mayhem, was a murderer. Well, we see the world differently here too.
> Actually, I think you have consistently ducked my calls for specifics or evidence. To me, this greatly undermines your arguments.
You want to claim there is great anti-semitism in the U.S. left with considerable impact, etc. I cannot provide evidence there isn't such a thing any more than I can provide evidence there isn't great anti-Irish or anti-Italian or anti-any other group sentiment an practice. How does one provide such negative evidence?
You want to claim that people criticizing Israel are motivated, often, by anti-semitism. How do I prove the negative? It can't be done other than to point to their lives and allegiances and to point, as well, to the relative absense of phenomena we would expect to find if your hypothesis was true. That is what I have done.
> So I won't be shy about saying that I think you're way too careless in the statements you make about Jews. Judaism, Israel, etc. Unless you like being called a self-hating Jew you ought to think a little more about these things.
I'll take it under advisement. But, no, I don't mind being called names...it goes with my penchants for truth and change.
> If someone said your anger could "only" reflect anti-Americanism, I'd have to agree with you, just as I'd have to agree with you that someone could criticize Israel without being an anti-semite. But if someone said your criticisms "might" mean you're anti-Ameican, I'd have to agree with them. Anti-American is one of the things you could be, though I'd want to know what "Ameicanism" is, among other things, before making a judgment.
I think in fact, given American policies and behaviors, you would assume as a matter of course that if my anger and emotion at U.S. policy was in tune -- or even broadly in tune -- with the reality of U.S. elite behaviors and my claims therefore sensible, that it was not motivated by some kind of pathology but by moral outrage, perhaps even sometimes getting the better of me. I bet that was your attitude in the sixties, say, regarding folks calling the U.S. fascist, and so on, obvious overstatements.
And to be moved from this default assumption, giving the benefit of the doubt, so to speak, to the critic by assuming rational and moral motives rather than psychotic and venal ones -- you would need some kind of supporting evidence. If the person not only railed against U.S. international policy but demonstrated hatred for or racism toward americans per se, it would cause you to question the motives, but not before.
With Israel it is the opposite. Even sober, clam, reasoned criticism of the Israeli State coming from people who are Jewish, no less, or who have fought racism in all forms including anti-semitism, causes many to think the odds are very strong that the person involved is anti-semitic, with then a tremendous burden of proof (one that is almost unmeetable, in fact) to eliminate this default presumption and gain the state of grace that one is not anti-semitic but simply motivated by a rational and moral reaction to the realities as known.
Again, if you want to talk about anti-semitism in side the U.S. or the U.S. left -- other than criticism of Israel -- I should love to be edified on the topics.
> There are people who are anti-American (e.g. the Revolutionary Guards marching through the streets of Teheran chanting Death to America") and some of those people could be American.
What makes you say they are anti-American in a racist sense? I have no such knowledge. I think it is distinctly possible that they are not, in fact...I don't know. Certainly there is more than enough reason for them to be apoplectic regarding U.S. policies -- not the non-boming, but the starvation of their children and selves.
> I guess I was asking what KIND of religion you think Judaism is, but never mind.
I don't know enough ot make distinctions you have in mind, I suspect...
You notice you asked me -- and I didn't start this -- a bunch of questions about my views, beliefs, etc. etc. and I forthrightly answered them all. They don't make it into this answer because for the most part you just left my answers sit, finding nothing much objectionable, I guess.
On the other hand, I keep asking you one question, over and over, which seems to me to be absolutely germane to your original letter and your whole case, and you simply won't answer it. Why is that?
What do you mean by anti-semitism in the left in the U.S., other than criticism of Israel, and what evidence is there that it is widespread and has serious consequences for Jewish leftists in the U.S. And for that matter, the same questions for the U.S. as a whole....
As one in your series of questions about my views, you asked what I think anti-semitism is, and I answered...
> > I think this phrase can have a few meanings, like anti-black, say. It can be the systematic denial of rights and opportunities, the oppression of Jews (the label semitic is somewhat misleading, but that's another issue) by systemic institutional relations. It can also be the denigration of Jews as inferior, as a group, genetically or by virtue of collective traits and beliefs that are deeply held, as manifested in the behavior of other individuals or groups, with greater or lesser impact.
> These are descriptive definitions, and I don't think they're wrong, but none of them really addresses the strength of anti-semitism.
Quite true. And one doesn't even know what stength it has -- unless one has some apriori knowledge -- unless one says what it is and one then goes and looks for its manifestations. That is what I have been asking of you, all along.
> Sure, Israel has done plenty wrong, but the idea that the middle east conflict is between jack-booted, Nazi-like Israelis and poor innocent lamblike Palestinians is a charicature, but a charicature, nonetheless, which to some extent actually does seem to inform some left-wing views.
The strongest critics I know of of Arafat are Chomsky and Edward Said... I just don't think you are in the real world on these issues, to be honest about it. But it doesn't matter...because the real question behind everything you are arguing is the one I keep asking. If you have answers to my questions re anti-semitism in the left and in the U.S. more generally, that are compelling, then the rest of your case can plausibly come into its own. If not, then by your own logic it doesn't.
Mitchell Intercedes with Data...Again
On 02/24/98 14:05:27, Nobody wrote:
> In this regard, you seem to be saying that a check of the historical record would probably bear out the hypothesis that the phrase "God's chosen" has been used to motivate Jews to attack their enemies. Okay, show me in the historical record where this is so.
You know, presuming that you are Jewish, Mr. Nobody, it never ceases to amaze me how many of my fellow Jews are so thoroughly unfamiliar with Jewish history. Look no further than the books of the prophets, starting immediately with the Book of Joshua, and running straight through the conquests of David, Solomon and Absalom, to find wars of conquests motivated or justified by building the Land of Israel for Jews. More recently (and, to be sure, there was a lonmg gap in history where Jews did not have the power to act in this manner) one need look no further than the discriminatory laws in Israel that decree that a full 92% of the land, at current count cannot be owned by any non-Jew. This is the law that states that no state-controlled or JNF-controlled land in Israel may be sold to non-Jews. There are other discriminatory laws in Israel, based on the same idea--that is, building a Jewish state.
> I can scarcely believe that you walk around all puffed up about being one of the chosen people, Michael. Well, neither do I, and I've never in m 48 years met a Jew who did. I have met one Jew who repeatedly cited the concept of chosenness as his reason for refusing to identify as a Jew, and I've met more than a few Jews who wondered what those phrases meant, but, as I said, I've never met any Jew who saw in those phrases what non-Jews often imagine Jews see in them.
Well, Jews come in all different types, as does everyone else. However, this concept of "chosenness", as you say, has a great deal to do with many Jewish traditions that are designed to seperate Jews from the society at large (wearing a yarmulke, for instance, or not cutting one's beard, many other examples can be cited) and was quite fundamental in the founding of Labor Zionist ideology (not to mention being much more integral to jabotinsky's version of Zionism). Firther, perhaps you have never seen the real life effects of this, but I grew up in the midst of them, and was surrounded by it throughout my childhood. The concept is woven throughout most Jewish teachings, most fundamentally by the different standards of behavior both for Jews in their service to God as opposed to gentiles duty to God, as well as in numerous laws and writings throughout the Talmud differentiating between how to treat another Jew and how to treat a gentile (for more reference see my previous post, titled "On the Matter of Anti-Senitism).
> Of course, I only know contemporary Jews. The history of Judaism is so long that if your hypothesis is correct, there ought to be lots of quotes from many eras in which Jewish leaders said "We're the chosen people and that makes us better than those infidels over there so lets go kill them" or some such. I'll be interested to see what you come up with.
You won't find such statements, which is hardly surprising since it would have been sheer suicide for Jews to make such statements given their position for most of the last 1700 years in the world. You will find such statements in the books of the prophets, as well as in reference to specific peoples (the Amalakites, whom Jews are commanded to kill until all of them and their descendents are wiped out--and it is well to note that many rabbis currently believe that the Palestinians are descended from Amalek). The Talmud was written with the protection and the survival of the Jews in mind, considering that, even before the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were destroyed, a great many Jews lived abroad.
> While we're on the topic of how much does it take to prove what, I'd like to turn to the broader question of anti-semtitism on the left versus other forms of prejudice. I rather suspect that on the left some will call you "racist" if you oppose affirmative action or "homophobic" if you oppose gay marriage. For many, I think, a higher threshhold is required to make such charges but, in any case, charges of racism and homo-phobia are ubiquitous on the left. The same is not true for anti-semtisim.
True. One reason for that is that there is very little anti-semitism on the left, and when the accusation is hurled, it is usually being abused by labelling anyone who is anti-Zionist with this abhorrent appelation.On some occasions, I hear it raised much more clearly, such as being levelled, quite apropriately, against Louis Farrakhan. But for the most part, the only people I hear screaming about anti-Semitism are people who have never really experienced it (unlike myself) and it is usually aimed at people criticizing Israel.
> I do not remember ever hearing any leftist make a charge of anti-semtism against any other leftist or, for that matter, against any Palestinian or other Arab. The charge of anti-semitism seems vey hard to come by on the left which is probably why my fury at Z for publishing Ed Herman's article seems like such a bolt out of the blue. But this situation does seem very peculiar.
Why? One of the effects of the Holocaust has been that, in the West, anti-Semitism is at perhaps its lowest ebb in recorded history! Personally, I think this is a cause for rejoicing. The left was not at all silent when Jews were being persecuted in Russia, or in Ethiopia. Where is this anti-Senitism on the left, or, indeed in the West, when one is comparing it to racism and homophobia? Sure, some people have made some terrible statements about Jews, but are Jews prevented from getting ahead in these societies in any way? Are we prevented from having a political voice (think about AIPAC for moment, and you'll see the absurdity of this idea)? Does the left not oppose quite strenuously neo-Nazi groups?
> The left does not exactly shy away from controversial issues regarding Israel and the Jews. Dismantling the state of Israel, accusing Israel of wholesale crimes, delegitimizing Jewish claims are all fair game, but no one is ever an anti-semite, not even when we're talking about spokespeople for movements in foreign countries where "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and other hardcore (by any definition) anti-semitic matreials are known to circulate freely. It's quite remarkable, really.
This statement is what I find remarkable. Assailing Israel's crimes is quite fair, and it is all too tragic that Jews like yourself would interpret the quite legitimate outrage at the considerable and quite racist atrocities committed by Israel as anti-Semitism. The "protocols" circulate freely, it's true, so what? Anyone with any knowledge at all knows the protocols were a fraud. Some people still believe them to be genuine, and more's the pity. Unfortunately, the greatest breeder of anti-semitism today is israel itself. By treating others in a racist fashion, hatred of Jews is engendered and perpetuated.
> As you told me on the phone, Z has never once published an article on anti-semtiism, whereas it has, of course, published countless articles on racism, homophobia, bias against women, etc. Perhaps Z has given such short shrift to the problem of anti-semitism out of excessive modesty. Surely it's not because, as you told me, no one ever submitted such a maniuscript to you. You could have always commissioned such a piece or you or Ed erman could have written one yourselves or you have simply printed the letter I sent you six years ago and in tha way sparked some discussion.
Well, why don't you suggest an instance that Z ought to report about? There are measurable examples of all the other ills, but the simple reality is that Jews today have it better than we have in many, many centuries, in most of the world. There are a few exceptions, such as in the remains of the Soviet Union (although even at that, many Russian Jews are returning to their old homes from israel thanks to the poor reception they have been getting in Israel), but for the most part, Jews are in a very good place right now. This may change. But for now, why don't you try and write such a story, and when and if you do so, stay clear from anti-Semitic statements and move only to anti-semitic actions. Then study Jewish history. I think you will find that it is indeed true that Jews today are in as good a position as we've ever been in!
This is not to say anti-semitism doesn't exist. Of course it does, and many of its greatest proponents (like the Christian right, for instance) are great supporters of Israel. But it is currently not institutionalized virtually at all, and most Jews (indeed virtually all) go through their day to day lives without encountering it. indeed, many I've spoken to have never encountered it at all.
And Mitchell one more time...
On 02/25/98 00:55:12, Nobody wrote:
> I think it is difficult to separate the Jewish religion and the Jewish people from decisions made by the state of Israel, though I agree with you that it can and should be done.
I don't find any difficulty in it at all. Rather, it is the insistence of so many diaspora Jews on uniting these things that is so disturbing.
> As a Jew, I would like to see the Israeli government live up to the highest ethical standards of Judaism, but I wouldn't want its failure to do so to be a bad mark against the Jewish reliigon. I don't think any government lives up to the highest ideals of its majority religion, and discourse about nations generally doesn't involve such considerations.
Untrue. Speak to any Muslim about the actions of, for instance, the Saudi government, or the Morroccan, or just about any other Arab country claiming to be islamic. If the nation in question does not seperate church and state, as israel does not, this becomes a very legitimate issue to raise.
> The question of whether or not the focus on Israel (as opposed to any specific charges anyone might make, true or false) is driven by anti-semitism is an open one to me. Let me mention a few facts, and perhaps we can both look at them.
> I think it is just a fact that no matter what you may think of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, worse has been done elsewhere, e.g. in Cambodia and Rwanda. The Palestinians have been treated harshly elsewhere too, by the Jordanians, the Syrians, etc. The Kuwaitis expelled the resident Palestinians there, causing grievous economic hardship to the greater Palestinian community which had benefited from money sent home from Kuwait. And there have even been reports that death squads murdered Palestinians in Kuwait after the Gulf War.
I'm not sure I see the relevance of this. For one thing, most of the actions you are describing are not directly funded by American taxpayers, as israel's actions are. For another, of all the nations you list, only israel represents a non-indigenous government. Further, the other countries do not motivate American foreign policy at anywhere near the level that Israel does. hence, Americans in particular are much more personally involved in these issues. Even cambodia, where much of what happened was caused by the US intervention there, you do not have anywhere near the same level of complicity. And, indeed, Palestinians have been used and abused by many. But they are put into those situations because they have been expelled from their homelands. It is a sad irony that we are doing this to another people when we, better than anyone, should know what it means to live as strangers in a strange land.
> Though there have been many other issues which the left has dealt with at great length, none of the ones mentioned above nor hundreds of other serious problems in the world have attracted the attention of the left the way the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has. Why not?
For the reasons mentioned above, in some measure, but there are other factors. One is that there isn't anywhere near the mainstream legitimization of Cambodian actions that there is for Israeli.
> Certainly it's not merely a question of the body count or of U.S. aid and involvement, since body counts have been higher elsewhere and the U.S. has been involved in many ugly situations.
> And certainly it's not a just a question of human rights, since the people of Tibet have lost their right to self-determination, have seen their culture decimated, etc. and yet don't get one-tenth the left-wing attention that the middle east does.
Again, because the US isn't a direct accomplice (indeed, even an equal partner) in those crimes. Nor does the US profit from them. In some cases, the US tolerates it, even tacitly supports it (like in Indonesia), but nowhere else is the US as directly responsible.
>Similarly, the religious conflicts between Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan which have resulted in many deaths, the desecration of holy sites, etc. but get virtually no left-wing attention.
Again, because these are terrible, but internal conflicts, not being brokered AND FUNDED by our own government.
> I would be curious to know if you perceive this disparity the same way I do; and if you do, what you attribute it to. When I look at this, I can't help but notice that the heightened left-wing focus on the Jews bears a resemblance to certain historical features of anti-semitism.
What I can't help but notice is how you are attempting to dissuade attention from the crimes israel has committed, using the common, and admittedly tried and true method of calling it anti-semitism to pay attention to them.
> You are no doubt aware that one feature of anti-semtism has been the ascribing of an undue prominance to the Jews as in the idea that a handful here and there in the right places could manipulate all the world's economies. And to me this has always been part of the larger package of Christianity's ties to Judaism.
> The founding myths of Judaism do not depend on Christianity at all. After all, Judaism existed for a couple of millenia before Jesus.
Actually, for barely one millenium. You really do need to study Jewish history. You are making many statements and pronouncements in these posts that display an almost total lack of knowledge of Jewish law, lore, tradition and history. Indeed, all too many Jews are not well-versed in these matters, and all too often that doesn't stop them from talking about them. Such ignorance has perverted Jewish culture and given birth to the horrors perpetuated by Zionism.
.> Jewish survival could, itself, be seen as an affront to Christianity, becuae it didn't seem right for the Jews to be okay even though they had rejected Jesus and were living under the cloud of what Christians believed to be a false faith. This led to many discussions among Chrstians over the centuries about the conditions in which the Jews should be preserved, but never mind. The point is that there was a way in which many Christians couldn't get away from proccupation with the Jews, because of the connecion they interpreted into their own myth. They saw their own truth bound up in proving the falsehood of Judaism.
> Flash forward to the present and again we see a preoccupation with the Jews, this time manifested as a preoccupation with the Jewish state. Of course, some Christians believed that the Jews weren't supposed to be able to return to their homeland until the coming of the Messiah, (and many Jews also believed that Israel shouldn't be established before the coming of the Messiah which is why many orthodox Jews were anti-zionists, but that's another story).
Whoa. Hold on here.This is not a Christian concept, but a Jewish one. There are many, many Jews who believe this. First off, there is nothing wrong with Jews living in the land that was once their kingdom, no one believes this. The debate is whether or not there ought to be a Jewish state, given that a central foundation of Jewish faith is that we are to live in exile until the coming of the Messiah. Neturei Karta, in israel, the Satmar in America, and many other sects believe that there ought not be a Jewish state, and this debate has been raging ever since the first Zionist Congress. In fact, Palestinian Jews were, almost unanimously, anti-Zionist, (when there still were native Palestinian Jews, almost all killed in early conflicts between Zionists and Palestinians) though that feeling was based on practical concerns as much as on religious ones. This is not, repeat NOT a Christian argument by any stretch of the imagination.
> and so the existence of Israel at this time only intensifies past problems they've had with wondering why God might still do nice things for the Jews despite the Jews being so wrong about Jesus
I'd really like to know where all these anti-Zionist Christians are. The Christian establishment has supported Israel since its inception. Once again, I strongly suggest you study history, as well as current politics. You are making statements here that are, quite simply, thoroughly false.
Another Message from Anderson
Michael,
This will conclude my response to the message of yours which I skipped over, and then, as I indicated previously, I am going to retire from this forum.
> That's it for me reply to your post here, but -- egad, am I going to go on still further? -- in response to your email letter to me I also reacted to your concluding paragraph (as well as the stuff in between the beginning and end). I think your clsoing is by far the most important part of what you wrote, in practical political terms, so I hope you won't mind if I drag that into the discussion.
No, I don't mind.
> You concluded your letter to Z, which you recently read to me and remailed to me: "So I ask you, is Edward Herman still associated with Z Magazine, and if so, why? Do you think that being a leftist means embracing prejudice more fervently than the establishment you decry? Tolerance for anti-semitism is the shame of the left. Z should apologize, and Herman should be bounced."
> Here was my reaction quoted directly from my email to you:
> ---
> All the above aside, which could be a matter of context, or missing information, or whatever, the most important line in your letter is arguably "tolerance of anti-Semitism is the shame of the left."
> I think this is a serious misreading of reality, a few years ago and now, almost regardless of what you think the left is.
> If anti-Semitism was rampant on the left in a substantive way, affecting the lives of Jews materially, for example, then the position of Jews within the left would be largely subordinate, disempowered, etc. That is a material outcome we can check, easily enough. And I think, from my experience, that it is not the case by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly not in and around Z.
> The same can be said, for that matter, of the U.S. There is anti-Semitism in the U.S., to be sure. There is anti-Irish sentiment, anti Italian sentiment, anti-black, anti-Hispanic, etc. as well. Some of these manifest themselves, along with institutional structures, in horrible inequities of life opportunity and circumstance. Is that true for anti-Semitism? I think not. I am no expert, but I bet there isn't an index on which the situation of Jews in the U.S. is, on average, worse than the social average for all constituencies, and I bet on most indices the situation of Jews is much better. The opposite would hold, however, for Blacks and Latinos, much less Native Americans. Does this mean there is no anti-Semitism. Not at all. But it does tell us something about the impact of anti-Semitism, it seems to me.
When I responded to this via e-mail, I pointed out that, among other things, the presence of a Jewish middle class in Germany prior to Kristallnacht was hardly proof that anti-semitism didn't exist there in an extremely dangerous form (nor do I think you would accept proof of a lower infant mortality rate and higher life expectancy on the West Bank since Israel took it over as proof that Israel isn't oppressing the Palestinians). Anti-semitism, though endemic, has its volcanic eruptions which build up beneath the surface. Thus, dangerous levels of anti-semtiism could easily be present on the left without showing any signs of producing a "material outcome," so this is not a good standard.
But in replying now I will go further. You say we can check "easily enough" if there has been a material outcome from left-wing anti-semitism. How do you propose to do this? If you could point to, say, the existence of 100,000 Jews on the American left, how could you tell whether or not that number might have been 50,000 had it not been for the inviting vibes emenating from the left and sucking in a lot of otherwise apolitical Jews who just liked that warm leftist go-to-meeting spirit? Or how could you know if there would have been 200,000 if it hadn't been for the cold anti-semitism emenating from the left? And even if you knew how many left-wing Jews there were supposed to be so you could see if there were enough to prove the non-existence of anti-semitism, how would you know that they hadn't changed their views to fit in, as members of minorities have often been wont to do?
I don't believe your easily checkable material oucome is checkable at all (go ahead and prove me wrong), so I'm not surprised that you offer no evidence other than your experience. I've had experiences, too, and in my expeience there is, indeed, pressure on the left against support for Israel. In fact, I would argue that my experience is a lot more valid on this point than yours, because you surely have not offered as much support for Israel on the left as I have (actually, if I still lived in Israel I suppose I'd be a member of Peace Now). In any case, who are the Ameican Jewish leftist supporters of Israel? The folks at Tikkun? I don't really regard them as leftists. So you tell me. I'm sure I'm not the only one, but when you look at how support for Israel has been marginalized among left-wing Jews the position of Jews on the left doesn't look as comfortable as you seem to think it is.
As you know, I'm in talk radio, and in talk radio there's a growing phenomenon of black conservative talk hosts finding jobs on commerical (corporate) stations. Is this growing number of jobs for black talk hosts evidence that the "material outcome" of racism is abating? I don't think so. Though these people are, I'm sure, sincere, they owe their positions, I think, to the desire of white corporate executives to put a black face on trashing the civil rights movement . So when I see that the left contains many Jews putting a Jewish face on trashing Israel, it looks like evidence to me of a negative material outcome, not evidence that such an outcome is absent. (And while we're on the topic of African Americans and Jews, let's not forget that increasing numbers of African-American leftists will appear on the podium with Louis Farrakhan., an old-line anti-semite, and the process seems to be accelerating.
That, right there, is substantial evidence for growing left-wing tolerance of anti-semitism. And I can see no reason to believe that white leftists couldn't similarly drift into accommodation with more traditional anti-semities.)
Of course, you will say the relative weakness of left-wing Jewish support for Israel is because support for Israel is inconceivable and that anti-Israel left-wing Jews are just standing up for truth and righteuousness. I'm sure those black consevative talk show hosts will tell you that they're just standing up for truth and righteousness too. The American Jewish left, from my observation (I've not seen any study of this) is largely comprised of a group of people who are not religious or who are anti-religious and who are hostile to large swaths of their co-religionists. There have certainly been divisions among the Jews before, but I think that from an historical perspective this is an unusual grouping nonetheless.
> What about the lesser claim you might have made -- that anti-Semitic comments and behavior are rampant on the left, and uncriticized, even though Jews on the left are not suffering lesser empowerment or returns. Well, it could be true and it is harder to check for than differences in material or authority differences. For myself, I have to say that I have never seen anything remotely resembling evidence that it is true, however.
As I e-mailed you, these are not the claims I would have made. The claim I would make is that leftists are making a lot of irrational statements about Israel which can only be explained by some underlying factor that's robbing them of their senses. (This would be a good time, I think, to point out that I never said you couldn't be anti-semitic AND anti-Israel. What I said was you didn't HAVE to be anti-semitic to be anti-Israel, but in practice, many people who are anti-Israel are, in fact, anti-semitic.)
In this regard, I can think of no better example to cite, than something you wrote earlier (and which Mitchell also said, in his own words -- by the way, Mitchell, if you think the Jews only existed for about 1000 years before Jesus, you should take your own advice and study history). You wrote, "I feel that the Israeli state (along with some Nazi-like lunatic elements) is the largest cause of actions and events that lead to anti-semitic beliefs and tendencies in the world today." Let's take a look at that statement.
In the first place, it's a statement of a type no leftist would make about anyone but Jews. You would never say, "The civil rights movement is the largest cause of racism," or "feminism, is the chief cause of rape" or "the gay liberation movement is the cause of homophobia." On the left, this blaming of the victim is only for Jews, which is proof that something under the surface must be warping people's minds such that they would make outrageous statements otherwise inconsistent with a left-wing philosophy.
And how, exactly, is Israel causing anti-semitism? I can certainly see how Israel could be the cause of a lot of hatred for Israelis. Who could blame the mother of a child slain by an Israeli bomb, say, if she hated Israel and its people? But that's got nothing to do with anti-semitism.
If Israel is capable of causing anti-semitism, does that mean that Jews in the past were capable of causing anti-semitism? How much of historic anti-semtiism do you think was the victim's fault?
As of this writing, I don't know what you believe, but IF, in fact, you do believe that the Jews in some way caused anti-semitism, then actually I would have to say that you are a self-hating Jew, because that belief IS the very one which, to my mind, defines one as such. If you think Jews cause anti-semitism, then everything else flows quite naturally, including a desire to expunge these horrible Jewish traits from within yourself (no Judaism allowed!) and a willingness to band together wth non-Jewish enemies of the Jews in a campaign to make sure these horrible Jewish attributes don't further infect the world.
I hope that's not what you believe, but if it is I think you're causing yourself a lot of needless anguish. Personally, I do not believe that even one drop of anti-semitism has been caused by Jews, and I think this should be pretty obvious. There are only two kinds of charges made against the Jews (or the Jewish elites, the Jewish religion, etc.): the false ones and the true ones. Obviously the false ones can't be blamed on the Jews (and these have been of a staggering magnitude and suspiciously phantasmagoric creativity , as I've pointed out previously}. As for the true ones, which ever ones you may think they are,
they haven't created the same kind of hatred towards others who have done the same things. Do you think Jews are financial manipulators, murderers, genocidal maniacs? Well, at one time or another Christians have certainly been all of those things, but where is the corresponding anti-Christianity?
And if you believe that the Jewish people, themselves, were the cause of anti-semitism, especially when it comes to things like massacres, then you're caught in a bizarre, crazed double standard. Because what you're saying, ultimately, is that if a Jew says "go kill those people, they deserve it," that proves there's something wrong with the perpetrator. But if those people say, "Go kill the Jews, they deserve it," that proves there's something wrong with the victim. No, anti-semitism doesn't come from within Jews, it comes from within anti-semites.
But maybe that's not what you mean, and I hope it's not. So lets assume you're not saying that Jews cause anti-semitism. We're still left trying to explain how Israel could be te "largest" cause of anti-semitism. Logically, this statement means that Israel is a larger cause of anti-semitism than other causes of anti-semitism, including, obviously, whatever it was that caused anti-semtism in the past. Since Israel hasn't been around very long, let's call this anti-semitism supposedly produced by Israel "new" anti-semitism" and the anti-semitism that existed before "old" anti-semitism.
If the old anti-semitism is weaker now, where did it go? One could argue that the holocaust eradicated it, but such a claim is completely unsupportable. Yes, to whatever extent the holocaust shocked the west, it made people realize the dangerous potential of many forms of anti-semitism they had taken for granted.
And yes, I think it did temporarily limit the expression of western anti-semitism (though not completely), but it did not eradicate the causes of the old anti-semitism.
After the holocaust there may have been a revulsion at the idea of slaughtering Jews, but there was no repudiation of traditional anti-semitic portraits of Jews as clannish, manipulative, greedy, Crist killers, etc. The only really great achievement in this regard was, as I've mentioned previously, the partial repudiation of the doctrine of supersession at Vatican II, but the Catholic church's good message in this area has been offset by a refusal to even acknowledge the Pope's complicity-through-silence or to ask hard questions of the Christian masses about what failure (or success) of faith could have led them to participate in such a genocide.
So, a simple check of reality will tell you that while the holocaust might have drained a lot of water from the well of anti-Jewish hatred, it didn't shut off the steady flow of new water coming in. There may have been a temporary change in western behavior, but there's been no conversion of the western soul. Whatever happens in Israel, whatever allegations are made against the Jews, are still striking those regions of the western soul that are primed and ready through centuries of teaching and acculturation to believe the worst of the Jews.
Moreover, the Holocaust was followed only three years later by another attempt at genocide against the Jews by arab armies that said they would drive Israel into the sea, a sentiment that has faded, I think, among many arabs, but not completely, as may be witnessed by the periodic chants of "Death to Israel" or threats to shoot scuds filled with anthrax into Tel Aviv.
It's one thing to claim (erroneously) that the old anti-semitism died out. After all, the dinosaurs died out, so why not anti-semitism? But it'sanother thing to claim that the old anti-semitism was replaced by an unrelated new one. The dinosaurs weren't replaced by a new breed of dinosaurs genetcally unrelated to the old ones.
There's no analog in history for such a powerful force as anti-semitism disappearing and then reapearing in an entirely new and unrelated form. Modern secular anti-semitism and it's predecessor, religious anti-Judaism have clear historical links and no one who has studied that matter would claim that they are unrelated. So I would have to say that if what you're saying is that the anti-semitism caused by Israel is unrelated to the old anti-semitism, then you're on very weak ground, indeed.
If this new anti-semitism is relaly different from the old anti-semitism, then there has to be something that Israel has done which could explain it. But there isn't. As I've said, there's nothing that Israel has done which hasn't been done and done worse by somebody else. You want to talk about massacres, denials of human rights, land expropriations, torture? Where is the left-wing anti-Cambodianism, anti-Salvadoranism, anti-Indonesianism, anti-Hutuism? The same acts as the worst of what you might ascribe to Israel don't create an "ism" akin to anti-semitism. Of course,there's nothing new about that. This business of hating the Jews for things you don't hate others for is the OLD anti-semitism full force. And it has nothing to do with Israel per se. You're the one who says it does. How?
This isn't a matter of saying the left's preoccupation with Israeli policy stems from a feeling of American responsibility or a sense that the left might affect such policies more than others it might protest. Those assertions might theoretically be true (though, in fact, I thnk they're false), but not so the assertion that Israel is the largest cause of antisemitism. Not even in theory does that has nothing to do with U.S. policy or the efficaciousness of left-wing protest.
> Anti-Semitism is certainly a problem in many places and constituencies. However, the idea that tolerance of it is the shame of the left is, well, beyond my ken.
Yes, I believe this is true.
> There is only one sense I can think of in which your claim would be demonstrably true. If you believe or feel that taking a stance highly critical of Israeli state policies is anti-Semitism, which many people do believe but which would make the word anti-Semitism into a concept having little to do with religious or racial prejudice, then, by all means, tolerance of and practice of those attitudes is widespread, relatively, on the left.
Let the record show that I haven't based my whole argument on anti-Israel sentments. What was objectionable about the Herman article was only tangentially about Israel. But, neither you (nor Mitchell) has dealt with it. You haven't produced any quotes, Michael, to show that the phrase "God's chosen" was ever used to motivate the Jewish masses towards war. as you yourself said you thought the historical record would bear out (and Mitchell hasn't produced any either -- claiming that no Jew would have literally said such a thing is ridiculous, while simultaneously citing the horrible things that Jews did say).
What's amazing is the lengths that will be gone to to justify the unjutifiable. In Mitchell's case, he'll (very) selectively examine the Talmud and the Mishneh Torah, two documents separated by centuries, to support Ed Herman's claims about the "Old Testament," which is a different document altogether. But he won't look at one speck of history to understand the meaning of the phrase "Old Testament." Of course, Michael, you're not responsible for what Mitchel says, but his replies, which I know you've read, are indicative of the irrationality on the left pertaining to this topic. We'll use a telescope a microscope and a proctoscope to examine the Jews, but not so much as a mirror to examine ourselves.
With this I am bowing out of the Z forum. Thank you, Michael, for your invitation to participate, your computer advice (which was, in the end, helpful) and your willingness to engage in discussion of this difficult issue.
Albert Replies one last time...
> This will conclude my response to the message of yours which I skipped over, and then, as I indicated previously, I am going to retire from this forum.
I think that's probably too bad, because I have a feeling this is going to be the first message in which you begin to address the critical question -- what do you mean by left anti-semitism other than criticism of Israel and what impact does it have...
> Thus, dangerous levels of anti-semtiism could easily be present on the left without showing any signs of producing a "material outcome," so this is not a good standard.
So there is no material impact? Hmmmm. Okay, then what is there that indicates a high level of anti-semitism, I wonder? I also asked for evidence of any psychological or other impact on personality, say, or basically anything...
> But in replying now I will go further. You say we can check "easily enough" if there has been a material outcome from left-wing anti-semitism. How do you propose to do this?
It isn't something I would do, in fact. But I would imagine someone could survey a host of left projects and institutions, things like Z or the Nation, or the Institute for Policy Studies, or Food First, or DSA, or the Labor Party, or Grenpeace, or what have you -- and look to see whether Jews who are present have less status or responsibility, or if there are wages whether they have lower wages, less prominence, etc., than other constituencies. One might also check if Jews are present in numbers comparable to, above, or below, their presense in relevant geographic areas, and the like. One might also talk with Jews in these venues, and see their reactions to their experiences. Or you might check non-Jewish leftists for anti-semitic attitudes (other than being critical of Israel, clearly).
If I remember right Tikkun actually initiated a survey of this sort, but as far as I know nothing came of it.
> If you could point to, say, the existence of 100,000 Jews on the American left, how could you tell whether or not that number might have been 50,000 had it not been for the inviting vibes emenating from the left and sucking in a lot of otherwise apolitical Jews who just liked that warm leftist go-to-meeting spirit? Or how could you know if there would have been 200,000 if it hadn't been for the cold anti-semitism emenating from the left?
Imagine someone making this argument about blacks in the left or women in the left or working class people in the left--impossible. Because one can look and see and discuss the actual features and their implications, nad that is so much more fruitful.
But, of course, you can't KNOW anything of this sort, I suppose, though you can be sure enough to be comfortable having a view. Thus, if there are lots of disgruntled Jews who would like to partake in left projects and efforts but claim they are treated badly, and if there signs of this bad treatment, that would be quite telling. But if there are no such signs of bad personal treatment or worse conditions, etc., and the only negative that anyone can point to, beyond isolated instances, is left criticism of Israel, than this would bear on the issue as well.
> And even if you knew how many left-wing Jews there were supposed to be so you could see if there were enough to prove the non-existence of anti-semitism, how would you know that they hadn't changed their views to fit in, as members of minorities have often been wont to do?
The lengths to which this is going is truly incredible to me.
If Jews were staying away in droves because the left was anti-semitic, any sensitive Jew inside or outside the left could describe numerous ways in which this anti-semitism was manifest, I am quite sure. Just as women and black activists inside and outside the left had no trouble doing so re the sexism and racism that needed and continues to need attention. Or as someone like Michael Moore can do, now, re the class structure and vibes and culture of the left, I believe.
If Jews were joining, but it was only by essentially renouncing their Judaism and becoming self hating -- then one would find not only that Jews in the left were critical of Israeli atrocities, but that they were critical of Judaism per se, which one doesn't find, at all.
I feel silly responding, I have to say. You have formulated a position like that of someone who claims there are martians on the flip side of the moon, who, oh yes, manage to hide on the rare occassions we get a camera around there to check. Or someone who says that there are Martians in NYC, every third person, but of course there is no discernable difference between them and anyone else, other than if you line everybody up, they will be every third one.
You have suggested that perhaps many people who are Jewish and in the left have contorted their perceptions to be insensitive to anti-semitism--and that's why they do okay in the left. (But the ONLY feature of behavior or thought you have listed as being present in the left and constituting a sign of anti-semitism is criticism of Israel.) Well here is a counter proposal. Perhaps quite a few people outside the left have contorted their perceptions and thoughts, on this particularl issue leaving anything resembling logic far behind, in order to defend Israel and to see all critique of Israel as stemming from ill-motives.
Since you want to conclude this exchange, I guess this is the end. Fine. Others can try to decide for themselves whether the population of self-hating and anti-semitism practicing and denying Jews is near zero on the left, or quite substantial and a serious problem.
> I don't believe your easily checkable material oucome is checkable at all (go ahead and prove me wrong), so I'm not surprised that you offer no evidence other than your experience.
If an Italian says there is gross anti-Italian sentiment and practice in the left, how does one reply? Well, one can ask what form this takes and what impact it has. The person says, no visible form, and no discernable impact -- but you can't prove it isn't there, lurking, ready to leap forth and cause immense pain and suffering.
Well, it is true enough, I suppose, in some sophomoric philosophical sense, that one cannot prove that this person is wrong.
> I've had experiences, too, and in my expeience there is, indeed, pressure on the left against support for Israel.
Well of course there is...but you have already indicated that you agree -- which in fact I think you don't in practice -- that this could be motivated by positive values and aspirations. I say that it is. You say that it isn't. I say fine, to make that case you need something more... But there here is nothing more. So you fall back on this alone, criticism of Israel, as if it alone proves amti-semitism, or even implies it, even. It doesn't.
> In fact, I would argue that my experience is a lot more valid on this point than yours, because you surely have not offered as much support for Israel on the left as I have (actually, if I still lived in Israel I suppose I'd be a member of Peace Now).
I doubt you would join Peace Now on arriving. Maybe after a time...but again, these are not things I consider myself really well informed about.
I don't argue there is support for Israel on the left -- though, in fact, there is, quite a bit, if we are talking the left broadly. I argue that positions on Israel are not positions about Jews and therefore don't imply anti-semitism or its absense. How much more obvious could this be, in both directions. For one thing the most vile anti-semites in the U.S. are, for the most part, supporters of Israel. For another, some of the most courageous fighters against all forms of injustice, including when it manifests itself, anti-=semitism, are critcis of Isreal.
> In any case, who are the Ameican Jewish leftist supporters of Israel? The folks at Tikkun? I don't really regard them as leftists. So you tell me.
Well, it has been a useful discussion in some ways, I suppose. I ask for indications of anti-Semitism other than criticism of Isreal, and I get back this message about criticisms of Isreal.
You dismiss all Jewish supporters of Israel as not leftists. All Jewish critics of Israel are, apparently, suspect as self-hating, but, at any rate, soft on anti-semitism.
I don't know quite what to say. I guess nothing is necessary.
> I'm sure I'm not the only one, but when you look at how support for Israel has been marginalized among left-wing Jews the position of Jews on the left doesn't look as comfortable as you seem to think it is.
This is amazine stuff. A Jew should be uncomfortable because the left is critical of Israel? I am Jewish, dammit. And not only am I not made uncomforatble by leftist's critcisms of Israel, I would not want to be part of a left that wasn't highly critical of Israel.
A left-wing person, especially if you are talking about further left than Tikkun, is, in this day and age, invariably a person who is sincerely opposed to racism in all its forms, and generally to imperialism and colonialism, as well. Such a person is going to be critical of Israel, it seems to me.
Can I imagine a person who is left on every issue but is not critical of Israel. Yes, I suppose he or she exists. What should be the relation of left projects that are critical of Israel to such a person. To try to communicate. But it would appear to be quite difficult...at times.
> As you know, I'm in talk radio, and in talk radio there's a growing phenomenon of black conservative talk hosts finding jobs on commerical (corporate) stations.
Depressing but perfectly understandable.
> Is this growing number of jobs for black talk hosts evidence that the "material outcome" of racism is abating? I don't think so.
Racism as a structural phenomenon that pervades our society...
the reason you don't think that these hires are evidence that that is significantly abating is you are able to look and see the impact of that pervasive and systemic racism on millions of black people with no difficulty whatever.
I suppose you are saying, hey, sure a lot of Jews do well in the left. They have sold out Judaism and so serve a useful purpose. But they are tokens.
Well, if you believe this, I don't know what to say other than that I am sure that exchanges in a forum like this aren't going to undo your mental constructions.
I have also asked you about the impact of anti-semitism in our society more broadly. Surely, I agree this is worse than in the left, but I wonder how severe, in fact, it is. Not very, it seems to me.
> Though these people are, I'm sure, sincere, they owe their positions, I think, to the desire of white corporate executives to put a black face on trashing the civil rights movement. So when I see that the left contains many Jews putting a Jewish face on trashing Israel, it looks like evidence to me of a negative material outcome, not evidence that such an outcome is absent.
I thank you for being so forthright in explaining what things look like to you. It is instructive. But obviously not convincing. It would seem that in your view of the left, I am where I am because I am critical of Israel. Tell me, what about Jews who are not near so critical or who are supportive of Israel, by and large, who have prominent positions in less radical venues -- periodicals, large organizations, etc.? They don't cound because that isn't the left?
What you have done then is to come up with still another bit of cicular logic. For you the only things which counts as the left are projects, movements, or organization that are critical of Israel. Then, of course, one is not going to find very many people supportive of Israel's Palesinian policies in those realms, by definition. Oooops. But you do find lots of Jews however, doing easily as well as any other sector of people. So you say, well sure, but they are sellouts there only because they are useful for bashing Israel, and, by extension, expanding anti-semitism.
You are correct I suppose that this convoluted analysis cannot be PROVED false, for pretty much the same reason that it is imposisble to prove there are no martians on the other side of the moon, say, hiding well whenever we take a look.
But notice that the left has only one trait, one feature, you name in the same sentence with the concept anti-semitism. That is, as far as I can tell reading your words you agree that the left isn't an advocate of any kind of anti-semitism in society or internally, other than criticism of Israel. Notice how this differs from your example of the black talk show folks. There racism has a broad definition and impact, and the systems/people responsible for hiring, for advertising, etc. etc. are implicated in all of it.
Oh well, dump that analogy and just come up with some other....
> (And while we're on the topic of African Americans and Jews, let's not forget that increasing numbers of African-American leftists will appear on the podium with Louis Farrakhan., an old-line anti-semite, and the process seems to be accelerating.
Now the left is all groups with left values and aims and who are critics of Israel, plus any group at all that does have anti-semitic leanings, it seems. Otherwise, how does Farrakhan manage to enter the discussion?
> That, right there, is substanital evidence for growing left-wing tolerance of anti-semitism.
This is just grossly false. Farrakhan has been reviled by the left, including the pro-PLO left, even, for his anti-semitism. Repeatedly.
> And I can see no reason to believe that white leftists couldn't similarly drift into accommodation with more traditional anti-semities.)
Yep...sure, I am going to drift right into the KLAN.
I am glad this discussion is coming to a conclusion. I am having trouble respecting our norms of decorum...
> Of course, you will say the relative weakness of left-wing Jewish support for Israel is because support for Israel is inconceivable and that anti-Israel left-wing Jews are just standing up for truth and righteuousness.
Yep, by and large. Except I would also add that if by left you mean something that extends beyond the anti-imperialist sectors of the U.S. populace, then the left is chock full of folks quite supportive of Israel. Not that it matters much to any of this discussion...facts being largely irrelevant.
> I'm sure those black consevative talk show hosts will tell you that they're just standing up for truth and righteousness too.
No doubt they will. So?
If I take the unfolding logic in the direction you seem to be pushing it, now what we have is that people like me, Ed Herman, Noam, and so on and so forth are really anti-semitic and have the views we do on Israel for that reason, and have the relative status and freedom in the left that we do, again, for that reason.
Okay. What can I say and be true to the rules of decorum of ZNet. I am at a loss...
> The American Jewish left, from my observation (I've not seen any study of this) is largely comprised of a group of people who are not religious or who are anti-religious and who are hostile to large swaths of their co-religionists.
There are substantial exceptions to this. There are organizations of rather religious Jews who are highly critical of Israel -- not just Tikkun (whose criticism is very mild, in fact) but other groups, far more left in your sense.
But yes, much of the white ideological left, Jewish or not, is rather disdainful of religion and not itself religious, I think. When one extends into the broader progressive community, this becomes much less true, even grossly false, I think. for example, the Central American solidarity movements had huge religious participation, were arguably nurtured in and an outgrowth of religious inspirations, and were often also, (thought far from always, highly critical of Israel, by the way. Anyway, to the extent Jewish or other leftists are anti-religious per se, and particularly to the extent that they exude an attitude that is hostile to religion, that is aA regretable problem, but not one having anything at all to do with anti-semitism, it seems to me.
I wrote:
>> What about the lesser claim you might have made -- that anti-Semitic comments and behavior are rampant on the left, and uncriticized, even though Jews on the left are not suffering lesser empowerment or returns. Well, it could be true and it is harder to check for than differences in material or authority differences. For myself, I have to say that I have never seen anything remotely resembling evidence that it is true, however.
> As I e-mailed you, these are not the claims I would have made.
No. That's true. You refuse to make any substative claim having to do with anything other than criticism of Israel, as best I can tell.
> The claim I would make is that leftists are making a lot of irrational statements about Israel which can only be explained by some underlying factor that's robbing them of their senses.
Who are these leftests who have left their brains behind, I wonder? Fringe idiots who say stupid unjustifiable things about everything they discuss? Maybe, but that would hardly demonstrate anything profound. No, you seem to mean people like Herman, or Chomsky, or Shahak, say, or Finkelstein, or myself I guess. So what are these insane things that people say that couldn't possibly be uttered without one's sense having taken leave?
Oh gosh, I fear you are going to give me an example from my very own mouth...
> You wrote, "I feel that the Israeli state (along with some Nazi-like lunatic elements) is the largest cause of actions and events that lead to anti-semitic beliefs and tendencies in the world today." Let's take a look at that statement.
Okay. I said it to intentionally try to get a rise...let's see what I got.
> In the first place, it's a statement of a type no leftist would make about anyone but Jews. You would never say, "The civil rights movement is the largest cause of racism," or "feminism, is the chief cause of rape" or "the gay liberation movement is the cause of homophobia." On the left, this blaming of the victim is only for Jews, which is proof that something under the surface must be warping people's minds such that they would make outrageous statements otherwise inconsistent with a left-wing philosophy.
You know at first glance it looks like you almost have an argument. But then at second glance we notice that you have gone from a statement made about the STATE OF ISRAEL to judgements about someone making a statement about Jews. Yet you yourself deny that this equation is justified.
You say that because I say that aside from facists, etc. the policies of the Israeli state are doing more to cause anti-semitism than anything else, I am blaming the victims (of anti-semitism for its creation. But Jews are the victims of anti-Semitism, not the Israeli state, which is what I pointed to.
Can you not see the problem here? I have not blamed Jews for people being anti-semitic, nor Judaism, but an entirely different thing -- the imperial and racist policies of the state of Israel, which people like you conflate with Jews (by arguing that anyone critical of Israel is anti-semitic), thus causing many other people, admittedly ignorantly, to turn their opposition against Israel into anger at Jews more generally.
It is a horrible outcome, which was precisely my point.
Now why should I make the claim? Why point it out? Well, because it seems to me that Jews who care about the situation of Jews throughout the world, asyou say you do and as I believe I do, and who care about the possibility of a rise in anti-semitism, as you say you do and as I do (given Israel's vile policies) should, in fact, direct their resources and powers to demanding humane policies on the part of Israel. I hope it happens.
> And how, exactly, is Israel causing anti-semitism? I can certainly see how Israel could be the cause of a lot of hatred for Israelis. Who could blame the mother of a child slain by an Israeli bomb, say, if she hated Israel and its people? But that's got nothing to do with anti-semitism.
You are absolutely correct. But why all of a sudden do you see that even hatred of Isreal (and its people, no less, something I would not have said) has nothing to do with anti-semitism, but for the left criticism of Israel is evidence of anti-semitism, indeed the only evidence you have offered?
And, to continue, the policies of Israel and anger they arouse would probably not have much to do with Jews and anti-semitism if people like you didn't convey that in your mind, at least, to criticize Israel is to criticize Jews. What choice then, does one have? Either don't criticize Israel, which is simply not a choice for that childless mother, or get polarized into being critical of Jews. That is the dynamicIhad in mind in the quote... I wouldn't want to exaggerate its scale, however.
> If Israel is capable of causing anti-semitism, does that mean that Jews in the past were capable of causing anti-semitism? How much of historic anti-semtiism do you think was the victim's fault?
Israel is not the victim of anti-Semitism, Jews are. Jews aren't creating it, Israel is contributing to its creation, it seems to me.
But are you asking me can the behavior of an oppressed group fuel the hatred that members of an oppressor community have? Well of course it can. Absolutely. And if that behavior is in fact vile, and is self-serving, rather than being moral and worthy (which behavior can also fuel hatred by an oppressor, to be sure, but then one dosn't call it a contributing cause), then one ought to criticize it. Black homophobia no doubt fuels racism in the gay and lesbian communities of the United States. There is no point denying such obvious realities. What is needed is to try to constructively deal with them.
> As of this writing, I don't know what you believe, but IF, in fact, you do believe that the Jews in some way caused anti-semitism, then actually I would have to say that you are a self-hating Jew, because that belief IS the very one which, to my mind, defines one as such.
Notice, if I say Israel is in part to blame for the contemporary rise in anti-semitism -- not due to religious practices or cultural norms or something like that, but due to its imperial and racist policies -- you then extrapolate it to I am blaming Judaism and Jews for anti-Semitism, therefore, I am self-hating.
Can I make this any more plain. I hate the policies of Israel, not Jews. Like I hate the policies of the U.S., not Americans.
> If you think Jews cause anti-semitism, then everything else flows quite naturally, including a desire to expunge these horrible Jewish traits from within yourself (no Judaism allowed!) and a willingness to band together wth non-Jewish enemies of the Jews in a campaign to make sure these horrible Jewish attributes don't further infect the world.
I don't know what to say. Your trajectory is simply outside my realm of possible communication. I criticize Israel, therefore I critize Jews. I say Israel is in part responsible for contemporary resurgence of anti-sesmitism, therefore I blame Judaism for anti-semitism, therefore I am going to band with anti-semites to get rid of all Jews. Amazing.
Yet, at the same time, you agree that there are perfectly good reasons to be critical of Israel, it's just that only you can be moved by those reasons, apparently.
> I hope that's not what you believe, but if it is I think you're causing yourself a lot of needless anguish.
The fact that you can write this balderdash and think it might be the case is beyond comprehension. I could see perhaps getting into this ridiculous pattern of claims in a heated argument, with one's identify threatened, somehow, or whatever. But that you do it while soberly assessing written words truly staggers me.
I am not anguished, at least not in the ways you seems to have in mind. I promise you.
> But maybe that's not what you mean, and I hope it's not. So lets assume you're not saying that Jews cause anti-semitism. We're still left trying to explain how Israel could be te "largest" cause of anti-semitism. Logically, this statement means that Israel is a larger cause of anti-semitism than other causes of anti-semitism, including, obviously, whatever it was that caused anti-semtism in the past.
Here is what you quoted me as saying: "I feel that the Israeli state (along with some Nazi-like lunatic elements) is the largest cause of actions and events that lead to anti-semitic beliefs and tendencies in the world today."
I bet the context, left out, was relevant as well, but okay
let's take it verbatim, without context. Do you notice that it is referring to creation "in the world today?" I guess not.
At this point your message goes on about old and new anti-semitism in a logic that would be weird even if I said what you impute, which, of course, I didn't.
> With this I am bowing out of the Z forum. Thank you, Michael, for your invitation to participate, your computer advice (which was, in the end, helpful) and your willingness to engage in discussion of this difficult issue.
I wonder if we accomplished much....
Mitchel's last message...
I will only be responding to some parts of "Nobody"'s post. Michael has already done an admirable job of pointing out that your arguments are pretty poorly thought out. I'll only add an echo of what he said. You are consistently saying there's all this anti-semitism on the left, yet you have equally consistently avoided giving any concrete examples of such, sticking only to one point, that the left pays, in your opinion, an undue amount of attention to Israel. I'll say this again. The American left pays a great deal of attention to Israel. This is because Israel essentially holds the keys to American power over the region, as well as the fact that Israel is a country of immigrants who forced indiginous people off their land, continues to do this and is scrupulously protected in these actions by both the US government and the corporate media. Now, for the rest, I'll respond to those parts of your post that were directed at me or that Michael didn't cover in his very exhaustive response.
> In this regard, I can think of no better example to cite, than something you wrote earlier (and which Mitchell also said, in his own words -- by the way, Mitchell, if you think the Jews only existed for about 1000 years before Jesus, you should take your own advice and study history).
No, sir, I need not. While there was, to be sure, a tribe of people who were defined as being connected to Abraham and his sons through the line of Isaac, no reasonable definition could call these people Jews until the time of Moses, which was about (according to the Talmud, as well as archaeological evidence pertaining to major constructions in Egypt and the invasion of Canaan) 1000 years BCE. Your sad lack of knowledge of history, quite frankly, makes you not only unable to deal with these matters in a factual manner, but also quite dangerous to the people you are trying to defend. Spreading misinformation like this and many other examples in your arguments that show your total ignorance of Jewish history, can only end in inflammation of hatred of Jews.
> You wrote, "I feel that the Israeli state (along with some Nazi-like lunatic elements) is the largest cause of actions and events that lead to anti-semitic beliefs and tendencies in the world today." Let's take a look at that statement.
> In the first place, it's a statement of a type no leftist would make about anyone but Jews. You would never say, "The civil rights movement is the largest cause of racism," or "feminism, is the chief cause of rape" or "the gay liberation movement is the cause of homophobia."
This might land this post in the "Anything Goes" forum, but c'est la vie. HOW DARE YOU compare movements of liberation to the invasive, colonial and brutally repressive movement called Zionism. Where, sir, do you get the audacity to compare a movement that, almost from its inception, was founded on the principle of driving people from their homes (indeed, a people with far less history of anti-Jewish feeling than just about any other nation in the world) by the most brutal means possible, killing men, women and children, with movements that merely attempt to bring equality to oppressed peoples? This is exactly the sort of hubris that Michael is talking about, because when it is in US interests to abandon Israel and make known the long legacy of brutality and murder that was both the Zionist occupation of Palestine before WW II and the Israeli occupation since, there will be a wave of anti-semitism that, at best will be as bad as Hitler's and quite likely much worse in scope and breadth.
> Let the record show that I haven't based my whole argument on anti-Israel sentments.
What an absurd statement. The "record" is quite clear, and it is easily available in this forum for anyone to read. You have raised not one single issue regarding your allegations of anti-semitism on the left that isn't entirely concerned with Israel. Not one piece of fact have you brought into this discussion that doesn't come from the left's opposition to Israel (which, incidentally, is a hell of a lot weaker than you suggest, much to my own chagrin).
> What was objectionable about the Herman article was only tangentially about Israel. But, neither you (nor Mitchell) has dealt with it. You haven't produced any quotes, Michael, to show that the phrase "God's chosen" was
> ever used to motivate the Jewish masses towards war. as you yourself said you thought the historical record would bear out (and Mitchell hasn't produced any either -- claiming that no Jew would have literally said such a thing is ridiculous, while simultaneously citing the horrible things that Jews did say).
Well, I did cite exactly what the Talmud says on the matter of Jews in relation to non-jews. We can, of course, start laying out the quotes of Meir Kahane or Avraham Katz, or other right-wing, fundamentalist rabbis, but this is not the mainstream of Jews, so I tend not to bother with it. However, the phrase "chosen people" is not a non-Jewish construct, though the particular phraseology may be. The opinions of the Rambam (Maimonides) are accepted by most sects of Judaism. I told you what he said. Now, I can sit here for a week and list the Talmudic derivations for the coimparisons of Jews and Gentiles, but I don't particularlky think anyone here is interested. You, on the other hand, have clearly never studied these works, and your statements lead me to believe that you have had little contact with the insular Jewish community that is, de facto, that segment of the Jewish community that is public, that is politically active as Jews, and that fuels Israeli policy. I have all of this experience, and it makes me, quite frankly, far more qualified than you to discuss Jewish ideology.
> What's amazing is the lengths that will be gone to to justify the unjutifiable. In Mitchell's case, he'll (very) selectively examine the Talmud and the Mishneh Torah, two documents separated by centuries, to support Ed Herman's claims about the "Old Testament," which is a different document altogether.
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. Herman's claims about the "Old Testament" were cited clearly, and you responded with citations of your own. However, the words of the Torah, taken at face value have virtually no relationship to Jewish law, lore and ideology. The Talmud is where this was developed, and the talmud is where the Torah itself was interpreted, debated and reinterpreted for century after century to create Jewish law, lore and ideology. Oh, and by the way, the Mishneh Torah was written as a summation of the Talmud. That's just what it is, since even the m,ost devoted scholars couldn't get through the whole Talmud in two lifetimes. Indeed, the Talmud itself is really nothing more than the compendium of Jewish law and debate, and as such was not written at any specific time. Again sir, I caution you that you cause great danger to every Jew when you continue to speak publically about matters with which you are not at all acquainted.
> But he won't look at one speck of history to understand the meaning of the phrase "Old Testament." Of course, Michael, you're not responsible for what Mitchel says, but his replies, which I know you've read, are indicative of the irrationality on the left pertaining to this topic. We'll use a telescope a microscope and a proctoscope to examine the Jews, but not so much as a mirror to examine ourselves.
Well, I find it particularly interesting that you choose to only talk with Michael, who, by his own admission, knows very little about Jewish law and history and have seen fit to completely avoid, other than these childish little barbs, my posts on the matter. Interesting, yes, but hardly surprising since, like most American Jews, you are displaying little more than a myopic support, if not for Israel entirely, then for the ideology of Zionism and are clearly uneducated on both the history of that ideology and of the people to whom you and I both belong who support it, as well as being clearly unable to debate with me on matters of Jewish history, law and ideology. I'm not a rabbi, I'm no expert and there are plenty of people who can cream me with far superior knowledge of the Talmud and general Jewish works. By the same token, if you've never even looked at these books, which you obviously have not, you would neither want to debate me about them, nor would you have any idea what you are talking about when you speak of Jewish ideology.
I'd be interested to know what other people think about the exchanges here between Nobody and Michael, as well as my own comments. I've been a bit surprised that no one else seems to want to jump into such a heated discussion (though maybe that heat itself is what put people off). If anyone would like to discuss these matters further, but doesn't feel comfortable doing so in a public forum, feel free to email me at mitch44@ix.netcom.com
ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZAudios
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
