Israel and Forgiveness

Bravo! On this note, you might see if Ilan Pappe ("The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine") is available for one of your wonderful interviews ... the book is worth reading in any case. ... Happy vacation!

Thanks for your thoughts on this. Forgiveness is an elimination of debt paid with contrition, and it seems that there will never be enough paid.

I'm not sure I understand the current change in mood. It seems that the current Likkud talking points are ringing a little hollow, though. In the conflict with Lebanon, it was enough to merely say "they are terrorists out to destroy us" was enough.

Perhaps because our own "they are terrorists and out to destroy us" turned out to be used as such a blatant excuse for jingoistic excess we've worn out that card.

George, for a Progressive you stereotype too easily here. There are many different kinds of Jews: including Jews who are pro-Israel, and some others who are anti-Israel. There are some Jews who are left-wing, and others who are right-wing. Some Jews are appalled by the violence in the Mid-East, and some others again, are egging Israel on in their assault on Gaza. And also, there are some Jews who are exploiting the holocaust, and then some others who have put that behind them.

Across the world, the Jews include people such as David Frum, Noam Chomsky, Nadine Gordimer (my least favourite Jew), and Rubinstein (who wrote Melody in F, a composition I love to play).

So lighten up, and stop the stereotyping. If I were to stereotype in this way about ANC supporters (whom Western Progressives helped put into power, and who has me now contemplating the extinction of my own), then you would condemn me in the strongest of terms.

[Well, it should go without saying that many Jews do not agree with Israeli policy. I understand your point about stereotyping, but I don't mean for it to apply here. g.]

Well, that's an artful way to call George racist.

Bravo.

"Well, it should go without saying that many Jews do not agree with Israeli policy"

I'm all ears...

I heard a story on "This American Life" some time ago and it was about an Israeli who writes about the fetishism of the Holocaust and its uses. Sorry I can't recall the name. Funny how when I mentioned this to friends one day they jumped down my throat as if I had shouted the "N" word on a Harlem street.

[That may well have been Norman Finkelstein. g.]

I think George would have been better to have said "closely knit groups of people whose key self identification is as Jews" rather than "the Jews".

[Sharon said something similar. I guess it's a verbal shorthand that people will react to differently. The way I think of it is, if I don't mind people talking about the 'Scots-Irish' then the same applies equally to other groups. g.]

I don't know if this is ready for your forum, but I'm happy to issue it to you:

What I can say, as a "jew" (and a knee-jerk liberal/socialist ignorant one at that) is this:

I cannot find in anything I have heard from any Israeli talking head (or anyone else for that matter) anything that even remotely justifies, to me, the actions currently being taken (again) by Israel.

In fact, I find what I hear infuriating. Only to add to the infuriating reality on the ground.

What score would make these fools happy? How many dead poor people will be enough?

The broad-brushing of "American Jews" as Israel backers is a bit much. The dangerous participation in and support of Israel in America is from fundamentalist, activist people with money and delusion. I don't particularly care what religion they cloak themselves in. Humanity and death don't differentiate. And I sure as hell don't either. If you do bad shit on purpose, you are bad. That is pretty simple to understand.

To try to mine any sense or reason in Israel's acts is a waste of time. Clearly any holocaust-based excuse is just that: an excuse. That is different from a reason. And there cannot be reason for these acts.

As for the Gaza-launched rockets hurled into Israel, I see this as a wasteful and predictable escalation and a serious "hornets-nest" whacking. But the conditions in Gaza and other de-facto prisons set people to this. It's entropy at a critical mass kind of thing.

So, to add lightness to an impossibly heavy situation: I say: "Give the Palestinians Williamsburg and Eastern Parkway."

As far as my being a "jew" goes, I am not religious. In fact I see not much good, on balance in religion. Another George has guided me well in this: Carlin. As for Jewish culture, I do pride myself on some connoisseurship re: Bagels, Bialys and a few other worthwhile items from the deli. Past that, not much.

So, I commend you George for making a statement here. And I support you by expressing my outrage and absolute condemnation of this dangerous, foolish, inhuman behavior by Israel. And that of the fools who whack the Hornet's Nest.

If this was just an issue regarding peoples' claims to property without the religious component, would it not be easier to solve in peace?

[Thanks, Peter! g.]

My apologies if my contribution above is too strong for some.

Naturally there is nothing personal in what I wrote, and I certainly did not ascribe any motives to George beyond the implications of his ideology.

While I do find the idealism of "Progressives" admirable, and even the search for "truth" as it relates to our social and political world as a worthy endeavour, I also think progressivism is woe-fully inadequate as an ideology in today's or even tomorrow's world.

Progressives betray a Utopian impulse that I find disquieting — this is the notion that by searching absolute political and social truths we can create a better world. There is even a problem with the very idea that a better world is possible. The frequent cliche, adapted, is that the road to utopia is paved in gold, and the sacrifices we make along the way is necessary to create an earthly just society.

I think it was Kissinger who once remarked that a despotic state, or even just an unfair state, is better than a failed state.

He was right then, and he is still right. I should also note that it takes a certain experience in life beyond the social safety nets of the first world to truly understand what he meant.

Now his dictum should be understood in terms of Africa (eg Zimbabwe — Ian Smith was (if you search for absolute truths) a much more capable, and progressive, ruler than Andrew Young and Jimmy Carter's hero (Mugabe) can ever be).

A similar notion applies to Israel — but this is something you only understand when progressive idealism is thrown off. Western interventionism and Marxist Utopianism have caused untold harm elsewhere, in places such as Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, China, Zimbabwe and much of Africa, and even parts of the Caribbean and South America.

The disquieting underlying issues are the Utopian impulses, and the idea that humans are in some measure interchangeable: That is, if one for example exchange the populations of Sweden and Zimbabwe, or if Jews are removed from Israel, or are given to be governed by Palestinians, then nothing has changed, as if this is a basic mathematical symmetry embedded in human social affairs. This is not true — and Ian Smith and Robert Mugabe were not interchangeable with a better outcome, on the contrary. Andrew Young's progressive ideas caused untold harm, and he still has to apologize for his role in the Zimbabwean fiasco.

Of course, it is obvious that Israel has captured American Foreign Policy and is using it to her own advantage. This is true, and some Americans may not consider this positively — personally I admire them for the capacity to pull this off. They are living in the real world, not shielded by social programs and make-believe-hollywood-heros posing as the real thing from reality. The least that can be done for people in their situation, as should have been done for Rhodesians, is to allow them to fight for their place under God's sun. Rhodesians were not allowed that, and are going extinct, Jews in Israel are claiming the absolute right to fight for their place. Are you going to deny them that?

[Yes. g.]

In George's defense regarding his characterization of "the Jews'" positions regarding Israel and the Holocaust, as another non-Jew (is Gentile still used?) the only Jewish voices I hear regarding Israel and Palestine are in the media and very pro-Israel, very loud and very ubiquitous. I hear little to nothing from the Jews I work with on this topic, pro or con. As George followed up, I am also sure there are plenty of Jews who do not agree with Israel, but I could not begin to guess how many as I have not heard from them.

To be fair, I just finished (finally) reading "They Dare to Speak Out" by Paul Findley which puts most of this into perspective, especially since I was utterly clueless to the pervasiveness of the Israeli lobby prior to this book. It will be very interesting to see how the Obama administration will set its Middle East policy in the coming year and how it will fare in the media as a result. It is more than painfully ironic that, in the land of free speech, there is less discussion and criticism of Israeli policy than there is inside Israel itself, especially since aid to Israel costs us an arm and a leg. God help us.

As a related anecdote, a while back I had Catholic colleague from Poland jump all over me for attempting to assert that the Japanese treatment of Chinese POWs in WWII was roughly equivalent to the Holocaust saying it was not comparable because "the Japanese were not trying to wipe out the Chinese People". Possibly true but I don't think it mattered much to the dead and tortured Chinese and their families. My point is, it was an awfully strong reaction for a Polish Catholic to what I consider a simplistic comparison of two heinous mass murder campaigns. Perhaps I just don't understand the Polish.