Judaism is a religion that has existed for several thousand years, notes Professor Yakov Rabkin of the University of Montreal. Zionism on the other hand, is a relatively recent political movement which developed in the late 19th century in response to European antisemitism. Zionism depends on antisemitism to survive, he argues. They are two sides of the same coin. Listen to a surprising 7 minute interview. Learn more:
One of the stranger elements of the new right-wing charismatic U.S president has been his complicated relationship to both Israel and Jews.
On the one hand, Trump has presented himself as a big supporter of Israel and the Zionist ideal. On the other hand, in his entourage are many right wingers who are clearly antisemitic. This contradiction has split the US Jewish community, with Trump’s nominee for Ambassador to Israel even attacking the liberal Zionist group J-Street as “worse than concentration camp collaborators”.
However, some scholars note that the apparent contradiction between Zionism and antisemitism might not be as clear as it might seem.
In a recent article in Jewish Forward , Suzanne Schneider argues that “Zionism and Antisemitism have in fact often worked in concert to achieve their shared goal: concentrating Jews in one place (so as to better avoid them in others).”
How antisemitism encourages Zionism
On November 15th, 2016 Jewish citizens of Ottawa woke up to the frightening news that antisemitic graffiti had been scrawled on the home of an Ottawa rabbi. That was followed by more attacks on a synagogue and a Jewish Community Centre. It seemed for a while like Ottawa was being engulfed in a new wave of antisemitism.
Apparent anti-semitic attacks in Ottawa reinforced the Zionist idea that Jews can only be safe in Israel
Later, when similar graffiti appeared on a church where a black pastor leads the congregation and also on a mosque, it seemed to point to more general xenophobia rather than an attack specifically directed at Jews.
But those first antisemitic acts did send a wave of fear through the Ottawa Jewish community. To some Jews they seemed to prove that anti-antisemitism is everywhere, just under the surface, confirming the Zionist thesis that Jews can only really be safe in a Jewish state.
University of Montreal professor Yakov Rabkin is the author of several books on Judaism, Zionism, and antisemitism. His most recent book is called What is modern Israel? I sought him out to get his opinion on the complex relationship between Judaism, Zionism and antisemitism.
In this 7 minute audio interview, I ask him 4 specific questions:
- What is the difference between Judaism and Zionism?
- Are all Jews Zionist?
- Are antisemitism and Zionism opposites or two ways of saying the same thing?
- Does the State of Israel benefit from antisemitism in Canada/America?
(NOTE: due to a technical glitch, Dr. Rabkin’s face does not appear, only mine – sorry. But the audio – and his message – is very clear.)
More about Dr. Rabkin can be found in many youtube videos. Here is one of them.
___________________________________________
Canada Talks Israel Palestine (CTIP) aims to promote a serious discussion in Canada about the complicated and emotional Israel/Palestine issue. If you support our educational mission, why not join? Or make a donation? Or learn more about what we do? Contact us at: membership.ctip@gmail.com.
Canada Talks Israel/Palestine 
I’d disagree that Jewish monotheism existed for 3500 years. Besides not thinking that Judaism existed that long I believe the evidence from both the bible through to the Greek period is more consistent with a Jewish henotheism evolving into Jewish monotheism. Its really only in the Roman period you start to see henotheistic ideas not being present in mainstream Jewish theology.
Similarly I think Judaism is evolving today. It is becoming a religion associated strongly with a state church. The demographics of the Jewish community are creating a situation where something like 85% of the Jewish population by 2100 is going to be Israeli, married to an Israeli, at least one parent Israeli or a frequent traveler to Israel. There is no way that can’t impact the religion. That’s on top of other factors for example during the last century we’ve had 1/2 of European Jewry exterminated which directly contradicted many of Judaism’s previous claims about the nature of the diaspora and God’s guidance of history. The creation of Israel along with the global surge in Anti-Semitism / Anti-Zionism both from the global adoption of the Nazi / Soviet analysis of the role of Jews / Zionists resulted in Judaism ceasing to be a global religion and being concentrated in Israel and the English speaking world.
While I think it is still possible to talk about a Judaism distinct from Israel I don’t think it is going to be possible in a few centuries. A henotheistic believer in the Judean sacrificial cult in 300 BCE would have been a mainstream Jew. 500 years later such a person couldn’t have existed and the Judaism that existed would have been unrecognizable to them.
I hope that the Judaism now dominant in Israel is a temporary aberration. Israeli policy regularly violates all that I was taught when I went to Synagogue as a child. It violates the fundamental beliefs and has become an extreme form of nationalism rather than a religion. When I asked Jewish Israelis why they are violating the precepts that I was taught, I hear a resigned sigh and “We have to”. The Majority Judaism that will remain in a hundred years will be a shell. Some Israelis will follow the trappings of Judaism (Kippa, Black hat and robe, Saturday off, certain meals) but the basic philosophy will be lost. Only if Israel reforms and begins to act in accordance with its basic teachings will Judaism as a religion survive in Palestine,
The forgotten father of Zionism Leo Pinsker, accurately predicted in his book Auto-Emancipation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-Emancipation That anti-semitism would die out once the Jews would have their own state.
A century later it turned out he was right.
If Jews are to become stateless again, they will be once again a soul without a body, a ghost that attracts the fear and hate of the nations. Diaspora Jews understand that Israel is the reason why antisemitism had become a fringe phenomenon in the last two generations.
I suggest you read his pamphlet, it’s quite enlightening
My experience is that Leo Pinsker was wrong. As a child, before 1948 and for a few years after that, I would experience classical anti-semitism and be rejected only because I was Jewish, i.e not one of “them”. Nothing I could say would change this. In recent years, my experience is different. Non-Jews who do not know me assume that, because I am a Jew, I am a Zionist and believe in what Israel has been doing. When they realize that I oppose Israel’s actions and see no need for a “Jewish state”, I usually feel accepted and discussion opens up. Anti-semitism is far from a fringe phenomenon now it has been changed and strengthened. It is stronger because unfounded beliefs about Jews are now replaced by well-founded knowledge of what Israel has done to the Palestinian Arabs under its control. It is no longer based on myths like the “Elders of Zion” it is based on current events.
We Jews do not need a state to have a soul and a body. We only need to be true to the basic precepts of Judaism.
David Parnas, you are the sum of your genes, as a Jew your ancestors survived as “a lamb among seventy wolfs” and it’s no wonder that you are in a constant heightened sense of insecurity and fear, this is exactly what kept your ancestors alive this is exactly why you have that urge to be liked the people who hate Jews . You think that by distancing yourself from the “other” Jews you’ll be spared when the pogrom comes to the Shtatel.
Let me Assure you that you are out of Shtatel and there ain’t gonna be any pogrom
@Ahik
I don’t think Jews will lose their state but if they did I doubt Judaism survives. For Jews / Judaism there is no “after Israel”. Most Jews converted off or died off.: 10% of the Late Roman Republic / Early Roman Empire was Jewish (including God fearers), today Christians outnumber Jews about 200:1. Can you imagine Judaism post Israel? Yes you too can endure hatred and humiliation for generations all for the satisfaction of getting to discourse on what exactly you can carry around various types of telephone wire. Just as the Romans printed coins celebrating the defeat of HaShem by Jupiter the death of Israel would be (and rightfully) interpreted as the defeat of the Jewish God by Allah. It would falsify his claims to being a god worthy of obedience. The middle eastern Judaism that emerged after the first Jewish-Roman war and the Kitos war put the darker elements of angel worship and nihilism at its center creating a huge Gnostic proto-Christianity. Encratites in later generations. The Judaism of today evolved mainly among fringe groups mainly on the outskirts of the empire who were absorbing the Rabbinic learning from the middle east. What would be the equivalent after the destruction of Israel? Argentina, Mexico… Jewish population? Are they even separate enough?
I just don’t see there being an after Zionism for Judaism. Jews put their eggs in the Israel basket. Zionism dies, Judaism dies (at least as a religion of millions and not tens of thousands).
As for the death of Anti-Semitism agree with you. I think the consequences of anti-Semitism have diminished. Given even moderate pressure the Jews in a country emigrate. In this generation alone we’ve seen a surge of anti-Semitism that likely would have become much more violent without emigration in Iran, Venezuela and South Africa. In all 3 cases the pressure was relieved by easy emigration. Israel aggressively recruits Jews. And because of Israel no one sees taking in Jews as a permanent unfixable problem but rather a matter of current policy. So the English speaking world takes in Jews and Germany takes in Jews as well. But the net flow is towards Israel.
@Ahik
You should not write about things that you do not know. You do not know me. I am not in a constant heightened sense of insecurity and fear. I have no urge to be liked the people who hate Jews or any one else who dislikes people because of their background. I do not distance myself from other Jews. I do not delude myself into thinking that I will be spared if any one decides to kill Jews per se.
Recently, I came across some essays by Dr. Rabkin describing a visit to Iran and his contacts with the Jews who remain there. He describes participating in services at several Synagogues and provides a clear image of how Jews and Judaism are actually treated in Iran. That image is very different from the mistranslated statements of some Iranian leaders that we hear so often and the hate filled statements of Israeli leaders. I found his experience to be evidence that Jews and Muslims can live comfortably together in the Middle East as long as neither tries to steal the land occupied by the other. Dr. Rabkin has a message that must be heard by both Jews and Muslims. We can learn from him. Thank you for interviewing him.
@David Parnas
Early 2014 the Iranian government’s census had 8,756 Jews left in Iran.
In 2009 there were about 25,000 Jews
In 1979 when the Shah was deposed there about 125k Jews.
So no, evidently they can’t live comfortable together.
@ CD-Host
You give the impression that you have not read Dr. Rabkin’s writings about his visit to Iran.
There are many reasons why people would leave a country subject to extreme sanctions and moved to a country that offers them many material advantages. As Dr. Rabkin points out in his recent books, Zionists actively create fear and recruit in many ways. Further, the politicians and some of the leaders in both countries emphasize enmity and create insecurity.
I grew up in your country at a time when people were emphasizing their belief that people of different races could not live together. We can.
Greetings Dr. Parnas
I too have read the article you read and found it quite enlightening and refreshing. Subsequent to the Iranian revolution there was a substantial exodus from Iran from many sectors of the populace not limited to Jewish people. There are likely many reasons for this. The majority of Kewish people did leave but there is no record of any violence directed specifically against them that was the cause. Interestingly the majority fled to the US and not Israel.
Regardless I agree it shows that different religions can and do live together.
If I may be so bold I do qonder how you feel about being characterized disfigured, panicky, confused, etc by two posters on this thread. In common parlance you have been quickly relegated to being a self hating Jew by people who don’t know you based upon your brief opinion on one issue.
FWIW and that may be nothing I consider you a humane person I could agree or argue with on a personable basis.
@Anonymous
The reality of Iran is that Israel was closely tied to the Shah. The Jewish community in Israel had a comfortable untroubled relationship with the Shah’s government, while there were fringes of Jews who supported the revolution the Islamic Republic’s relationship with its Jewish population was going to be troubled. The Islamic government was not particularly interested in their domestic Jew’s welfare. Immediately upon gaining power the Islamic government started executing Jews for Zionism. Zionism is considered a form of espionage in Iran to this day and Jewish ties to Israel or the United States (which all of them have) lead to suspicion. So yes there was state violence specifically directed against them. The Islamic Republic by being strongly Anti-Zionist is able to cover up state Antisemitism, for European governments where the Soviet position that these two phenomena are distinct is mainstream. The Antisemitism has grown with time to the extent that the previous prime minister openly talked about how the Jewish conspiracy controlled communication all over the world and thus was able to convince the world that the holocaust had happened, seeing the holocaust claims as Zionist propaganda. The state hostility towards Jews has led to government discrimination throughout the bureaucracy. The few Jews who remain are unquestionably a hated and oppressed minority in Iran. Likely the main reason they haven’t been exterminated is because the current level of state antisemitism is high enough to lead to rapid emigration so the Jewish Question in Iran is sorting itself out. The Jewish situation in Iran is objectively much worse than what exist in Israel towards the Palestinians.
Now the question becomes how someone could possibly defend Iran and attack Israel’s record which is far better by any objective measures.
Dr. Parnas, my apologies, I never called you a self hating Jew, I believe you love yourself above all other. Your survival instincts which leads you to distance your self from Israeli Jews are a testament to the fact that you love yourself and your existence.
Obviously, as an old school diaspora Jew you feel strongly about your Jewish identity but you are unwilling to stand up against people who offend you.
your lack of willingness to confront me proves my point
It’s true that antisemitism helped create zionism, and no doubt there were zionists that welcomed (and in some instances carried out) antisemitic attacks. But why does it matter? Does it really make them “two sides of the same coin”? Maybe they’re just two phenomenon out there in the world — like racism and black nationalism; or misogyny and feminism? Would you really write “Misogyny and Feminism: two sides of the same coin”?
Sorry. I didn’t mean for the above to be anonymous.
Yes but do a misogynist and feminist have the same goal in mind?
I don’t the antisemites and zionists share all the same goals but they certainly do share a number of them. Just as white supremacists and zionists share a number of beliefs about, and attitudes towards, “the other”.
But i agree that two sides of the same coin don’t quite fit.
Anonymous/Arthur,
I think that my use of the term “two sides of the same coin” may be causing a problem here.
Misogny and feminism are opposites. Misogny depreciates women. Feminism supports women. They are opposite to each other.
Zionism and antisemitism, as i understand the professor, are not opposites. They have the same analysis. Antisemitism holds that Jews are different and should be excluded. Zionism holds that Jews are different and should exclude themselves (i.e. go to Israel). Both share the idea that Jews are different and that they will always be oppressed by non Jews.
Hi, Peter!
Here’s another analogy. A black family lives in a white neighbourhood. After years of harsh treatment at the hands of racists, the black family decides it’s hopeless and moves to a black neighbourhood. Is it true or useful to say that the black family and the racists “have the same analysis”?
Anti-Semites want Jews excluded or worse; Zionists thought the “cure” for anti-Semitism was their own country. There’s nothing necessarily exclusionary — or nefarious — about wanting your own country. Some Catalonians, Norwegians, Slovenians, Scots and, of course, Québécois want/wanted their own country. But they want/wanted their new countries to be normal states, participating in trade and international bodies and cultural exchanges, etc. To sum it all up as a desire for exclusion is, I think, a great misreading. Like them, some Jews — at least some of those Jews who decided Jews were a nation rather than a religion — wanted their own country. To portray Zionism as simply a desire for exclusion is, I think, unfair. The problem with Zionists was not that they wanted a state of their own, but that they — in the words of Moshe Dayan — took an Arab state and made it a Jewish one. You and I agree that the Zionist dream — the Jewish state — has turned into a nightmare (and maybe that was inevitable); but I’m not sure what good it does to say that, really, Zionists and anti-Semites “have the same analysis.”
Agree with what Arthur wrote. For a western conversation that probably makes sense to be the taking off point. That being said I think the conversation is missing what Professor Rabkin meant.
Rabkin is talking about an idea that is part of Zionism called shlilat ha’galut (English would be “Negation of the Diaspora”). Essentially this argues that the condition of oppression in the diaspora (particularly in the chertá osédlosti, the region set aside by Catherine the Great where Jews could live) had created a Jew worthy of hatred: poor, mentally, morally and spiritually disfigured, panicky, humiliated, disoriented, with no realistic view of life, depressed, despised, slovenly of dress, lacking taste, unwilling to defend themselves against violence, desperate, and feeling at the same time inferior and part of a Chosen People. This is part of Zionist culture during the Second Aliyah and it is a critique of the non-Zionist nature of their fellow Russian Jews. Ben-Gurion is btw 2nd aliyah and a huge proponent of shlilat ha’galut especially in the prestate period.
The violence of the 1920s drives the majority of Palestinian Jews into the arms of the Zionists and reorients them politically. However in Israeli thought Jews throughout the world mostly still fit the mold of the Russian peasants slaves from the 2nd aliyah.
Zionism argues that Jews because of their condition of oppression / slavery are reduced to a pathetic state that bring on hatred, in a situation of freedom they will natural reform into a nation worthy of respect. Anti-Judaic belief argues that Jews because of their culture’s disgusting traits must be reduced to slavery so that hopefully they reform but in the meanwhile do not to pollute the good gentiles with their moral corruption. AntiSemitism argues that Jews because of their inborn disgusting traits must be reduced to slavery so as not to pollute the good gentiles with their genes which create moral corruption. As an aside BDS style anti-Zionism argues that Israelis Jews because of their culture’s disgusting traits must be totally isolated so that hopefully they reform but in the meanwhile do not to pollute the good gentiles with their moral corruption.
I think Rabkin was talking more of the above and was failing to understand the Zionist critique of the diaspora didn’t make it to western Zionism and thus Peter was unfamiliar with it.
Aren’t Rabkin and Parnas a perfect examples to what you just quoted?
“condition of oppression… had created a Jew worthy of hatred: … spiritually disfigured, panicky, humiliated, disoriented, with no realistic view of life, depressed, despised … unwilling to defend themselves against violence, desperate, and feeling at the same time inferior and part of a Chosen People”
@Ahik
I try and avoid personal attacks in this dialogue where possible. Obviously there is an underlying personal attack which makes this dialogue hard. The BDSers consider Zionist to be anti-Arabic racists and renormalizing fascism while Zionists consider Anti-zionists to be ignorant, bigots and/or self hating Jews. I don’t think it helps to allow bring these underlying poor opinions to the surface. I think it does help to try and stay to the facts. I frankly wish there was more enforcement of rules regarding tone in this dialogue, on this blog. I’ve seen Peter jump on what he considers antisemitism coming from the left and it increased my respect for him.
Rabkin I do know (though not personally). He is presenting Satmar Antizionism to a secular audience. Satmar Antizionism is of course the apotheosis of what the Zionists were criticizing in the old jew. Anyway for Rabkin and the Satmar Jews are defined by Torah and many of the ideas of secular Zionism first emerged from the Plymouth Brethren not among Jews. That is secular Jewish nationalism is an import from British Zionism and not part of Judaism. I think there is a lot of room for an interesting argument about his history, but I don’t know if we could have it on this blog. Ultimately though I don’t know why it matters. Judaism adopted lots of ideas from Christianity through the centuries (ex: Haftarah). I don’t see how that matters Jewish theology isn’t any less Jewish because a Jew wasn’t the first one to think of the idea. Religions dialogue with one another.
Ultimately Rabkin isn’t Satmar, rather he falls into the same problem as many western leftists. He wants to support anti-colonialism but anti-colonialism is deeply racist belief that land is a permanent entitlement based upon race which rejects any notion of ethnic coexistence in the same territory. At the same time he supports liberal coexistence as it exists in places like Canada but places like Canada can only exist because of the success of colonialism in having built a non-ethnic state. The whole system falls apart into a mess of contradictions. The Judaism stuff he is arguing for he doesn’t really believe himself its the anticolonialism that’s his motivation.
As for David Parnas I don’t know him. The Iran comment I suspect came from a recent article with pretty pictures but full of nonsense on Mondoweiss. Obviously there is a sort of deep moral sickness for a Jew to be searching out a blog which is essentially a modern day Der Stürmer and uncritically getting his views from it. My hope is that having read that article and it not mentioning the fact that a brutal state sponsored ethnic cleansing in Iran is going on will help him see how much propaganda he’s ingesting. I’ve dialogued with him on another area his history was backwards regarding how Hebrew in Israel emerged. But regardless I don’t know him.
I do believe in shlilat ha’galut and David Parnas is older. The liberal Judaism of his childhood is very different from the Judaism that exists today. There are 4m adult sabra alive today: Jews that have never known slavery, Jews who could never be reduced to living in a place like Iran and apologizing for the regime’s treatment of them. A century ago that number was 0. When David grew up that number wasn’t far from 0, and their impact on the Judaism in the west was almost nil. So today most Jews in Canada today enjoy the same sort of relationship with Israel that an Irish Canadian has with Ireland. They are from somewhere and they have a people. Their bonds transcend a mere common faith. Jews of the world are becoming normal people, no longer are they a hated alien ghost parasite. I get your comment. I can’t really understand why any Jew would want to go back to being a hated alien ghost parasite.
I think that’s the question I keep looking for an answer to.
Interesting discussion, CD-host, though your characterizations of “BDS style anti-Zionism” (I support a boycott) and Mondoweiss are hugely exaggerated. But I have a question. You write, “There are 4m adult sabra alive today: Jews that have never known slavery … Jews of the world are becoming normal people, no longer are they a hated alien ghost parasite.” But isn’t the vast expansion of ultra-Orthodoxy and “religious Zionism” (and fascism) in Israel a quite successful effort to reverse the normalization of Jews and recreate Israel as a shtetl?
@Peter
You have been called out as unable to understand what Rabkin was saying. I wonder if you have a rebuttal or if Rabkin could clarify which interpretation is his (or closest)
@Arthur–
But isn’t the vast expansion of ultra-Orthodoxy and “religious Zionism” (and fascism) in Israel a quite successful effort to reverse the normalization of Jews and recreate Israel as a shtetl?
I’d separate those two movements completely. Religious Zionism is trying to create an (Ashkenazi?) Judaism capable of being the state church for a military power. In other words a Judaism consistent with the realization of Zionism. Religions reform when the material situation has changed so drastically that the previous paradigms no longer fit. Judaism has had to do this before. Christianity went through several cycles like this most recently (for the Christianity of our in the 2nd great awakening). Islam and Buddhism have as well. Judaism may never have had a state church capable of being authoritative in an environment of political freedom. If such a time ever existed then the last time Jews had it was before Alexander the Great i.e. exclusively the Jewish sacrificial cult. Rabbinic Judaism evolved from Pharisaic Judaism which was a reaction against the sacrificial cult and the state church during Roman times. To say that little of the Judaism that existed for a state church remains and that most of what does is
Pharisaic Judaism mostly evolved in a world where Israel was a colony of Rome with a large diaspora (i.e. somewhat consistent with the situation today). Rabbinic Judaism was the reaction to destruction of the state and the destruction of the sacrificial system. A huge percentage of the evolution from Pharisaic to Rabbinic as well as the various waves of revisions need to be reversed. At the same time Pharisaic Judaism isn’t going to a viable religion for 21st / 22nd century Israel.
So I’d classify religious Zionism as a healthy society doing healthy religious reform as their material circumstances change.
You might not agree so I’d say a good analogy would be evangelical Christianity plays in the United States. You might not like this movement or its politics. But evangelical Christianity strengthens American culture and American culture strengthens evangelical Christianity. The two coevolved to work together.
____
Ultra-Orthodoxy is however potentially real problem for Israel but I believe the Israelis are getting ready to handle this problem. For now ultra-orthodox have a high birthrate which Israel likes, but breeds poverty and ignorance. I think Israelis understand the situation can’t continue like it is. The reforms that Yish Atid put in place (military service, education reform, lower family subsidies…) would likely have eliminated the most destructive aspects of ultra-orthodoxy. Those reforms are widely popular. We know that UO Jews can be easily turned into religious Zionists. The two communities today pass members back and forth and thus could easily merge in an political environment more hostile to UO. So if I had to guess I would suspect that UO shrinks considerably over the next century.
I was going to write that the line between the ultra-Orthodox (UO) and religious Zionists (RZ) is neither clear nor impermeable. But you did that for me: “We know that UO Jews can be easily turned into religious Zionists. The two communities today pass members back and forth.” You presume RZ will win — on the basis of popular anti-UO legislation (which was largely overturned). If RZ does win out, it will be by more and more resembling UO. They already dress, more and more, like them. Like the Zealots of old, they believe God has commanded them to, in this case, populate the “Judea and Samaria.” They want to rebuild the temple and renew animal sacrifices. And they want to ban internal and, when they can, external criticism. You describe this as “a healthy society doing healthy religious reform”; I’d describe it as a headlong rush to fascistic, fundamentalist nativism or, metaphorically, an effort to recreate the shtetl at a national level — to put, in your words, the “alien ghost parasite” in power.
@Arthur
UO society is not economically viable. Their standard of living is substantially higher than their economic output. They can’t win.
Like the Zealots of old, they believe God has commanded them to, in this case, populate the “Judea and Samaria.” They want to rebuild the temple and renew animal sacrifices. And they want to ban internal and, when they can, external criticism.
First off those are not UO positions. I don’t even think they are all RZ positions but let’s hit them one at a time.
populate Judea and Samaria: UO generally mildly opposed to acquisition of land through force. RZ is enthusiastically in favor and leads this movement. I wouldn’t call that a point of agreement.
They want to rebuild the temple and renew animal sacrifices: As far as I know no Jewish group in a majority supports that yet. UO is pretty firmly opposed. It is still a fringe belief though among RZ’s it might be moving from fringe to minority position. But other than disagreeing about the degree of popularity I’m having some trouble understanding how that isn’t religious reform in the most obvious sense. Clearly recreating the sacrificial cult on Judaea is a change in religious practice for the Judaism of today.
We’ll forget about the political aspects for a moment. Assume that were to happen in a full blooded way. Jews rebuild a gigantic expensive gorgeous temple structure in Jerusalem, a Jewish mega basilica with markets and cafeterias and yes a center piece of sacrificial alters. Jews begin regularly participating in blood rites like you see in religions like: Santería, Voodoo, Shaktism, Candomblé etc… though on a scale not seen since the early Roman Empire. Imagine if you will that Israeli Judaism does even go whole hog for blood rites: wild sacrifices with blood pouring onto the crowds from the alters, whipping people into frenzies of ecstasy with wild repetitive music, dance, magick (likely today some form Kabbalah rituals intermixed with traditional magick rites from the temple period), psychedelic / hallucinogenic / meditative drugs being passed around to even further enhance the experience and the excitement often expressing itself after the sacrifice in orgies… Israelis participate in these rituals semi-regularly but all of them go dozens of times during a lifetime. People are drawn to the spectacle and come from all over the world to participate: a must see tourist attraction. So much so that Judaism picks up a huge group of semi-converts drawn to the excitement of the blood rites along with Kabbalah theology they practice at home.
How is that not religious reform? How do those incredibly intense rites becoming part of the national culture not help to forge even stronger national bonds? In this hypothetical Judaism becomes a much more fun religion. (Religious Jews should skip this sentence). Doctrinally it is even possible that YHWH goes back to being a tribal god (the god of your fathers) with Elohim, the high gods playing the role of god of the universe. Judaism simply reverts to its Henotheistic roots. Syncretic intermixing is not a negative, the massive worldwide adoption of Yoga hasn’t hurt Hinduism any. I’m having a hard time understand the argument you are making regarding the temple. I certainly can understand that the proponents of bringing black blood rites, not having seen what blood rites look like in the religions that still have them, would be in the classic “be careful what you wish for…” type situation but I don’t see a problem here for the RZs and Israel ultimately even if this situation played itself out in its most extreme form.
And they want to ban internal and, when they can, external criticism: I don’t see any evidence for that. Israeli society including RZ and UO society are quite open to debate and discussion. Israeli society is not open to a political minority subgroup within their society partnering with foreign governments to overturn the democratic policies of the state. Heck I’m shocked the Israeli left given their extensive foreign contacts with enemies aren’t treated more harshly. In the USA
I’d describe it as a headlong rush to fascistic, fundamentalist nativism or, metaphorically, an effort to recreate the shtetl at a national level
The shtetl was a discriminated against minority. A fascistic state with a powerful army and a strong state church binding the society together is almost an opposite configuration. Again I’m having a hard time figuring out what you are even saying here. Certainly both a far away from Western Liberal Judaism. But I don’t see any connection between the two. Israeli Judaism, a state church for a powerful state, should become more and more alien rather quickly from the religion of defeat and despair that evolved in the diaspora. Moving in the one direction is moving away form the other not towards it.
Some commenters seem to want this blog to degenerate into a discussion of each other even though we do not know each other and are forced to assume that our speculations are true and go on to write unfounded nonsense that is not worthy of comment.
Dr. Rabkin writes well and his publications are widely available. Nobody needs to try to speak for him. Those who are willing to consider new ideas will read and think about what he has written. I learned from his writings and believe that others can as well. He does not need to respond to people who have not read (or chosen to ignore) what he has already written.
I like this blog when it talks about Israel and Palestine and searches for a way that people with different (not unrelated) backgrounds can learn to live and work with each other. Speculation about each other’s motives and backgrounds is not worthy of comment. When I forgot that (and I have) I regret it.
@Dr Parnas
Thank you.
@ David
You give the impression that you have not read Dr. Rabkin’s writings about his visit to Iran.
I knew the article: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/02/jews-iran-travelogue/
There are many reasons why people would leave a country subject to extreme sanctions and moved to a country that offers them many material advantages. As Dr. Rabkin points out in his recent books, Zionists actively create fear and recruit in many ways. Further, the politicians and some of the leaders in both countries emphasize enmity and create insecurity.
I agree there are many reasons. The rate of non Jewish emigration ain’t 95% or anywhere close to it. The specific characteristic of Jewish emigrants is that they are Jewish. If you see a very high rate of emigration from Jews and don’t see a correspondingly high rate among others there is an obvious reason. Especially given a government which is violently antiZionists and likes to execute Jews for Zionism.
I grew up in your country at a time when people were emphasizing their belief that people of different races could not live together. We can.
When did people in the USA not live with people of different ethnicities and races? There were places where there were ethnic neighborhoods but walk 3 blocks and you were in a different ethnic neighborhood.
And of course people of different races can live together. Jews lived fine in Iran under the Shah. For that matter different races live together quite well in both the USA and Israel. My point was that Iran is an example of the problem that nation states have problems with different nations not different races. The Palestinians are the same ethnicity as Mizrahi Jews, the conflict with them is not racial.
@CD – it seems we have “alternative facts”
Iran: The biggest difference between Jewish Iranians and other Iranians is that Israel offers the Jews help in getting out and most are welcome in Islamaphobic countries such as the US. I found Rabkin’s article quite convincing (I am not a regular reader of Mondoweis and read everything with skepticism.) Many Muslims do not like the current government and also did not like the Shah but they could not claim to be refugees.
US: In my youth, black and white were told that they not safe in each other’s neighbourhoods. Blacks were not allowed to live in our building. There was not one non-white in the four-tower, five-story, building. In the South, there were segregated schools and washrooms. When I tried to use a black washroom on a visit to the South, I was grabbed by white men and not allowed to go in. When I wanted married a non-white wife, the US immigration officers tried to stop her from getting a green card and predicted that she would leave me as soon as she got one. They openly told me she would only marry a white man to get a green card. There were no legal grounds for this; she got her card (and is still with me.)
Israel: The tension between Jews and Arabs in Israel is palpable. Even the small number of Arabs I saw in Jewish Universities did not mix with the Jews. Marriage between Jews and Arabs is a problem; when it happens it can be difficult for them to live together. Mizrahi (Arab) Jews always dress and use other mechanisms to make it clear that they are not Arabs. They react angrily if you confuse them or even ask them which they are. At my hotel, when I was picked up by a Jewish friend, all was relaxed. When I was picked up by an Arab friend, the guard pulled out his gun and held it ready under his podium. At the airport, standing in a long mixed line before security, an official asked me if I could recite any Hebrew prayers. When I did, I was taken to the head of the line past all the waiting Arabs.
@CD
I forgot to mention that when you wrote, ” a government which is violently antiZionists and likes to execute Jews for Zionism” , you agree to be confusing Anti-Zionist with Anti-Semite. I find them quite different and Dr. Rabkin makes that clear. (By the way, I oppose the death-penalty anywhere and for any reason.)
@David
I’m not confusing anti-Zionist with Antisemite. I mostly in practice don’t think they are meaningfully different. I’ll give you an analogy. I don’t think anti-Judaic and Antisemitic are meaningfully different. Certainly anti-Judaic thinkers can be quite anti-racist including regarding ethnic Jews and have no problem with ethnically Jewish people who are baptized. Antisemites can believe that anti-Judaic thinking is medieval superstitious nonsense while hating Jews for mostly the same reasons as anti-Judaics do. Both groups would strongly object to be classified with the other. That doesn’t change the fact that objectively they mostly hold the same beliefs.
Similarly I think anti-Zionists hate Jews mostly for the same reasons up to some differences in shading that anti-Semites and anti-Judaic thinkers do.
Since we are talking Iran: why would anti-Zionism if it was free of Antisemitism as anti-Zionists like to claim have led to holocaust denial as a state doctrine?
I’ll close with a list of the classic elements of anti-Judaic belief and some comments about how little you need to update them to fit anti-Zionism:
• Jews are behind a plan for global conquest, — Yes they often endorse this with the focus on neo-cons
• Jews work through Masonic lodges — Yes though they replace “Masonic lodges” with groups they hate.
• Jews use liberalism to weaken church and state — Well they are liberals so they generally talk about Jews using foreign policy neo-conservatives to undermine state and liberal organizations / interest groups.
• Jews control the press — Yep
• Jews work through radicals and revolutionaries — Again you need to flip flop the political orientation but this is the claim about the Iraq war.
• Jews manipulate the economy, especially through banking monopolies and the power of gold — Yep with gold replaced by “big banks”
• Jews encourage issuing paper currency not tied to the gold standard — Updated now concern about derivatives and so forth.
• Jews promote financial speculation and use of credit — Yep.
• Jews replace traditional educational curriculum to discourage independent thinking — Yep.
• Jews encourage immorality among Christian youth — Yep where immorality is “imperialism”, “colonialism”… and not the sexual stuff that doesn’t bother leftists.
• Jews use intellectuals to confuse people — Yep
• Jews control “puppet” governments both through secret allies and by blackmailing elected officials — Yep
• Jews weaken laws through liberal interpretations — Yep.
• Jews will suspend civil liberties during an emergency and then make the measures permanent — Yep. BDSers frequently talk about how America is becoming fascist and freak out about internet security, anti-terrorism…
@David
Israel I agree the tension between Jews and Arabs is bad. I disagree it is racial tension and not rooted in nationalism and religion.
US: Agree with your description. Disagree that there was ever a belief that races couldn’t live together. Even during the periods you are talking about there was plenty of mixed housing in different areas. The purpose of Jim Crow was to encourage racial differentiation, i.e the Southern society believed that without state support the races would naturally gravitate towards one another (miscegenation)… The laws were based on the exact opposite fear you are attributing to it.
As for unsafe in each other’s neighborhoods. Heck you saw that just 20 years ago among different factions of blacks within cities. So that’s not necc racial.
Iran: Rabkin’s article was about Jewish continuity. Not mentioning 95% emigration in such an article is simply dishonest. Not mentioning state repression is dishonest. There is no reason you should believe his article unless you are being willfully ignorant.
Let’s forget the mass executions of Jews right after the revolution. 1986 the Revolutionary Guards round up 2000 Jews walking home from Shabbat (2000 is not a typo) take them to Evin prison, blindfold them all and terrorize them regarding their Zionist connections. From there the Revolutionary guards start attacking any gathering of Jews (like birthday parties). This 1986 wave drives around 30k out. Then of course there is the recent wave during Ahmadinejad of all sorts of constant petty harassment which drove out 2/3rds. That’s a widespread attack involving tens if not hundreds of thousands of government officials. An honest article would be addressing these issues not presenting them as if they didn’t happen. There is no reason you should believe the article.
And then to compound this of course the source (Mondoweiss) is horrifically biased against Israel. I’m hard pressed to think of a single nice thing they’ve said about Israel in their 11 years while the unadulterated hatred of Israelis (and quite often the American Jewish establishment) comes through in almost every article.
I have more questions, CD-Host.
1. You say the old anti-Semitism (OAS) claims “Jews are behind a plan for global conquest”; while the new anti-Semitism (NAS) claims Jews do the same “with the focus on neocons.”
I would say that many neocons were Jewish and that they were instrumental, with others, in GW Bush’s going to war in Iraq. Is it anti-Semitic to say that because (a) it isn’t true or (b) is it anti-Semitic to mention it at all?
2. You say OAS says “Jews work through Masonic lodges” and that NAS replaces “’Masonic lodges’ with groups they hate.”
Is it anti-Semitic to say that AIPAC is a powerful Jewish organization?
3. OAS says Jews use liberalism to weaken church and state; NAS talks “about Jews using foreign policy neo-conservatives …
This is the same as 1, above, and indeed many of the items you select are repetitions. Others, well who actually says the things. E.g., “Jews control the press” — well, I’d like you to find that quote in a significant left/liberal source. Now if I wrote an article about an American Jew, Sheldon Adelson, financing Israel Hayom, a free, daily pro-Netanyahu newspaper in Israel, would you say that I had said “Jews control the press,” and that I was anti-Semitic?
Many Israel apologists say, “Of course it’s fair to criticize Israel.” But then you find out it’s actually hard to speak a word without being accused of anti-Semitism.
@Arthur
I would say that many neocons were Jewish and that they were instrumental, with others, in GW Bush’s going to war in Iraq. Is it anti-Semitic to say that because (a) it isn’t true or (b) is it anti-Semitic to mention it at all?
I’d say the way you phrased that borders on Antisemetic, and the slightly stronger way it is often phrased crosses the line.
a) The overwhelming majority of neocons are not Jewish, they are evangelical Christians.
b) The center of power in the Bush administration was evangelical Christian.
c) The strongest proponents for the war domestically came from American oil and gas companies that wanted leverage re. the French and Russian contracts for the oil fields.
d) Regime change was official American policy (The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998) passed by a mostly Christian congress.
….
There is a disproportionate focus on Jews in the left’s analysis of the Iraqi war. Certainly Jews of all persuasions were more hostile to the Iraqi regime than Jews often are to other regimes. Saddam Hussein paying a bounty to suicide bombers alienated Jewish liberals as much or if not moreso than it alienated Jewish neoconservatives. Jewish conservatives are more focused on middle east policy than other ethnicities are (not shockingly Chinese conservatives are more focused on Asia…) Etc… Those are all fair statements.
But to hint or even state the Iraqi war was a Jewish policy is nonsense. If I were going to pick the most important Jewish contribution it would originally have come from Anti-Zionists. ANSWER (the leading opposition in the run up to the war on the hard left) decided to link opposition to the invasion to opposition to Israel. As a consequence Jews felt uncomfortable and they divided the peace movement in the USA where Jewish peace activists, while still opposed to starting the war, were no longer willing to play a strong role in opposition to this war. This caused Democratic politicians to read the liberal wing of their party as divided, given the 70+% support in the broad population and a divided party to their left most of them decided to be halting in their opposition or mildly in favor (Kerry and Clinton being good examples).
There were many many factors for Iraq most weren’t particularly Jewish. Where they were particularly Jewish I think the Jewish left not Jewish Neocons played the strongest role. The idea of a Jewish conspiracy leading a hapless gentile into wickedness is classic Antisemitism.
Is it anti-Semitic to say that AIPAC is a powerful Jewish organization?
Not at all. It is Antisemetic to call it America’s most powerful lobby and such other things. AIPAC pales in comparison to genuinely powerful lobbies like the Agricultural lobby, the Pharmaceutical lobby of the Financial lobby. Near the bottom of the top 20 is fair. #1 is Antisemitism.
Now if I wrote an article about an American Jew, Sheldon Adelson, financing Israel Hayom, a free, daily pro-Netanyahu newspaper in Israel, would you say that I had said “Jews control the press,” and that I was anti-Semitic?
Of course Jews control the press in Israel, Israel is a Jewish country! No one disagrees Jews control the Israeli press. The accusation is about Jews controlling the press in Canada, the USA, Europe… Certainly Jews play a role in media but control is nonsense. And that’s why it is a false accusation. But it is not just false, it is false in a particular direction. It leads towards the idea that Jews are the secret power behind the evil on earth, Satan’s earthly agents within Christian societies. That’s the underlying accusation.
Many Israel apologists say, “Of course it’s fair to criticize Israel.” But then you find out it’s actually hard to speak a word without being accused of anti-Semitism.
That’s just not true. Treat Israel like any other foreign country. Evaluate its policies the same way you would the policies of Nigeria, Brazil, Kuwait… Treat ethnic Israelis (Jews) like you would any other ethnic group. Stop believing that what Jews do is of cosmic importance. Israel is a small state and just a regional power. Jews are just a of adherents to a small religion of who run a small state. That’s it.
The Antisemetic stuff is extremely easy to avoid. The same way other forms of racism are easy to avoid. I’ve never heard an Anti-Zionist say we should hate Israeli because Israelis are shiftless and lazy sitting around all day eating too much fried chicken and watermelon. I’ve never heard Anti-Zionists say that we should hate Israel because Israelis are sexually repressed conformists with no sense of humor who can’t dance. Its not like Anti-Zionism doesn’t manage to successfully avoid all the other racist stereotypes effortlessly. The only place Anti-Zionists complain about it being a problem is with regard to Jewish ones. The reason for that is because Anti-Zionism was born out of Soviet propaganda which mixed traditional Antisemitism with liberation theology. Arab anti-Israeli activism was proto-Ba’athist, and Ba’athism is openly racist, and got moreso as it encountered Nazi philosophy and absorbed huge chunks of it. There is no “pre-racist” anti-Zionism.
Criticism of Israel is easy to do without being racist. Just don’t be racist. If you want to go further and be Anti-Zionist it gets a bit harder. To avoid racism you need to not buy into the underlying philosophy of racist movements. Understand that Anti-Zionism as it exists today is a racist movement, not a movement which has some racist elements. An Anti-Zionism which avoids racism is going to need a new foundation, and that new foundation with necessarily alienate it from Palestinian thought.
CD-Host, that’s a lot of words. The kind of thing one often sees is this: “Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. Senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.” You can pick at some of those or add a couple of others, but saying “The overwhelming majority of neocons are not Jewish, they are evangelical Christians” is just sophistry. It could mean there were 20 Christians and 6 Jews, but evangelical Christians tended to be social conservatives and neocons were not. And we’re talking about influence on one detail of foreign policy, not the “centre of power in the Bush admin.” That’s flying off on tangents.
Now that we agree AIPAC is a powerful organization, we might also agree that AIPAC is not very influential on pharmaceutical legislation and the pharmaceutical lobby is not very influential on mid-East policy. The question is, how influential have AIPAC and other American Jewish organizations been on American U.S. Middle East policy? Are they number 1? Or is it anti-Semitic to discuss, as in e.g., The Israel Lobby.
And you never cite a source for “Jews control the press.
Really, I think your reply to “it’s actually hard to speak a word without being accused of anti-Semitism” is indecipherable. Your statement that “anti-Semetic stuff is extremely easy to avoid” is followed by — well, try explain how to do that again.
“Criticism of Israel is easy to do without being racist. Just don’t be racist.” Well, that’s helpful.
Personally, I think we supporters of Palestinian rights overuse and misuse “Zionism”; and we’re a little purist, as the left likes to be. Not all Zionists were racists, and some Jews who called themselves Zionist went to live with the Arabs in Palestine and not to turn Palestine into a Jewish state. I don’t call myself anti-Zionist because I define Zionism as “belief in a state in which Jews have a comfortable majority.” Many sins were committed to get there, but that is what Israel is now and there’s nothing in that that is incompatible with the three BDS demands.
But nostalgia for old, non-racist Zionism and my holding out for the possibility of “Israel-as-a-Jewish-state like Canada-as-a-Christian-state” is my personal preference. It’s a quibble. Militant Zionism today is racist, expansionist and anti-democratic — i.e., fascist.
@Arthur
[religion added by me] The kind of thing one often sees is this: “Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush (Evangelical) administration included Paul Wolfowitz (Jewish), John Bolton (Lutheran), Elliott Abrams (Jewish), Richard Perle (Jewish) and Paul Bremer (mixed mostly Mennonite). Senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney (Methodist) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (Congregationalist)
Generally that’s not the sort of list you see. This list is Jewish biased but at least mixed. The lists I often see are about 200 Jews with few or no Christians.
The overwhelming majority of neocons are not Jewish, they are evangelical Christians” is just sophistry. It could mean there were 20 Christians and 6 Jews, but evangelical Christians tended to be social conservatives and neocons were not.
No I mean something like a 50::1 ratio of the American population between Christians neocons to Jewish neocons. Neocons aren’t necessarily social conservatives. Generally like Rice and Cheney they consider social conservatism to be divisive and alienating so they are opposed. Same as Jewish neocons.
And we’re talking about influence on one detail of foreign policy, not the “centre of power in the Bush admin.”
No we aren’t. Of course Jews are going to be more concerned about Israel same as Irish Americans are more concerned about Ireland / British issues and Indian Americans are more concerned about India / Pakistan. That sort of non biased context is not the context this information is presented in at all.
Now that we agree AIPAC is a powerful organization, we might also agree that AIPAC is not very influential on pharmaceutical legislation and the pharmaceutical lobby is not very influential on mid-East policy.
Actually the pharma lobby is influential on mid-east policy regarding pharmaceutical pricing, patents and sales restrictions. Not shockingly the pharmaceutical lobby is powerful on mid-East policy regarding the issues they care about. I should mention AIPAC isn’t particularly influential even in the mid-East on pharmaceutical patent, pricing, trade policy partially because they don’t care and partially because the pharma lobby would crush them if they went head to head.
The question is, how influential have AIPAC and other American Jewish organizations been on American U.S. Middle East policy? Are they number 1? Or is it anti-Semitic to discuss, as in e.g., The Israel Lobby.
In most areas regarding the mid-East AIPAC is still pretty weak. Pharma above, they also have little influence on things like agricultural policy. In areas where AIPAC cares most deeply they often have to compete with the Energy Lobby (generally Arabist) and they mostly lose but they can put up a good fight. When the Energy Lobby and AIPAC are on the same side (like Iraq) you get policy changes. That’s the way the USA is supposed to work. The right of the people to lobby government for changes in government policy is an explicit right.
As I said there is nothing Antisemetic about treating AIPAC as #16-20 lobby. There is about treating it as #1. Things like “AIPAC controls the USA government” are hateful nonsense. Things like “AIPAC has a seat at the table regarding Iran policy” are quite true.
Militant Zionism today is racist, expansionist and anti-democratic — i.e., fascist.
What is militant Zionism and how is that different from mainstream Israeli political thought? I’d say “militant” is a generic weasel word. Zionism has mild racist tendencies and a strong track record of fighting racism: think the Mizrahi integration success and the even huge gains in social status and economics of Israeli Arabs. Every political philosophy is expansionist. Zionism in 2017 has mostly fulfilled its expansionist aims, at this point it is consolidating previous gains not expanding the borders. As for anti-democratic, I don’t see that. Israel has a vibrant democracy, that arguably is one of the reasons that there is a desire for a Jewish majority. Israel if it adopted a more non-democratic system could easily just grant citizenship to all the West Bank Palestinians. A not entirely not unlikely outcome of pressure and the conditions on the ground.
“belief in a state in which Jews have a comfortable majority.”… nothing in that that is incompatible with the three BDS demands.
Of course there is. One of the primary BDS demands is that Israeli proper be flooded with a population which hates the Jewish state and seeks its destruction. Another one demands that Israel do nothing to protect itself against this flood. They are demands not merely for regime change (as per Iraq) but a change to the underlying population base. Given the power of Israel and the degree of national loyalty the state commands the BDS demands are simply insane.
1. I wrote, “And we’re talking about influence on one detail of foreign policy, not the ‘centre of power in the Bush admin.’”
You wrote: “No we aren’t.”
But if you look back, you’ll see it started with me writing, “… many neocons were Jewish and that they were instrumental, with others, in GW Bush’s going to war in Iraq.”
And then you went off writing about Evangelicals and pharmaceuticals. So please. Try to avoid tangents and lecturing. I know that’s your method: slide into another subject and write at great length. But it’s really irritating. Learn to be succinct. You’re trying my patience.
2. You wrote: “How is that not religious reform? How do those incredibly intense rites becoming part of the national culture not help to forge even stronger national bonds? In this hypothetical Judaism becomes a much more fun religion.”
That’s humour, right? Or do you mean a much more fun religion like Wahhabist Islam or North Korean communism?
3. You write: “The shtetl was a discriminated against minority. A fascistic state with a powerful army and a strong state church binding the society together is almost an opposite configuration.”
Fascism is what you get when the shtetl and its ideology (“chosen people” among other things) achieve political power.
4. I wrote about: “a state in which Jews have a comfortable majority: nothing in that that is incompatible with the three BDS demands.”
You wrote: “Of course there is. One of the primary BDS demands is that Israeli proper be flooded with a population which hates the Jewish state and seeks its destruction. Another one demands that Israel do nothing to protect itself against this flood. They are demands not merely for regime change (as per Iraq) but a change to the underlying population base. Given the power of Israel and the degree of national loyalty the state commands the BDS demands are simply insane.”
I appreciate your ability to read the into the dark unconscious of BDS minds, but could cite any of that please? (Without references it has as much credibility as The Protocols of Zion.)
5. You wrote: “Criticism of Israel is easy to do without being racist. Just don’t be racist,” and “Treat Israel like any other foreign country. Israel is a small state and just a regional power. Jews are just a of adherents to a small religion of who run a small state. That’s it.”
I guess you’ve just said this to yourself often enough that you believe it. Yes, it’s absolutely true that Israel and the Jews and Zionism have been singled out for special treatment: The Balfour Declaration; forming a country inside another country with support of a UN declaration; The West waiting patiently 50 years for Israel to decide to withdraw from (according to the West) illegally occupied land. (Iraq was forced out of Kuwait after, I believe, 5 months.) What other relatively rich country gets $ 3 or 4 billion in untied aid annually from the U.S.? They really should stop singling out Israel!
Jews were also singled out by Nazi Germany; but that has led Europe, as a result of perfectly understandable guilt and shame, to make excuses for tolerating illegal Israeli activities. They from time to time condemn Israel at the UN; and pretty soon they just might possibly get around to thinking about if Israel doesn’t shape up soon the EU just might one of these days consider being really adamant about Israel not being allowed or at least strong discouraged from or encouraged not to label products of the settlements as “made in Israel.” Oh gosh. Rampant anti-Semitism!
@Arthur
Really, I think your reply to “it’s actually hard to speak a word without being accused of anti-Semitism” is indecipherable. Your statement that “anti-Semetic stuff is extremely easy to avoid” is followed by — well, try explain how to do that again.
Simply treat Israel like any other state. Treat Jews like any other ethnic group. It really isn’t hard. There isn’t much to it. What Jews do or don’t do is not of cosmic importance. They don’t matter any more than any other small ethnicity. Treat them differently and it is Antisemitism treat them the same and it isn’t.
There are roughly the same number of Scottish Americans as Jewish Americans. They have similar economic / political demographics. If you make an argument regarding Jews and American policy ask your self if you would phrase it the same way regarding American Scotts and Scottland / England / Europe. If you would it is fine to say about Jews. If the same positions or phrasing sounds ridiculous then usually underlying the position and phrasing is a belief in some variant of Jewish supernatural evil.
Let’s pick your Iraq example In the 1770s and 1780s Scottish Americans tied the American Revolution tightly to Scottish desires for independence. There aren’t weird conspiracy theories that the Revolution shouldn’t have happened except for Scottish subversion of the American political process. Someone running around focusing on this issue incessantly would be rightfully seen as a nut job who had a bizarre obsession with the Scots. Of course Scottish Americans had a position on the Revolution and not unexpectedly they backed the homeland. No one cares. A similar analysis for Iraq is seen as important insightful topic worth discussing because Jewish influence is assumed to be evil and extremely powerful.
American reporters can write about Ireland without being pressured to call ethnic Scots living in Ulster as “Williamites”? They get to take the perfectly reasonable position that while the original migration happened under William those Scottish descendants are now natives of Ulster not Scotland and treat them as such. No international body has even suggested that the descendants of the Williamites should all be withdrawn. The whole idea would be seen as insane. Yet listen to the language for the corresponding position regarding Jews. Watch the protests when Jewish villages in the West Bank are called anything other than settlements. The underlying theology is pretty clear: Jews are an illegitimate people and Jewish government is intrinsically illegitimate.
Every new years Americans in an untroubled way sing a Scottish song, Auld Lang Syne, as part of their new years tradition. Americans aren’t subjected to a hateful mass movement organized on colleges trying to make this controversial. Americans can just enjoy singing the song without worrying about the connections this song has to Scottish oppression of the Welsh or its use in World War I. All those objections could be raised but they aren’t raised. Americans not of British Isles ancestry get to be completely ignorant of the politics between the ethnicities of the Isles. They aren’t expected to care. If these things make the news at all they are buried deep. There are close to 0 activists who care. Black lives matter doesn’t feel a need to take any position at all on Welsh vs. Scottish power within the UK.
UNESCO when it publishes reports on Scottland uses the Scottish name like The Ness Of Brodgar. Even though Chinese names exist they don’t get used. If they did get used it would be instantly seen as ridiculous. Yet the UNESCO board votes 24-6 that the Temple Mount should be exclusively referred to as Al-Haram Al Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary). Of course the only reason that there is Mosque there at all is because of the Temple of Jupiter and the only reason that Temple was there because of the previous Jewish Temple. Every sane person on the planet knows this. As Netanyahu put it quite well the Arch of Titus, which is large well known site in Rome shows the Temple on the mount quite clearly. UNESCO essentially asserted that Titus was engaging in Zionist propaganda when he built the arch. No other people has to put up with this sort of hateful nonsense.
Now of course Scotland does sometimes criticized in the USA press. For example many liberal American papers (and for that matter Canadian papers) were critical of the Scots voting for the SNP rather than Labor because it was likely to create a conservative government. Similarly one could be could be critical of Israelis who supported Yesh Atid or Kulanu for not voting Zionist Union. That might be a correct or incorrect analysis but it wouldn’t be Antisemitic.
@CD your Scots-Jews analogy is both entertaining and enlighting and with your permission I’m going to use it.
@Peter, what would you call an American of Japanese descent who will devote all his time and skills for a bashing campaign against the Scottish nation?
I responded to some of this above: especially “Simply treat Israel like any other state.” (I confess that my eyes glazed over with all that stuff about Scotland.)
Responding to CD-Host. (I think I put this in the wrong place. Sorry.)
1. I wrote, “And we’re talking about influence on one detail of foreign policy, not the ‘centre of power in the Bush admin.’”
You wrote: “No we aren’t.”
But if you look back, you’ll see it started with me writing, “… many neocons were Jewish and that they were instrumental, with others, in GW Bush’s going to war in Iraq.”
And then you went off writing about Evangelicals and pharmaceuticals. So please. Try to avoid tangents and lecturing. I know that’s your method: slide into another subject and write at great length. But it’s really irritating. Learn to be succinct. You’re trying my patience.
2. You wrote: “How is that not religious reform? How do those incredibly intense rites becoming part of the national culture not help to forge even stronger national bonds? In this hypothetical Judaism becomes a much more fun religion.”
That’s humour, right? Or do you mean a much more fun religion like Wahhabist Islam or North Korean communism?
3. You write: “The shtetl was a discriminated against minority. A fascistic state with a powerful army and a strong state church binding the society together is almost an opposite configuration.”
Fascism is what you get when the shtetl and its ideology (“chosen people” among other things) achieve political power.
4. I wrote about: “a state in which Jews have a comfortable majority: nothing in that that is incompatible with the three BDS demands.”
You wrote: “Of course there is. One of the primary BDS demands is that Israeli proper be flooded with a population which hates the Jewish state and seeks its destruction. Another one demands that Israel do nothing to protect itself against this flood. They are demands not merely for regime change (as per Iraq) but a change to the underlying population base. Given the power of Israel and the degree of national loyalty the state commands the BDS demands are simply insane.”
I appreciate your ability to read the into the dark unconscious of BDS minds, but could cite any of that please? (Without references it has as much credibility as The Protocols of Zion.)
5. You wrote: “Criticism of Israel is easy to do without being racist. Just don’t be racist,” and “Treat Israel like any other foreign country. Israel is a small state and just a regional power. Jews are just a of adherents to a small religion of who run a small state. That’s it.”
I guess you’ve just said this to yourself often enough that you believe it. Yes, it’s absolutely true that Israel and the Jews and Zionism have been singled out for special treatment: The Balfour Declaration; forming a country inside another country with support of a UN declaration; The West waiting patiently 50 years for Israel to decide to withdraw from (according to the West) illegally occupied land. (Iraq was forced out of Kuwait after, I believe, 5 months.) What other relatively rich country gets $ 3 or 4 billion in untied aid annually from the U.S.? They really should stop singling out Israel!
Jews were also singled out by Nazi Germany; but that has led Europe, as a result of perfectly understandable guilt and shame, to make excuses for tolerating illegal Israeli activities. They from time to time condemn Israel at the UN; and pretty soon they just might possibly get around to thinking about if Israel doesn’t shape up soon the EU just might one of these days consider being really adamant about Israel not being allowed or at least strong discouraged from or encouraged not to label products of the settlements as “made in Israel.” Oh gosh. Rampant anti-Semitism!
Thanks to all contributors on this thread. An interesting exchange of views.
Although a non-Jew and an outsider to this conversation, I do have two tiny comments to add.
1. During a “Silk Road” tourist trip to Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Iran, in 2011 my wife and I visited 2 synagogues in Teheran. Just to see. One of the synagogues had a school attached. Kids were coming out of school as I arrived. Dont know how big, but more than 100 kids. No particular security (less than at the Jewish Community Centre I go to for exercise here n Ottawa).
We walked in and were shown around. Very traditional looking synagogue, (I’m not much of an expert, though), lots of books and signs in Hebrew, pews etc. One think struck me. /the Jewish Community Centre here in Ottawa is festooned with Israeli flags, and lots of signs urging people to buy Israel bonds, etc. Nothing like that in Teheran. It looked more like a church would here in Ottawa – no flags, no loud signs. Just a place of worship/ school.
2. At the synagogue, we asked if we could meet someone from the Jewish Community in Teheran. An appointment was set for the next day to meet a board member of the community organization (or perhaps it was the Synagogue council). He was a lawyer. He told us he is an Iranian Jew and not a Zionist. We had a pleasant chat. He led us to believe that Jews in Iran do not have any severe discrimination issues.
Of course, we had no way of judging whether what he said was true or mostly true. But that was our experience.
@Peter
No open Zionism especially Israeli flags is what you get when you shoot Jews for expressing Zionist beliefs. State terror works. People being subject to state terror regarding their religion aren’t happy. We know those Jews are rather Zionist by the fact that of the 95% who left about 70% went to live in Israel even though many had refugee status (and are entitled to it) in the USA.
The Jews in Iran have far fewer rights than Palestinians do in the West bank. I can’t see how you can support the one government and oppose the other.
@Ahik
Please feel free to use it. Enjoy. Hopefully it works in your dialogue in trying to demonstrate how complete out of whack the conversation regarding Jews / Israel is.
Not directly related to the discussion of Jews in Iran, but I think apropos …
from “Confused by Trump, Gulf States Push for Iran-Saudi Rapprochement,” by Zvi Bar’el
Haaretz, Feb 28, 2017
“Shahab Hosseini is more dangerous than the Revolutionary Guards,” wrote the Saudi newspaper Mecca last August. “Iran has captured the entire world with its professional film industry,” warned the daily, unwittingly complimenting Iranian cinema.
Hosseini is the protagonist in the film “The Salesman,” for which Iranian director Asghar Farhadi won his second Oscar in the category of Best Foreign Language Film on Sunday night (following “A Separation” in 2012).
[That Iran was included in President Trump’s executive order, and Saudi Arabia was not] (interesting question as to why Saudi Arabia of all places, the country from which 15 of the 19 terrorists in the 9/11 attacks originated, was not included) [is] no consolation for the kingdom, which continues to be troubled by Iran’s cinematic success. The extensive coverage of the battle between the two regional powers doesn’t skip the channels of public diplomacy, in which cinema plays an important part.
In the face of Farhadi’s success, Saudi Arabia is presenting a film of its own. Not a feature film, since there is almost no movie industry in Saudi Arabia. Instead, it is a documentary produced by Margin Scope – the film company owned by Saudi-U.S. businessman and lobbyist Salman al-Ansari.
As might be expected, the film – called “Menace in Disguise” – labels Iran a terrorist state that aspires to undermine stability in the region. …
… Yet now, just when the two rival countries seem so far from reconciliation, there are signs of rapprochement. …
(http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/iran/.premium-1.774248)
I have yet to see “The Salesman” but I thought “A Separation” was great … the kind of film that Israel, and Palestine, too, could produce, but never – well, never’s a long time – Saudi Arabia.
@Arthur
@Arthur
1. I wrote, “And we’re talking about influence on one detail of foreign policy, not the ‘centre of power in the Bush admin.’”
You wrote: “No we aren’t.”
But if you look back, you’ll see it started with me writing, “… many neocons were Jewish and that they were instrumental, with others, in GW Bush’s going to war in Iraq.”
No it started with your comment, “Is it anti-Semitic to say that AIPAC is a powerful Jewish organization?” To which I responded, “ Not at all. It is Antisemetic to call it America’s most powerful lobby and such other things.”
And then you went off writing about Evangelicals and pharmaceuticals.
Because the context was powerful American lobbies.
Learn to be succinct. You’re trying my patience.
First off your tone was offensive. What I was doing was refuting your refuting your arguments and presenting explanations which you by your own admission didn’t read. Normally I try and explain why I believe an interlocker is wrong rather than just make assertion. I can do the assertion method.
2. You wrote: “How is that not religious reform? How do those incredibly intense rites becoming part of the national culture not help to forge even stronger national bonds? In this hypothetical Judaism becomes a much more fun religion.”
That’s humour, right? Or do you mean a much more fun religion like Wahhabist Islam or North Korean communism?
I mean like the religions I listed: Santería, Voodoo, Shaktism, Candomblé.
3. You write: “The shtetl was a discriminated against minority. A fascistic state with a powerful army and a strong state church binding the society together is almost an opposite configuration.”
Fascism is what you get when the shtetl and its ideology (“chosen people” among other things) achieve political power.
Fascism is authoritarian corporatism. Shtels had neither corporations nor dictatorial / totalitarian political structures. The doctrine of a people chosen by God and set aside for a priestly mission has nothing to do with Shtels, authoritarianism or corporations.
4. I wrote about: “a state in which Jews have a comfortable majority: nothing in that that is incompatible with the three BDS demands.”
You wrote: “Of course there is. One of the primary BDS demands is that Israeli proper be flooded with a population which hates the Jewish state and seeks its destruction. Another one demands that Israel do nothing to protect itself against this flood. They are demands not merely for regime change (as per Iraq) but a change to the underlying population base. Given the power of Israel and the degree of national loyalty the state commands the BDS demands are simply insane.”
I appreciate your ability to read the into the dark unconscious of BDS minds, but could cite any of that please?
Demand 3 is explicitly the demand for the 7.25m Palestinians to return to their original homes (which don’t exist but…). The political opinions of those refugees are well documented. Demand 2 is a demand for full civil equality for all the current Arab residents and returning refugees.
The Balfour Declaration; forming a country inside another country
The Balfour declaration formed a homeland not a country. There was no country. There was a British mandate which existed specifically to help form a country. If by another country you mean Palestine, Palestine was last an independent country in the time of the Jews. Palestine as an Arab country never existed.
The West waiting patiently 50 years for Israel to decide to withdraw from (according to the West) illegally occupied land.
The West was mostly concerned with the occupations in Sinai and Lebanon during most of those 50 years. You might want to check your history here as well. As patient they have been rather obnoxious and noisy about their objections during those 50 years.
(Iraq was forced out of Kuwait after, I believe, 5 months.)
America likes Saudi Arabia more than they like Palestinians.
What other relatively rich country gets $ 3 or 4 billion in untied aid annually from the U.S.?
Israel’s aide is highly tied. It is specifically military aide tied to purchases of American military equipment. As for country that gets far more, South Korea. Just the utilities on those basis along cost $2b/yr, a good chunk of Israel’s “aide”. Salaries and equipment costs on the 77,000 pacific troops are about 20x what Israel gets.
Jews were also singled out by Nazi Germany; but that has led Europe, as a result of perfectly understandable guilt and shame, to make excuses for tolerating illegal Israeli activities.
They tolerate “illegal Israeli activities” because they don’t want to challenge a nuclear power on a matter of vital national interest to that power over what is at best a tangential interest to Europe. Which is not atypical. There are all sorts of policies that countries all over the world have that Europe would prefer they didn’t.
What is atypical however is the level of attention and focus this receives in the mass media and popular culture.
Dear CD-Host,
The conversation is spreading too widely for a blog. I’ll comment on a few of things.
Me: “… a state in which Jews have a comfortable majority: nothing in that that is incompatible with the three BDS demands.”
You (CD): “Of course there is. One of the primary BDS demands is that Israeli proper be flooded with a population which hates the Jewish state and seeks its destruction. Another one demands that Israel do nothing to protect itself against this flood. They are demands not merely for regime change (as per Iraq) but a change to the underlying population base. Given the power of Israel and the degree of national loyalty the state commands the BDS demands are simply insane.”
Me: I appreciate your ability to read the into the dark unconscious of BDS minds, but could cite any of that please?
You: Demand 3 is explicitly the demand for the 7.25m Palestinians to return to their original homes (which don’t exist but…). The political opinions of those refugees are well documented. Demand 2 is a demand for full civil equality for all the current Arab residents and returning refugees.
Me: Demand 2 is a demand for full civil equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel. That’s absolutely true. But please cite evidence, not more assertions, that “One of the primary BDS demands is that Israeli proper be flooded (with refugees)” and that “Demand 3 is explicitly the demand for the 7.25m Palestinians to return to their original homes.” Do you know what “explicitly” means? Provide actual quotations.
—
Me: “The Balfour Declaration; forming a country inside another country.”
You: The Balfour declaration formed a homeland not a country. There was no country. There was a British mandate which existed specifically to help form a country. If by another country you mean Palestine, Palestine was last an independent country in the time of the Jews. Palestine as an Arab country never existed.
Me: The Zionist negotiators were very clear they wanted a Jewish state. The British were divided. “Country” is different and less formal than “state.” Moshe Dayan said “We took an Arab country and made it a Jewish one.” He would know.
—
Me: … the West waiting patiently 50 years for Israel to decide to withdraw from (according to the West) illegally occupied land.
You: The West was mostly concerned with the occupations in Sinai and Lebanon during most of those 50 years.
Me: Maybe, but they waited patiently for 50 years for Israel to …
You: You might want to check your history here as well.
Me: With respect to what?
—
You: As patient they have been rather obnoxious and noisy about their objections during those 50 years.
Me: Yes, they nagged Israel quite a bit.
—
You (in response to me saying: Iraq was forced out of Kuwait after, I believe, 5 months): America likes Saudi Arabia more than they like Palestinians.
Me: Cute, but they gave Iraq 5 months and they’ve given Israel 50 years and counting.
—
Me: What other relatively rich country gets $ 3 or 4 billion in untied aid annually from the U.S.?
You: Israel’s aide is highly tied. It is specifically military aide tied to purchases of American military equipment. As for country that gets far more, South Korea. Just the utilities on those basis along cost $2b/yr, a good chunk of Israel’s “aide”. Salaries and equipment costs on the 77,000 pacific troops are about 20x what Israel gets.
Me: Interesting that you consider U.S. Army bases abroad as foreign aid. Even so, aid to Israel (I agree: largely tied) is atypically generous.
—
You: Treat Israel like any other foreign country.
Me: Yes, it’s absolutely true that Israel and the Jews and Zionism have been singled out for special treatment: The Balfour Declaration; forming a country inside another country with support of a UN declaration; The West waiting patiently 50 years for Israel to decide to withdraw from (according to the West) illegally occupied land. (Iraq was forced out of Kuwait after, I believe, 5 months.) What other relatively rich country gets $ 3 or 4 billion in untied aid annually from the U.S.? (You: South Korea is also singled out.)
Despite your arguments, quibbles and diversions, the above remains true: Zionism and Israel have been especially singled out for positive and supportive treatment by America and Europe. So yes, I agree: Treat Israel like any other foreign country.
—
You: What is atypical however is the level of attention and focus this receives in the mass media and popular culture.
Me: Well, maybe we all know that settling the Palestine-Israel conflict will go a long way to improving relations between Arabs and the West. Also, “the Arabs of Palestine” have been working on this for 120 years. The Palestinians, like the Jews, don’t forget whence they came.
@Arthur —
Demand 3 explicit quote: (https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds)
Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194
Since its violent establishment in 1948 through the ethnic cleansing of more than half of the indigenous people of Palestine, Israel has set out to control as much land and uproot as many Palestinians as it can. As a result of this systematic forced displacement, there are now more than 7.25 million Palestinian refugees. They are denied their right to return to their homes simply because they are not Jewish.
The Zionist negotiators were very clear they wanted a Jewish state.
At the time of Balfour? I would dispute that was a universal opinion though I would agree that even at the tie of Balfour that likely represented majority Zionist opinion. Many of them for example supported a Jewish run colony with the state being Britain, Germany or being part of whatever replaced the Ottoman empire. Others wanted a democratic binational state to administer the Jewish homeland. The violence of the Palestinians kept shifting the consensus towards the state view.
“Country” is different and less formal than “state.”
A country has to have: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and a capacity to enter into relations with other States. A state has that plus recognition, ability to stand alone… Palestine at the time of Balfour lacked a government and the capacity to conduct international relations. I think Dayan is being informal in his quote.
You: As patient they have been rather obnoxious and noisy about their objections during those 50 years.
Me: Yes, they nagged Israel quite a bit.
I don’t think we are disagreeing here.
Me: Interesting that you consider U.S. Army bases abroad as foreign aid. Even so, aid to Israel (I agree: largely tied) is atypically generous.
I would agree. That’s a fair claim. The largest recipient … i wouldn’t agree to.
Zionism and Israel have been especially singled out for positive and supportive treatment by America and Europe.
I don’t know about Europe. By America though it has been. America tried being mildly-moderate hostile during Eisenhower’s first term, that policy failed as Israel was too destabilizing to USA interests. The supportive policy has been much more successful. (again not in getting Israel to do everything the USA wants but in mostly getting Israel to align with USA interests). There was an attempt specifically regarding settlements during Ford/Carter and again Israel was too destabilizing on critical interests.
So a better way to put this is: Israel has proven to be an inexpensive country to bribe. The USA has been able to achieve a lot of influence over Israeli policy for access to weapons and thus provides them. Selling / giving weapons to powers to influence their behavior is pretty normal USA policy.
Well, maybe we all know that settling the Palestine-Israel conflict will go a long way to improving relations between Arabs and the West.
I don’t know that. I don’t think we have any idea what a middle east post “settlement” looks like. A realistic “settlement”: involving a nuclear power (with a large pharmaceutical industry and thus likely pretty nasty biological weapons that have never been used outside labs) disintegrating and losing control over its armed forces and population probably results in something like a 100m people dead in a 1/2 century of ferocious wars…. I think that’s far more likely to create horrific relations and animosity than good relations. The Syrian war has been horrific. But imagine for a moment the Alawites or ISIL had 1/10th of Israel’s strength. Imagine if the factions in Yemen who are killing children had ICMBs.
Now in make believe world where Israel agrees to voluntarily destroy their own country yet somehow responsible parties keeps control of all the good stuff. Sure that’s good for European / Arab relations. But what does that have to do with anything real?
Even BDS has problems. A BDS that’s meaningfully strong (i.e. bans on trade…) causes Israel to radically change political orientation as they pick up new sponsors and those new interests. It as history has shown likely causes Israel to become much more militarily aggressive and destabilizing. That likely makes relations far worse not better.