When the anti-Israel sentiment comes from within

[Tinoire]

When the anti-Israel sentiment comes from within

By Yair Sheleg

For years, Jewish organizations and their leaders seeking to contend with blatant anti-Israel statements have encountered the response, "What do you mean? Similar statements are made in Israel, by Israelis."

A few weeks ago, there was a new precedent for this phenomenon. Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, sent a letter to Hebrew University President Prof. Menachem Megidor demanding a public response to statements made by the head of the university's German studies department, Prof. Moshe Zimmerman. According to the letter, Zimmerman compared Israel Defense Forces soldiers to Nazis.

University authorities in effect failed to say a thing to Zimmerman. Moreover, the university rector, Dan Rabinowitz, demanded that the former leader of the Jewish community in Berlin, Dr. Alexander Brenner, apologize for his statement that "there are professors at the Hebrew University who compare the behavior of IDF soldiers to the behavior of SS soldiers."

(snip)

In applying pressure to Foxman, Bergman took advantage of the fact that Foxman has been embroiled in a similar affair in New York in recent months. There, in a scandal that made waves across the United States, Foxman urged Columbia University (( my note: Ward Churchill was among those targetted by Daniel Pipe's 'Campus Watch' but do your own research)) leaders to denounce Arab professors in the Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures Department, who regularly question the legitimacy of Israel.

(snip)

As the letter's tone makes clear, Foxman does not point to specific actions. "Because of my feelings regarding the question of freedom of expression and academic freedom, I also did not demand that Columbia University take specific steps," he told Haaretz. "I only demanded that action be taken in this matter, and that is what I demand of the Hebrew University."

(snip / reluctant snip)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/550192.html

[countmyvote4real]

1. It doesn’t matter where those analogies come from.

They will all be stomped on or bulldozed if you choose by those that take offense at the comparison. It is an offensive comparison, but sometimes the shoe fits. Hello, USA?

I wonder if it's true pride or some sense of guilt that prompts these "objections." There is truth everywhere. Peace is there if you want it.

I'm going to duck and cover in anticipation of this post being deleted.

[ashmanonar]

2. yea, i've never understood the fact that you get

ATTACKED if you say anything critical of israel. praise where praise is due, criticism where criticism is due.

it's like people don't want to believe that there are bad people in teh world. there are, in fact, bad people in every part of the world. there are those who would kill for money, for pride, for jealousy, and for every other reason under the sun. a great many people are irrational in this world, some who believe that men who love other men and women who love other women are evil, some who believe that women are to be subordinate to men, some who believe that bc someone is another religion than you they can be killed without remorse.

and yet we get attacked for saying something critical, and questioning motives?

[Colorado Blue]

3. If I might offer an opinion, hopefully an elucidation: most of

the comments critizing Israel seem to be coming from a very unbalanced position. There is very little sense that the Arab role in the equation is understood, rather that the Israelis, regardless of what occurs, must be wrong. Many of the posts critical of Israel are brief, sarcastic, or downright nasty, really ugly stuff, demeaning to the people targeted.

Morever, there is an underlying assumption that ALL the problems of the Middle East are Israel's fault. And, there's a miscomprehension about the relative power of the US and Israel, and of Jews within the US government. I've read MANY posts which seem to indicate the poster really believes that PNAC, which has some Jewish signatories on some documents, runs the US government. I've read many posts indicating that people think the US is doing Israel's bidding in the world and in the middle east - specifically, lately, that Iran is Israel's target. I've read posts, without any evidence or any thoughtful argument presented, which propose that the Mossad murdered Hariri, or even that the Israelis murdered their own children, in Tel Aviv. I've read stuff indicating that the Tin Foil Hat Society firmly believes the Israelis created 9/11 - for their own devious purposes, of course.

Finally, very few posts seem to indicate much depth of historical knowledge, of Israel, of the Middle East/Central Asia and the Mediterranean basin - all of which impact Israeli politics, or of Jewish history, which directly impacts Israeli politics.

Therefore, these posts are attacked.

If they were written thoughtfully, with some sort of argument behind them, people might not attack back. One is always willing to listen to a good idea, to argue or discuss with a thoughtful opponent or even be persuaded by a valid point.

Does this help?

[ashmanonar]

4. well, yes.

and no. lol.

what i mean is that even reasoned approaches are called anti-semitic. it's like the respondants don't want to believe that israel might have ulterior motives. (let me clarify: every country has ulterior motives. i'm not saying that israel is unique.) but i do believe that much of the conflict in the ME is manufactured by somebody. the question is who?

it's irresponsible and totally wrong to say "israel is a terrible nation bc of its religion". but it's not irresponsible to ask what motives its political leadership might have for its neighbors in teh future.

you get what i mean?

[Colorado Blue]

5. I do. BUT - I would also like you to consider what plans

Israel's neighbors have for IT in the future?

ALL have attacked in the past, nearly destroying Israel in the process. That's the root cause of the Occupation; people have forgotten that. In fact I'm going to brush up on the 6 Day War, so I can tell you about the build-up on the borders, and why it was necessary to repel the attack and establish the buffer zones. Even so, even with the buffers, the Yom Kippur war in 1973 was so serious the premier, Golda Meir, was advised to use nuclear force to stop the attacks. She refused.

After the war was won, a process of trading "land for peace" ensued, resulting - gradually - in more normal relations with the neighbors. However, terrorism continued and that has colored things darkly and made the birth of a Palestinian state difficult indeed.

Slowly, though, the sentiment to destroy the state of Israel is dying down for the most part and peace agreements are in place with several nations. However the Jihadists groups persist in their philosophy. So simple survival is a primary motive for Israel, one which may be difficult for Americans to relate to as we don't really have this problem, at least not in a military sense. We did go through the Cold War, but that was really abstract, hardly a daily threat. The attacks on 9/11 were really the first and only major attacks on US soil since Pearl Harbor, and you see how violently we reacted. Perhaps that helps put matters into perspective a little.

Beyond that, I think Israel's plans for its neighbors include increased trade and communication, and integration into the greater Middle East. Israel is working on desalinization technology that could transform the region, water being in extremely scarce supply. Most of the M.E. is afflicted by drought. Israel has also developed modern, highly effective farming techniques which could be exported and adapted by its neighbors, if they are interested. Similarly, hi-tech businesses could well invest in the region, should people decide to have some peace for awhile. This would bring increased prosperity to an area traditionally underemployed and poor, since the region lacks oil and the oil-producing nations have not really been generous except when funding Islamic extremists. Definitely, Israel would prefer to be surrounded by prosperous, more secular states that don't espouse terrorism.

The idea is that terrorism would die down if people are more prosperous and have a voice in their government. Today, kings and dictators control most of the M.E. and over the past few decades, intense Islamic religious factions have arisen all over the area, primarily in response to pressure from the West - it is a true culture clash. Israel represents the West. Its women don't veil, the outlook is modern and technological. As such it does represent a threat, a threat to the old ways and to the power of mullah and sheik.

The hope would be to integrate the two - the old Middle East, the new outlook.

Do you think this sounds reasonable?

I will reply to your question about antisemitism in a bit, I have to make dinner! Thanks for the conversation in the meantime.

[ashmanonar]

6. aha....

might this have something to do with changing attitudes in the ME?

linky

i'm not certain as to the trustworthyness of this source, so don't destroy me if it is ultra con or something. i read it on another forum i post at, and i thought it's an interesting position, if nothing else.

[Colorado Blue]

7. I thought the article was excellent, and the original post is

both troubling and indicative of the problems confronting scholars of Israel, let alone casual observers.

First, the link you provided reflected the very definite changes one senses in the Arab world. (There are a couple of discussions going on the main board, in which Bill Maher is being castigated for mentioning these positive changes and suggesting that Bush, horrors, might actually deserve some credit for them. I hate to find myself defending BUSH but in fact - there ARE positive changes going on!)

I like the author's description of "Black Arabism" and "White Arabism". It reflects a growing trend toward democracy and hopefully, a more liberal and secular world-view within the Arab world. Personally these changes thrill me although it may take time to work things out to everybody's satisfaction. Maher had a Muslim guest on, she suggested that we need to be patient here, not to expect instant gratification in this process. That made people mad but she has a point. It's been centuries since the Arab world was truly in charge of its destiny.

As far as the original article in the thread, both you and it raise the question of antisemitism vs. criticism of Israel. I'll try to be clear, if I fail let me know!

I've been hearing similar comparisons of Israel to Nazis, like those quoted in the article, from leftwing Jews for years. Within the Jewish community, one can argue and disagree; most of us would agree that the comments are tasteless as well as essentially baseless but since they're coming from our friends, at worst, those friends are wrongheaded, while accepting that the heavy-handed treatment of Palestinians is against our traditions and offensive in many ways.

However when Israelis are painted with this broad a brush in a PUBLIC forum, in universities where young, unformed minds are hearing these kinds of statements, it's more disturbing. It veers close to the antisemitic edge. It can certainly FOSTER antisemitism, and that's why some of the professors are being asked to cool their discourse. Ward Churchill walks the line of being really offensive too, for example, his Eichmann comments. On the one hand it's a professor's job to be provocative; on the other, there's such a thing as being wounding. Moreover, one must realize that young people can take bits and pieces of the lecture to heart, forget the rest, and instead of LEARNING something from the lecture, reinforce latent tendencies to bigotry or jingoism. So in the university setting, one must try to strike a balance. Also, calling someone a "Nazi" or an "Eichmann" tends to blunt the true evil personified in those terms. It blunts our sensitivity to what those people did, the enormity of the horror they unleashed.

On DU, many of the criticisms of Israeli policy have a point. They come from informed people and are not antisemitic at all. However, many are clearly reflections of a mindset that is, probably unconsciously, bigoted. It has certainly been a surprise to me that Democrats could be bigots but indeed, being a good card-carrying socio-economic liberal doesn't make one a saint, or immune from the flaws in one's society.

Antisemitism is all pervasive in American culture, just below the surface. It shows up in terms like "jewed him down," "that's so jew", movies like Passion of the Christ, skits like the one on the Ali G show where Borat from Uzbekistan sings "Grab the Jew by the horns and throw him down the well," and everybody laughs hysterically and sings along with great vigor. And leftwingers are by no means immune to it. Liberal culture in Europe has long been antisemitic - centuries of antisemitism lay behind the disasters of the 20th century. And America is primarily European in background, ethnically and morally, and Christian in religion. Since 9/11, antisemitism has been much more open, more vigorously expressed and more socially acceptable.

Israel is a Jewish state. Others live there and vote, and culturally and politically it's far from monolithic. But it's impossible to separate the state from the people. Uninformed, unbalanced comments about the State of Israel are extremely difficult to separate from insults to the Jewish people, and frequently seem to reflect old, time-worn attitudes toward Jews. Jews are conspiring to do this, or that, so forth. Comments concerning the Jews in the Bush administration, the supposed murderous intentions of Israel, the supposed participation of Israel in 9/11, the idea that Israelis murdered Hariri for some convoluted plot, always these convoluted conspiracies! - those at least approach antisemitism. So, people get mad! And finally, comments directed against Israeli policy in the West Bank without balance indicated as to Arab aggression against Israel, is extremely upsetting.

Make sense? Whew:)

[Yosie]

8. It looks like a socio-political explanation

that along with the changing dynamics of the economics (petro-politics) could herald significant improvement. As the young, restless, frustrated, secularly educated people realize that local mismanagement by their own rules is chasing their own "futures" to India and China ..... (No reason why Ramallah or Nablus or Hebron can't be a "Palestinian Bangalore")

Another factor has been the realization, at least in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, that the ruling class is also susceptible to domestic terrorism and attack by the very terror groups that they have been funding (paying blackmail to).

Thanks for the good link--
http://dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=13229

Especially the passage:

<snip><
A new 'White Arabism' would help generate liberal societies
By Chibli Mallat (Daily Star - Lebanon)

"As time passed, however, the connection between brutality at home and the inability to stand up to anti-Israel rhetoric became increasingly apparent: From the condemnation of the Arab record in general, typified by the United Nations Development Program reports since 2002, particulars of repression were linked to people at the helm of power in every single Arab country. Local Arab democrats are still hesitant to accuse the emirs and kings in the Gulf, but the taboos have fallen in the Levant and North Africa: Tunisia's Zein al-Abidin bin Ali, Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Lebanon's Emile Lahoud and Syria's Bashar Assad are being openly challenged, and the perceived weakness of the hard-liners in Israel, leading to the withdrawal from settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, will accelerate the trend of decoupling Arab domestic reform from the fig leaf of a united front against Israel.

The Arab nationalism that has prevailed since the Nasser revolution is increasingly being dubbed "black Arabism" by those of us who do not want to abandon a yearning for closer integration between societies separated by arguably artificial colonial borders. Black Arabism, in this perception, is characteristically fascist, and is epitomized by the former Baath system in Iraq and the present one in Syria. Against it we propose "White Arabism," which harks back to such figures as Saad Zaghlul in Egypt, Kamel Chadirchi in Iraq and Kamal Jumblatt in Lebanon. At the core of the message is the need for democratic, non-violent change at the top in the Middle East, with Arabism read as a liberal call that unifies people irrespective of their religion or sect: in Egypt Copts and Muslims; in Lebanon the various communities that form the country; in Iraq Shiites, Sunnis and non-Muslim sects. "
<snip><

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.