SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Cambridge Journal: What Explains Fashionable Hostility...

TEL AVIV JOURNAL JULY 20, 2011

Cambridge Journal: What Explains Fashionable Hostility Toward Israel?

BY MARTIN PERETZ

We live in a world in which the contagion of anti-Semitism is spreading once again. Indeed, the profusion of hostility to Israel is the proof that hatred of Jews is now quite alright, thank you. But, whatever individual and isolated wrongs Israel commits, there are comparisons to be drawn. And the comparisons are to the Arab states and to Palestinian Arab society, in which oppression has flourished since the early years of the last century. And has not stopped flourishing yet.

There must be a certain frisson that attaches to the loathing of Jews and of Israel by the chic folk who express it and cotton to it, like those who carried around Mao’s “Little Red Book” in a previous generation or wore a Che Guevara sweatshirt long after everyone knew he was a murderer. In the last few months and around the Cannes movie festival season, the world was treated to notable outbursts of malignance targeting the Jewish people and its polity. From the first generation of the new cinema to its most recent fashionable eminence came declarations of revulsion against the nation designated for hate: the first from Jean-Luc Godard and the last from Lars von Trier. At just about the same time, the idolized Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis pronounced his wisdom: “Everything that happens in the world today has to do with the Zionists,” including the Greek financial catastrophe. And, of course, John Galliano, poor John Galliano who worked in the schmata trade. This is actually something of an epidemic. In Europe, the epidemic has also infected both the political and journalistic congregations—although in somewhat, but only somewhat, less hateful language. Western Europe does not especially like Jews or Israelis, but it also doesn’t want Arabs or Muslims as neighbors.

America is not alone in the world in its friendship for Israel or in its historical hospitality to Jews. Already, in the days of the early Jewish migration to the United States, the new arrivals grasped that this was di goldene medinah, the golden country. The American people are allies of the state of Israel, however much its prime minister irritates Barack Obama. More to the point: The relationship between America and Israel is about historic and strategic ties, not about whether Obama is offended by Bibi’s rhetorical style. But why is he so offended? Is he as offended by President Chavez of Venezuela?

Right-wing anti-Semitism in the country is now fundamentally a bad memory. Yes, of course, Pat Buchanan! And who else? But left-wing anti-Semitism is now an advancing reality, one that traces its past to the scheissjuden of Karl Marx. Still, essential anti-Semitism is hard to express except in jokes about the garish Jewish rich, which itself is an expiring phenomenon. The timorous Jew no longer exists: He has been replaced by the skilled and defiant Israeli soldier. Perhaps because of this soldier, Israel has become the vehicle for anti-Semitism as well as its target. Some feel this soldier is more than a bit uppity, reversing the sacred cerebral role of the Jew in history. (You can tell that to the Jewish Nobelists and to the scientists and scientific entrepreneurs who have made Israel the most fertile intellectual soil in the world, maybe excluding California.)

 

NOT EVERYONE ON the left who is bothered by this is an anti-Semite. Many are simply Jews who cannot reconcile themselves to the notion of a strong Israel. Consider Roger Cohen, the International Herald Tribune columnist, who told us about the happy state of the Jews of Iran and who virtually non-stop tells us about the sins of the Jewish state, almost like I do about its virtues. He has also told us, poor man, that he was called a “Yid” at Westminster, “one of Britain’s top private schools, an inspiring place hard by Westminster Abbey,” and suffered other minor indignities that American Jews ordinarily do not. Anyway, he now fits in quite comfily, and, when he writes about Israel, he follows the model of The Guardian, which is known to, well, sort of improvise. He doesn’t much appear in The New York Times, the IHT’s blood relative. But this is hardly because the Times editors don’t like his opinions, like the ones they turned down when Richard Goldstone wrote about the colossal errors of his own report. The judge’s confession was subsequently published by The Washington Post.

In the same category, are some of the writers at The New Yorker. Frankly, I don’t usually read the magazine (although it has come to me gratis for years), which sometimes makes me sit dumb-faced at Cambridge dinner parties where its opinions are the last word. And I’ve completely sworn off some of its writers. I don’t believe a single word Seymour Hersh writes: His last report, I’m told, informed his readers that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear device and is not close to having one, and he was informed of this by a man wearing a raincoat on a bench in Dupont Circle. (Actually, my allergy to Hersh goes back to 1968 when he quit the McCarthy campaign in New Hampshire, charging that “clean for Gene” was actually a racist.) Every time The New Yorker,which is now moving to the World Trade Center site perhaps because it wants to be close to the mosque that may or may not be built, picks off a TNR staffer like Ryan Lizza or James Wood , I do look for them in its pages. (The New Yorker was thrilled about Cordoba House, the mosque’s name for about five minutes. Alas, the history of pre-Inquisition Cordoba and Spain was not a charmed-life narrative. Still, The New Yorker’s fact-checkers didn’t catch the blooper. Its name was changed to Park51, no historic resonance. It’s also in financial troubles which means not even one Saudi princeling has come to its rescue.)

The thick-with-ads, oh-so gracefully written weekly is a model of fashionable views on Israel. David Remnick, its editor, whose work on Russia I do really greatly admire, recently published a spate of his own articles about Israel, which I read. My judgment is that he knows squat about Israel, maybe because the only reportage he seems to read about the Jewish state is from Ha’aretz, which is to Israel what PM used to be for the United States. Well, you don’t know what PM was? All I can say is that it was not quite the Daily Worker. But let me confess: Ha’aretz is my home page. I am a masochist, and I like to see how far journalists can stray from the facts. Very far. Every day, actually.

Then, there is Rick Hertzberg, who was my student at Harvard. I made him editor of TNR twice. We are friends—I would even say loving friends—but with a deep undercurrent of testy ideological distrust. His hero is Mahatma Gandhi. Mine is George Washington. Maybe there’s the difference in a nutshell, one a nutcase and a pretentious nutcase at that, the other a hard nut.

The mahatma and his cause, the freedom of India from the British empire, were real ideological items just before mid-century. For Rick, Gandhi is an inheritance from his father, Sidney, who was a journalist and a professional activist in a range of “good causes,” from socialism to isolationism to consumerism to internationalism to ... well, India. One of Gandhi’s more obtuse ideas was that the Jews of Europe should wage passive resistance against Hitler. This suggestion (and his general opposition to Zionism) did not much affect his status as a holy man. Still, it was responded to here and there, most notably, by the sober Jewish intellectual Hayim Greenberg in an essay simply titled “An Answer to Gandhi.” Sidney was not alone in his American infatuation with satyagraha. It was a serious fashion on the intellectual left and especially appealed to “emancipated” Jews. Dorothy Norman was paradigmatic: She shared Sidney’s enthusiasm for the Liberal Party in New York and, a Philadelphia Sears Roebuck heiress, was a leading figure in the artistic stirrings around Alfred Stieglitz. She wrote a biography of Gandhi’s political heir, Pandit Nehru. OK, no more free association.

When Sidney died, Rick bequeathed to me his whole library of well-paged and even side-noted Zionist books. Two of them are relevant to Rick’s present obsessions with Israel. One is called Jewish Villages in Israel, published by the Jewish National Fund in 1949, a year after independence. It covers 373 communities established before the State was. One is, sort of, “my kibbutz,” founded in 1937 by pioneers from Czechoslovakia who saw the handwriting on the wall. Immediately upon the Declaration of Independence, “Shaar Hagolan’s position became untenable following the Syrian, Iraqi and Trans-Jordanian invasion. ... Together with nearby Massada, the kibbutz had to be completely abandoned. ... The two settlements were found to be completely destroyed.” The second book, A Stiff-Necked People: Palestine in Jewish History, by Berl Locker, is knowledgeable but not especially scholarly. But it is truthful. Perhaps Rick will read it. I can send it back to him.

Rick’s contribution to this controversy is a “Talk of the Town” piece titled “O’Bama vs. Netanyahoo.” Maybe the placement and the headline are a tip-off that this is not serious. But Rick’s frivolity—he is congenitally but congenially frivolous—doesn’t disguise the fact that he is writing about deadly serious matters. One by one, he ticks off the rhetorical contentions between Israel and the Palestinians about which, he basically says, the Palestinians win hands down. I am afraid that the way he examines the first contention is so simple-minded that I’ll have to repeat myself or send Rick back to school.

He quotes Netanyahu as saying in his speech to Congress that, in any agreement, “Israel will be ‘required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland.’” So Rick responds on behalf of Mahmoud Abbas, “Yes, but the Palestinians have already been required to give up parts of an ancestral Arab homeland.” Actually, the greatest part of Palestine is Jordan, where most Palestinians live. So, in a very real sense, they already have a country, except that it is ruled by an authoritarian monarchy that was imposed on them by the British. That the Arabs of eastern Palestine don’t live under democratic rule is the fault of neither David Ben-Gurion nor Netanyahu. It is a result of a deeply ingrained, political and social structure that, across the huge swath of land from Morocco to Iraq, has been imposed, without a single exception, by dictators. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t want Israel to operate or control or, for heaven’s sake, absorb the West Bank. Let the Arabs on the east and west banks of the Jordan River team up and see what they can make of their soon-to-be one country. I don’t think it will be pretty. You do? Good luck.

I also don’t believe that the Arabs of Palestine want to retire this conflict and certainly not in a reasonable way. A reasonable way means no right of return, and it also means that Israel needs, for its own elementary security, for its densest population strip to be wider than ten miles. So it demands with the insistent backing of the citizenry—except some (and only some) of the local Arabs and Remnick’s coterie of friends at Ha’aretz—that border adjustments in its favor be made. Please do remember that Israel also won two wars to turn back invasions of its tiny turf, which many, most Palestinians would deny it. With the Arab world in tumultuous flux, and the tumult now spreading and intensifying in Jordan, it is possible, even likely that the kingdom will be no longer. And then, you will have perhaps 75 percent to 80 percent of historic Palestine under Palestinian control. A civil society it will not be.

Hertzberg goes tit for tat. Netanyahu: “Israel will be ‘required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland.’” And now, for Abbas: “Yes, but the Palestinians have already been required to give up parts of an ancestral Arab homeland.” Actually, the core ancestral Arab homeland centers on the Arabian Desert where various tribes converted to Islam. The Arabs claim from Morocco to Babylon as their ancestral homeland. There is no room for compromise, as the Berbers and Kurds know. The Jews—who lived in Baghdad for more than two-and-a-half millennia and were thrown out after 1948 as part of the conflict over the partition of Palestine—constituted a plurality and maybe a majority of the city. Should they be demanding “return” or, maybe, as a compromise gesture, financial compensation?

Hertzberg accuses Netanyahu of having, in his speech, “laid down maximal demands.” This first of these is a precondition: “recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.” This goes back to November 29, 1947, when the General Assembly passed the Partition Plan for Palestine for a “Jewish state” and an “Arab state.” The Jewish Agency, which was the democratically elected proto-government of Zionism in Palestine, accepted partition, even though the territory allotted to the new state was tiny and not contiguous. (By the way, Obama promised the Palestinians contiguity. Nifty. So how, then, will Israel remain contiguous? Oh, so finicky and so careless, Mr. President. During the campaign, I testified in Florida day after day to Obama’s savvy about and commitment to Israel’s security. I no longer think he cares much. And contiguity would only deepen the ongoing civil war between Fatah and Hamas, with which the administration will surely soon begin talks, like the drawn-out talks with Syria of which doubtless the president is proud and unrepentant. Oops! As of last week, the president and Hillary Clinton no longer think Assad possesses legitimacy.)

Each for their own geographical interests, five Arab states began a war on May 14, 1948, the morrow of Jewish independence. And the Palestinians? Some few of them joined up with the certified Nazi, Haj Amin al-Husseini who, from Cairo, called for resistance. Most of the fighters (and they weren’t legion) teamed up with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, which had their own categorical territorial designs, none of which translated into an independent Palestine. The Palestinian Arab fighters were not fighting for an Arab Palestine. In the end, what they won was the West Bank for Jordan and the Gaza Strip for Egypt. This is a national history of which to be proud, is it not?

“Nearly as appalling as Netanyahu’s intransigence was the mindlessness of the senators and representatives, Republican and Democratic, who rewarded him with ovation after ovation.” Rick attributes this response to “certain Jewish and evangelical constituencies.” Of course, why didn’t I think of this? After all, the Jewish population of the United States ranges from 1.4 percent to 2.5 percent, depending on who does the counting. But all Jews are rich. So that balances out their small numbers. And they are also covert and crafty. Besides, given their cunning, they’ve teamed up with evangelicals who are certainly not covert and crafty but frank and folksy. It’s an unbeatable combination, these two ends of the social structure. One thing Rick knows from his own experience is that the widespread, but much exaggerated, ownership of the media by Jews does not explain America’s support for Israel. Take his own magazine, owned by the Newhouse family. Hardly a kind word has been printed about Israel since 1963, when Hannah Arendt assailed the Jewish state for putting Adolf Eichmann on trial. And what about The New York Times? Nuf said. Anyway, it’s now owned by its creditors.

Let me go back to those senators and congressmen who so offended Hertzberg. And how dare they so offend Obama! One conclusion I draw is that J-Street is a flop, a complete flop. It has spent millions of dollars—much of it George Soros’s, I presume—and can’t get more than a handful of politicians to sit on their hands as all of their other colleagues rise to enthusiasm and applause.

But there is this persistent coterie, influential among the elites, and especially the smart-ass Jewish elites, who do not rise and are not enthusiastic. And so, despite all the true evil in the world, the designated target of the chic progressives, including alienated Jews, is the Jewish state. There are many predecessors of the type in history.

Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 81 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

81 comments

If the link to this story had mentioned that it was written by Peretz, I wouldn't have clicked on the link. I don't know if this is his intent, but Peretz once again comes off as conflating criticism of the Israeli state with full-fledged anti-Semitism, leaving little room (and none in this essay) for a non-bigoted critique of Israel. Moreover, I feel as if I've read this piece at least a dozen times already; Peretz simply seems to reiterate the same basic point over and over, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

- whyamihere

July 20, 2011 at 12:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is it possible that Marty has nothing to say about the anti-democratic boycott law?

- pesach50

July 20, 2011 at 12:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WhyamIhere is one of the very few commenters here that makes me want to defend Marty Peretz. As a committed Marxist he has to hate Jews (I am sure that he has memorized Marx's essay on "The Jewish Question." As a modern Marxist his afraid to tell us that he hates Judaism so he concentrates his hatred on The Jewish State. As for Peretz' article it wasn't as incoherent as his last one on the same topic. I did like reading his critique of Rick Hertzberg. I wonder if the latter will respond.

- arnon

July 20, 2011 at 12:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pesach, there are a lot of articles on the anti-boycott law in Forward and Tablet. I would say there are too m any articles on it since that law may not survive a challenge in the supreme court. Peretz was right to disregard the outrage of the day directed at Israel by the bien pensant.

- arnon

July 20, 2011 at 12:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Poor Marty Peretz; He wails that he stands alone, surrounded by an ever growing confederacy of dunces and quislings. Reading this was very sad; Peretz is oblivious to his increasing irrelevancy and [self] marginalization, all the time complaining about how former friends and colleagues disappoint him because they no longer agree with his ossified Manichaean perspective on US-Israeli relations and Middle East politics.

- MrCookie1

July 20, 2011 at 1:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@arnon - Um, my rabbi would be very surprised to hear that not only do I suddenly hate myself, but apparently I despise Judaism so much that I attend Shabbos service every Friday evening and Saturday morning. Moreover, regardless of my identity or religious observance, anti-Semitism is a very heavy charge. The fact that you throw it around so casually while citing literally zero evidence suggests that such a charge is merely a cheap rhetorical ploy for you. Regardless, I take such a charge very personally, and for good reason I think. It's only a comment page, but I do not easily forgive being called a bigot against my own community.

- whyamihere

July 20, 2011 at 4:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All of the Western intelligentsia's obsessive moral casuistry about Israel is missing the big story: Zionism's success. Zionism is an inspiration, if not a model, for millions of people still enslaved and smothered by Islam and Arabism, from the Atlantic coast of Morocco to the Malay archipelago. That alone makes it a serious threat to some powerful people. It is ironic and puzzling that the Left can't reconcile itself to Israel, one of the most liberal states in all that vast region. The Jewish intellectuals among them are a sorry masochistic bunch who cannot affirm Jewish success in history. That's too challenging.

- amidut

July 20, 2011 at 6:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

|" pesach50 Is it possible that Marty has nothing to say about the anti-democratic boycott law?" Israeli Journalist Ben Dror Yemini as usual, has some sharp insights to impart on this matter: “1. A boycott is a legitimate means…. The struggle against the boycott supporters ought to be conducted in the public debate arena. It is not a simple matter. The industry of lies is working overtime. But we must see that it is far from winning the day. The boycott supporters’ achievements are limited. Part of the Israeli Right seems intent on strengthening their hands. As far as this Right is concerned, the law would serve as an additional ammunition in its bag of tricks. 2. That being said, there are clauses in the law that are justified. Those are the clauses that disallow benefits for organizations that support the boycott. Whoever maintains the position that Israel deserves to be boycotted does not deserve any benefits from the state. Just as in the case of the first, and discarded, version of the “Nakba Law”, which suggested that those who commemorate the Nakba be censured, the final bill which passed, and rightly so, denied any funding for such commemorations by the state. Israeli ethos has fostered a very special type of entitlement. As in the case of the painter who joined a Canadian campaign of boycott against the city of Tel Aviv; he returned home to receive an award from the city of Tel Aviv for his artistic achievements. And like hundreds of artists from the same political persuasion who demand money from the state to explain to the world that Israel is a pariah state. They are free to speak and preach as much as they like, but not at our expense.” http://www.nrg.co.il/Scripts/artPrint/artPrintNew.php?channel=1&channelName=channel_news&ts=14042008120049 (Hastily translated by noga)

- NR165279

July 20, 2011 at 6:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfw5SEoqT2M&feature=player_embedded http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/new/blogs/johnson/Entebbe_and_the_Dueling_Legacies_of_the_New_Left "Much of what is said and done by today’s left—including its “anti-Zionism”—is unintelligible without grasping that when “anti-imperialist struggle” displaced “class struggle” as the organizing category of thought and the basis of political identity, the result was a hybrid political phenomenon that the Germans call linksfaschismus, or left-fascism. When a Jewish passenger showed him his Auschwitz tattoo, Böse shouted back, “I’m no Nazi! ... I am an idealist.” As Paul Berman observes, “out of some horrible dialectic of history, a substantial number of German leftists had ended up imitating instead of opposing the Nazis.” Increasingly, after 1967, this upside-down left had taken as the ultimate expression of “anti-imperialist struggle” the armed Palestinian, while Israel became the ultimate expression of “imperialism.” Drawing on some older traditions of left-wing anti-Semitism, and influenced by more recent but well-funded Soviet and Arab antisemitic propaganda campaigns, it became left-wing common sense that supporting Israel’s enemies—whatever these enemies actually stood for, however they actually behaved—was an “anti-imperialist” duty. (There was a fig-leaf: support to fascistic-but-anti-imperialist forces was to be “critical.” In time the leaf, along with the criticism, dropped away.)"

- NR165279

July 20, 2011 at 7:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

R165279 is noga1.

- noga1

July 20, 2011 at 7:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marty alluded to Jewish power in the American media. Much of it is anti-Zionist or non-Zionist. First, the Ochs-Sulzberger New York Times. Second, the Newhouse family, owners of Advance Publications, which includes Vogue, The New Yorker magazine and the Newark Star-Ledger, among others. The Star-Ledger never has an editorially kind word for Israel.

- amidut

July 20, 2011 at 7:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Until you stop acting like a grudge holder who spouts off like a bigot, it is very hard to hear your complaints of antisemitism, Marty. Your attitude and manners drown out any points you attempt to make.

- scrubby

July 20, 2011 at 7:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If your original handle is still valid, why deploy a new and numerical one, noga? Good links as usual, by the way.

- scrubby

July 20, 2011 at 7:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree that anti-semitism is rising, but I think it's fueled by two things. One is the increasing sophistication of the Arab media, Al Jazheera is learning, and others are using twitter to get out their anti-Jew propaganda. The other is the rise of the Tea-Party movement. They have made Fundamentalist religious bigotry more acceptable (instead of the anathema it was before). Part of their paranoid fear of control is that fear of control by Jews. Criticism of Israel is hardly a factor -- Israel has been criticised and will continue to be criticised, both when they do good things (pulling out of Gaza) and bad (continuing to expand settlements). They're a difficult country in the midst of an extremely difficult problem. But it's these other movements that make the criticism seem more widespread than usual.

- AllanL5

July 20, 2011 at 8:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@arnon You mean the outrage from such notorious Jew-haters as Jeffrey Goldberg?

- Shorpe

July 20, 2011 at 9:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I applaud Peretz for finally emerging from his silence with this smackdown. I am a devotee of The New Yorker (except for the Tina Brown years), and Hertzberg's "O'Bama vs Netanyahoo" made it difficult for me to subsequently open what used to be my must-read-of-the-week. I hope Hertzberg reads this and realizes he has no right to use Talk of the Town for his (and Remnick's) Israel-and-Netanyahu-bashing editorials. If they wantto editorialize, they should create an editorial page, as they do with "The Financial Page" for Surowiecki. Hertzberg's tenure is a modest step-up from Tina Brown, but I miss The Real New Yorker so much that I am about to start reading it from the beginning on CDs, and will try very hard to just look forward to the real writers who remain, Lizza, Gourevitch, Lepore, Gopnick, Mayer - none of whom write about Israel. Without any personal connection to Hertzberg, I now understand Peretz's absence since that repugnant abuse of Talk of the Town.

- K2K

July 20, 2011 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo&feature=player_embedded#at=364 Asst Israeli Foreign Min Danny Ayalon makes it very simple. and, better than any New Yorker cartoon

- K2K

July 20, 2011 at 9:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Get the passion. But the screed is all over the place. As several other folks mentioned, where's Marty's outrage about the Boycott Law? Marty's good mind and enormous heart is slave to an existential fear which - as they say about paranoia may have some roots in reality but... - overwhelms logic. It really conflates anger at Israel's current leadership (a lot of it from Israel supporters like me) with anti-Jewish feeling. I keep hearing about Israel's legitimacy being threatened, but the folks threatening what is worth treasuring are those passing ugly bigoted laws - which started last year with legislation (supported by Kadima by the way) for silencing Arab legislators. It's only gotten worse. When Marty gives the same passion to the seriously ugly dynamics going on in Israel now, I'll easily welcome his celebration of the worthwhile aspects of the Jewish state.

- sollyman2

July 20, 2011 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, criticizing Israel is antiSemitic. But if I were to call Marty an anti-Arab racist for his rants about how Arabs supposedly can't and won't form a civil society, I'm sure he would insistently tell me that he isn't a racist, or an Islamophobe, or any of that. Like many people consumed by passion, Marty sees the speck in his brother's eye but has not removed the log from his own.

- cdanielsen

July 20, 2011 at 10:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If your original handle is still valid, why deploy a new and numerical one, noga?" In order to access the privileged articles in full I need to log in with my account number. Sometimes I forget to switch back. Blame the TNR system. What did you think the reason was, btw?

- noga1

July 20, 2011 at 11:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The anti-Israel gang is sick with hatred. Martin Peretz is the greatest. A true Jew defender of Israel and our precious Jewish values. The anti-Israel gangs are despicable and worth to fight agains them. These scums should go and work for the enemies of Israel. Let us see if they can open their mouths, they are full of vitriol. The fact that they call themselves Jews is worthless. They are self hatred Jews. Psychologically they are in deep trouble, and should get professional treatment. Israel and our Jewish values are untouched by these enemies. Self hatred Jews will be readily accepted by the Islamo fascists. With sadness they are the Jewish kapos the nazis used in the concentration camps. It is highly unfortunate that they are allowed to publish their venom and only contribute negative karma. From now on I will skip reading the anti Israel gang posting.

- JAIMECHUCH

July 20, 2011 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sollyman: "but the folks threatening what is worth treasuring are those passing ugly bigoted laws - which started last year with legislation (supported by Kadima by the way) for silencing Arab legislators. It's only gotten worse. When Marty gives the same passion to the seriously ugly dynamics going on in Israel now, I'll easily welcome his celebration of the worthwhile aspects of the Jewish state." I sometimes wonder what kind of supporter Israel has in the American Jew who can so easily make these sweeping and reckless accusations without even a pause to actually check out the details. The Israeli street is fully aware that when boycotters speak about “settlements” they do not make any distinction WHATSOEVER between settlements and settlements. There is a consensus in the Israeli street about which settlements are no longer settlements and which settlements can be regarded still as settlements. Jerusalem neighbourhoods, the townships and villages that thicken the Green Line, Gush Etzion, the Golan Heights, all these “settlements” are not regarded, in the mind of the Israeli Street, as settlements. This is not the result of any demagoguery by politicians but a grass root support for these places of residence and an instinctive aversion to anyone or anything which would designate their population as something criminal or illegitimate. It is ultimately up to Israelis to judge whether they support the law against boycott of “settler economy” and I’ve not noticed many complaints from Israelis against the LOGIC of the law. Most of the criticisms I’ve encountered come from people who contend with the advisability of passing such a law, from the point of view of PR and considering that the actual details of the law will be lost more or less on everyone. Israeli Journalist Ben Dror Yemini as usual, has some sharp insights to impart on this matter: “1. A boycott is a legitimate means…. The struggle against the boycott supporters ought to be conducted in the public debate arena. It is not a simple matter. The industry of lies is working overtime. But we must see that it is far from winning the day. The boycott supporters’ achievements are limited. Part of the Israeli Right seems intent on strengthening their hands. As far as this Right is concerned, the law would serve as an additional ammunition in its bag of tricks. 2. That being said, there are clauses in the law that are justified. Those are the clauses that disallow benefits for organizations that support the boycott. Whoever maintains the position that Israel deserves to be boycotted does not deserve any benefits from the state. Just as in the case of the first, and discarded, version of the “Nakba Law”, which suggested that those who commemorate the Nakba be censured, the final bill which passed, and rightly so, denied any funding for such commemorations by the state. Israeli ethos has fostered a very special type of entitlement. As in the case of the painter who joined a Canadian campaign of boycott against the city of Tel Aviv; he returned home to receive an award from the city of Tel Aviv for his artistic achievements. And like hundreds of artists from the same political persuasion who demand money from the state to explain to the world that Israel is a pariah state. They are free to speak and preach as much as they like, but not at our expense.” http://www.nrg.co.il/Scripts/artPrint/artPrintNew.php?channel=1&channelName=channel_news&ts=14042008120049 I agree with everything Ben Dror Yemini has to say about this matter. Basically, that while free speech is a fundamental right in any democratic system, this right does not entitle individuals to expect the state to help finance their campaigns against the state. Just as it is not incumbent upon any newspaper or TV station to be obliged to publish neo-Nazi tirades on its pages because neo-nazis are entitled to free speech. So that part of the law that deals with the financial aspects of the boycott movement's freedom of speech is completely justified. Needless to say, in sollyman's comment no such discernment and accuracy can be detected.

- noga1

July 20, 2011 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I usually can't get through Marty's rants. But they always leave me curious: is there any criticism of Israel that isn't anti-Semetic in his mind?

- tedski

July 20, 2011 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

1) Peretz decided to critique his former proteges, especially Hendrik Hertzberg, now editor of The New Yorker. 2) leftist liberals like Hertzberg need to be reminded that Israel/Netanyahu bashing is a form of antisemitism because the Jewish State of Israel and/or Zionism is increasingly a politically correct proxy for antisemitism. 3) thanks noga, for trying to educate the rabid dogs who misunderstand Israel's 'anti-boycott' legislation debate.

- K2K

July 20, 2011 at 11:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tedski, the answer is no. I was just confused, noga. It's unusual to read the same person with two different handles on the same thread, that's all. I didn't see it as anything bad. After all, you identified yourself without any prompt.

- scrubby

July 20, 2011 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The use of "rabid dogs" is bad form, k2k. Israel and/or Zionism may be a politically correct proxy for antisemitism sometimes, but not always the case. A blanket charge of antisemitism against all critics of Israel and/or Netanyahu is an attempt to stifle dissenting opinion. It is, also, counterproductive.

- scrubby

July 20, 2011 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Allen5:"The other is the rise of the Tea-Party movement. They have made Fundamentalist religious bigotry more acceptable (instead of the anathema it was before). Part of their paranoid fear of control is that fear of control by Jews." The Tea-party is a symptom not a cause. Allow me to stipulate that I am not a Tea-party guy. I further stipulate that I am unapologetically philo Judeo/Christian. You imply that because I dismiss the relativist doxology of tolerance as defined by equal opportunity irrelevance among those holding a faith informed world view that this somehow constitutes bigotry. To acknowledge that these differences in world views manifest themselves in very very different ways is much more truthful than any wishful fancies Paradise Lost inspires. There is a Judeo/Christian convergence that is beginning to assert itself in the face of an unambiguous Islamic challenge. It would seem as if the word is getting out that Jesus wasn't born into a nice little Christian family of carpenters and fishermen. The convenience of objectification is rapidly becoming too expensive in this spiritual economy. Of course Jews have known that to be true for quite some time now.

- jacko

July 20, 2011 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For many years - and particularly over the past 5 or 6 years - any Jewish commentator who disagrees with Marty Peretz is proclaimed by Marty Peretz to be a self hating crypto-anti semite. this is a byproduct of Peretz pathological solipsism that centers himself as the Arbiter of True Jewish and Fidelity to the State of Israel. The problem for the Great Arbiter is that he is expelling Jews at an alarming rate to the point that the his approved Jews will all be able to gather around a small weekend trip tent. The criticisms that he cites, particularly from Rick Hertzberg and David Remnick deal primarily with their opinions about internal Israeli politics and how those politices, embodied by the administration of Netanyahu are bad for US-Israeli relations, bad for any hope of a Peace Process in the Middle East, and ultimately bad for Israel itself. This is a nuance that has no hope for survival in the Manichean worldview of someone like Peretz.

- MrCookie1

July 20, 2011 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"A blanket charge of antisemitism against all critics of Israel and/or Netanyahu is an attempt to stifle dissenting opinion. It is, also, counterproductive." Of course not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. If that were the case, all Israelis could be called antisemitic since you will not find one Israeli who doesn't have some beef with the way the state is run; from cottage cheese prices and affordable housing for students to secularist bristling with the rabbinical authorities to ultrareligious-Jewish bristling with transportation on shabbat and pork-serving restaurants, the list is long and outlandishly varied. You wouldn't call these criticisms antisemitic, would you. The problem arises at three sticking points: 1. When Jewish nationalism is taken to be a criminal project to be cancelled, dissolved, in favour of a one state solution in which Jews will automatically become a minority. 2. Demonization of Israelis and non-Israeli Jews who support Jewish nationalism (Mearsheimer's "New Africaaners" an example) 3. Double standards, or, what Andre Glucksmann called "The Jerusalem syndrome": http://www.signandsight.com/features/894.html "On the scales of world opinion, some Muslim corpses are light as a feather, and others weigh tonnes. Two measures, two weights. The daily terrorist attacks on civilians in Baghdad, killing 50 people or more, are checked off in reports under the heading of miscellaneous, while the bomb that took 28 lives in Qana is denounced as a crime against humanity. Only a few intellectuals ...find this surprising. Why do the 200,000 slaughtered Muslims of Darfur not arouse even half a quarter of the fury caused by 200-times fewer dead in Lebanon? Must we deduce that Muslims killed by other Muslims don't count - whether in the eyes of Muslim authorities or viewed through the bad conscience of the west?" The EU provided a "working definition" as a "practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism." in which it concludes that "However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. " http://www.zionismontheweb.org/antisemitism/EU-definition-of-antisemitism.htm To me it seems to make sense and is quite easy to apply. But for some reason not everyone agrees with this definition, I think because it does takes away a great deal of the appeal-to-emotion that the New Antisemites bring to their "criticism" of Israel. These people do not wish to give away such luscious and politically-lucrative notions such as Jewish power, THE JEWISH LOBBY, aren't-you-sick-with-the-Holocaust, etc etc. Read how Jose Saramago described the Israelis: http://blog.z-word.com/2008/12/jose-saramago-on-israelis/ … those experts in cruelty with doctorates in disdain, who look down on the world from the heights of the insolence which is the basis of their education. We can better understand their biblical god when we know his followers. Jehovah or Yaweh or whatever he is called, is a fierce and spiteful god, whom the Israelis always live up to." and tell me this is legitimate criticism of Israeli policies.

- noga1

July 20, 2011 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't speak for everyone, but I am pissed at Israel simply because it continues to hog all the viable land in the West Bank for Israeli settlements, not because it needs to but because it wants to, and thus makes any prospect for a peaceful solution unattainable. If nothing else, it gives Israel's opponents a reason to say there can be no peace. Meanwhile, people are fighting and dying around the world for Israel's intransigence, and we are always on the wrong side because of our continuing support for Israel even when it spits in our face as well. Didn't your parents ever explain the difference to you between the Jews and Israel? Jews are fine, I love them, I happen to be one myself; but Israel is not fine, it is a rogue nation governed by lunatics who really don't care if they blow up the entire region. As far as I am concerned, the United States should not put itself in the position of being Israel's only defender when the issue of a Palestinian state comes before the U.N. this fall. No country deserves to be supported in the course Israel has taken, and the fact of its Jewish origin does not relieve it of responsibility to the rest of the world. So can we call a halt to these pieces whining about anti-semitism when the issue is the behavior of the State of Israel?

- mlottman

July 20, 2011 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What explains fashionable hostility toward Israel? Building. Settlements. In. The. West. Bank.

- Mikelawyr22

July 20, 2011 at 12:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By the way, Obama promised the Palestinians contiguity. Nifty. So how, then, will Israel remain contiguous? It is true that a contiguous plot of land from Samaria through Judea heading towards Gaza would necessarily divide Israel and would thus rightly be a non-starter. However, don't let this obfuscate the fact that the territories under Palestinian control resemble what French blogger Gilles Paris described as an archipelago (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/the-west-bank-archipelago/). While I'd generally try to keeps lines in the sand to a minimum, drawing a line in the sand that the archipelago characteristic of the West Bank must change is one exception I'd grant.

- sighthnd

July 20, 2011 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama needs to hire MP so the two of them together can deal with the Republicans. The detached thinker and the emotional feeler. Would a combination. The Republicans wouldn't stand a chance.

- rayward

July 20, 2011 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The difference between being pro-Arab and being anti-Israel: someone who is pro-Arab wants to impose costs on Israel/the Jews in order to help the Palestinians, someone who is anti-Israel wants to help the Palestinians in order to impose costs on Israel/the Jews. Why is that when the topic of establishing a Palestinian state comes up, talk about evacuating Jewish settlements is completely divorced from any effect the settlements that Israel "must abandon" have or don't have on the viability of any Palestinian state? Why is that the top priorities to help the Palestinians involve imposing on Jews to abandon their connection to Hebron and to abandon any hope of a future Temple? Absent from any talk about helping the Palestinians is anything that would help Palestinians without imposing a cost on Jews. Why do Palestinian local leaders who work pragmatically to further their constituents' interests at minimal cost to the Jews get ignored? When that changes, progress towards peace can be made.

- sighthnd

July 20, 2011 at 1:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"By the way, Obama promised the Palestinians contiguity. Nifty. So how, then, will Israel remain contiguous?" Why can't Gaza be connected to the WB via a tunnel, or a bridge? Why can the Europeans do it, the Canadians do it, but not the Palestinians? http://www.canada-maps.org/prince-edward-island/images/confederation-bridge-pei.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel

- noga1

July 20, 2011 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mikelawyr22 "What explains fashionable hostility toward Israel? Building. Settlements. In. The. West. Bank." And what explains fashionable embrace of Hamas in Gaza? The absence of Israeli settlements?

- arnon

July 20, 2011 at 2:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What explains fashionable hostility toward Israel?" The existence of the Jewish State.

- arnon

July 20, 2011 at 2:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, yes, arnon is sadly correct and so is Marty whether you like him or not. Roger Cohen is a brilliant writer who sometimes drives me nuts and he was ably answered by an editorial/letter published in the NYT - the claim that Bibi is wrong to ask that Israel be recognized is not stupid, obstructionist nor does it represent an obsession. It's simply reflecting the fact that Israel is a unique nation surrounded by a sea of "Arab" states which self-consciously belong to an "Arab League," of course one could go on from there - including the very serious problem of religious bias in the region combined with some truly nasty and widespread ANTI-JEWISH propaganda, so common as to be unremarkable. The fact is, unless Israel as a Jewish state is recognized, and unless the antisemitism is confronted and stopped, there is no real acceptance of Israel and no end to attacks on Jews for being Jews. And the attempt to get rid of the state either through war, economic or other strangulation, isolation, demonization or demographically won't stop either. They are inextricably linked. Antisemitism most certainly is with us again; it isn't *just* against Israel or Israelis either. It's much more obvious in Europe than here I think - although there are days when I read comment threads on open discussion boards and want to weep; and, when leaders of countries like Malaysia, which really have no Jews, spout vicious old school antisemitism I think that's a serious problem, it's also a serious problem when American academics propose Jewish and/or Israeli control of America, etc. It does no good to hide from this issue or shoot the messenger either. PS: OK, here I will insert the usual: this doesn't mean you can't criticize Israel. We are not talking about "criticizing Israel." So that meme is getting real old.

- Sophia

July 20, 2011 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Antisemitism most certainly is with us again; it isn't *just* against Israel or Israelis either. It's much more obvious in Europe than here I think - although there are days when I read comment threads on open discussion boards and want to weep; and, when leaders of countries like Malaysia, which really have no Jews, spout vicious old school antisemitism I think that's a serious problem, it's also a serious problem when American academics propose Jewish and/or Israeli control of America, etc.” Let them. Given that Europe is rapidly falling apart, the rise of antisemitism is no surprise there. Jews were always the people they blame when anything goes wrong in their society. From Today’s NY Times editorial: July 19, 2011 “Europe at the Brink Time is running out for salvaging Greece and, beyond it, Europe’s shared currency, the euro. Thursday’s emergency summit meeting looms as a Lehman Brothers moment. If Europe’s leaders fail to extricate Greece from its current unsustainable debt-servicing obligations — by lowering interest rates and lengthening maturities at a minimum — the market reaction, for all of Europe, may be unforgiving, and uncontainable as investors conclude that no European sovereign debt is safe from possible default.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/opinion/20wed1.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print Germany is investing in East Asia and will probably not care if the economic union dissolves. Had Europe faced up to the Greek problem a year and a half ago, the crisis would likely be more contained and manageable today. It should have reached a broad pact with Athens by trading growth-promoting reforms for long-term financial guarantees and relief. But that would have meant telling taxpayers in Germany and other northern European countries that they might have to finance some of the bailout and recovery costs (as they will end up doing anyway). And it would have meant acknowledging that heavily exposed German and French banks might have to be recapitalized at taxpayer expense. Other Europeans will of course blame “the Jews” for their latest problems.

- arnon

July 20, 2011 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What explains fashionable hostility toward Israel? Building. Settlements. In. The. West. Bank." I don't understand. Can you elaborate?

- noga1

July 20, 2011 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Though I agree with much that Mr. Peretz has written the essay's title is somewhat off the mark. He hasn't answered the question what "explains the fashionable hostility to Israel," unless his occasional jibes at the anti-Jewish postures of some prominent Jewish writers count as an explanation. Explaining Jew-hatred has been a millennial past-time of the Jewish people, but our speculations haven't yielded any satisfying explanations.

- ravgershom@verizon.net

July 20, 2011 at 6:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Man oh Man. There is just no pleasing some peoples. In some respects it's your own damned fault. yooz jooz. I mean really.... the clan namesake is so texturally perfect for fitting a spit like sneer. A nearly perfect sonic texture for a disgusted accusation. No wonder it sticks. Can't get much better than a oo as in pyoo on the heels of a nice hard 'J'. And isn't it about time y'all got over the holocaust? That is.... if it ever really happened. Talk about leveraging paranoia. But that's Jooz for ya. They'll trade on anything. They're all the same, too. Just differences in procedure. The ultimate goal being to screw the mark. Ain't no match for Psychokike. Peerless in all depravity. The list is endless. These days frisson flavors are acquired via cheap negation as a proxy differentiation. Individuation on the budget plan. On the cheap..... that should appeal to Jews. Have a nice day! Jack

- jacko

July 20, 2011 at 6:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga says: "You wouldn't call these criticisms antisemitic, would you. The problem arises at three sticking points: 1. When Jewish nationalism is taken to be a criminal project to be cancelled, dissolved, in favour of a one state solution in which Jews will automatically become a minority." _____________________________ At present, the most zealous advocate of a one-state solution is the Israeli right, including the government and prime minister or Israel. They, however, imagine it as an apartheid state in all but name so that there can be one state in which Jews are not the political minority. But what's in a name? As an alternative, they are willing to keep those pieces of the West Bank, all illegally settled by Israel, that they would like to keep in exchange for the Palestinians surrendering all of their claims in Israel. Meaning, they offer no alternative. Hence, an apartheid state coming into being before our eyes.

- roidubouloi

July 20, 2011 at 7:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, a Palestinian state would definitely be apartheid by definition would it not? Not by accident by definition. It is for example a capital crime to sell land to a Jew in the PA. What would happen to the people living on the other side of this imaginary border known as "The Green Line"? Which is not and never was a border, since nobody recognized Israel and wouldn't make peace with it? And, what is the status of Jews outside Israel? Please explain. The entire Middle East and much of Central Asia are already de facto "free of Jews" and in religious terms, Jews (and Christians) are second-class citizens at best under Islamic law. At worst they're gone and/or persecuted. It's wonderful to have the luxury of pointing fingers at the Israelis isn't it? Meanwhile though this does nothing to explain either regional or historical facts. Why oh why have people decided on this narrow focus - as if the whole problem with Israel = "the Palestinians" vs "The Apartheid State of Israel" instead of seeing the entire region and also, even just a few years of history? Or have people forgotten that Jews were living on "the West Bank" and in "East Jerusalem" for ages before these areas were totally and deliberately "cleansed" of Jews by the Jordanians, which then annexed the land? Subsequently, there were several attacks on Israel, with the intent to wipe it out, not by "the Palestinians" but by the Arab world as a whole to a greater or lesser degree; and the Arab League as a whole continues to boycott Jews (since the boycott precedes the establishment of Eretz Israel - also - it has affected Jews who would work in the oil industry). Finally, please take a good look at KSA. Jews are allowed in Mecca? Medina? What happened to the Jews who used to live there? Let's not forget, Saudi Arabia and the aforementioned cities, in which many Jews used to live, is the spiritual center of the Muslim world - so this problem with Israel extends far beyond issues of "the settlements." Doesn't it?

- Sophia

July 20, 2011 at 7:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

PS, those boycotting Israel do not formally include Egypt and Jordan. Is there a real peace? No. Indeed those treaties could be in dispute, depending upon who gets into power in those two states, where antisemitism is a real problem.

- Sophia

July 20, 2011 at 7:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

forgot to add the title of this official Israel Foreign Ministrty video starring Danny Ayalon : "Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the West Bank" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo&feature=player_embedded#at=364 As to Peretz's critique of Hertzberg and Remnick? They join in the fashionable left-ish groupthink that leads to Israel and Netanyahu-bashing because they want to get invited to the Manhattan dinner parties that sustain Hertzberg and Remnick as Fashionable Influentialistas . Not like Hertzberg wants to have dinner in Borough Park, or even Riverdale... Benny Morris yesterday, about how palestinian point of view is NOT about the "settlements": http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/eliminating-israel-5627 not that it matters, but I used "rabid dogs" as a descriptor of commenters sooooo disappointed that Peretz did NOT write about Israel's anti-boycott legislation.

- K2K

July 20, 2011 at 8:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... so this problem with Israel extends far beyond issues of "the settlements." Doesn't it?" My poor deluded deeply-brain-washed Sophia, no, it doesn't. The problem is Netanyahu. Just happened to visit a website where the issue is discussed. Not the issue of settlements, that's so passé! The real issue of what to do with all those Jews living in Israel once Israel becomes a real democracy. http://972mag.com/ir2/ Choice quotes from commenters: "Saeed Hotary Any Jew who occupies any part of historic Palestine is a zionist. Zionism will not be conquered until former zionists exercise their right of return OUT of Palestine. I dont buy this distinction of non zionist vs left zionist. Both you and Larry are not part of the solution as is" *** "It is a call for a new Past Zionist discourse. It seems that Zionism, as a word, ideology, theology or movement has emerged as the new battlefield between those who would claim to be better Zionists: the settlers and their supporters, and those who say that a “Zionist is not a settler” and that “we” need to end the Occupation to save ourselves. In the meantime, ultra-right nationalism thrives in Israel’s political system, the domestic human rights movement is under attack, settlement and occupation are ever more engrained as Israel’s civil religion, and Palestinian families are cleared out of East Jerusalem to make way for privileged “Zionists,” the settlers. This is not a criticism of those who would anchor their worldview or politics in Zionism. Rather it questions the wisdom and efficacy of such an investment, when what we really need is to focus on democracy, human rights and social justice. Perhaps, at a later point, Zionism can find its place in the discussion, and Judaism can work its way back into democracy. But for now, democracy must be the first priority because that is what is being molested at this time." *** "I am always shocked at the level of compassion and humanising of Israelis that I hear from Palestinians who have lost more than everything at Israeli hands. Even though Israelis (such as the ones who said youre drilling holes in the lifeboat his sympathisers and who probably formulate the majority in Israel) dont necessarily deserve such care from those the very people they are oppressing. After everything that was and is being done to the Palestinians, its only understandable there are those who feel like Saeed Hotary, whom you call an ethnic cleanser. Fantasies of having the brutal occupier leave the homeland they stole is not quite the same as the one that Zionists exercised the last 60 years. They really had 60 years to prove their intentions and failed at every turn. Would you be so forgiving if it happened to you? Israelis should be totally understanding if Palestinians feel like Saeed, but hope for forgiveness." *** "I am a 3rd generation refugee, but regard Jaffa, Palestine as my home. My family owned large amounts of commercially valuable property in Jaffa. When my Right of Return occurs, I want my property back. The world community will soon impose the Right of Return on isreael, so I dont need to negotiate to get less than I would otherwise. In terms of you living in israel since age 6, that is your problem. That means that your family has been trespassing for a long time. Most countries deport illegal immigrants even if they have been in the country for decades. You and your families do not have the permission of the Palestinian people to remain in Palestine. Russia welcomes you home"

- noga1

July 20, 2011 at 8:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ravgershom@verizon.net “Though I agree with much that Mr. Peretz has written the essay's title is somewhat off the mark. He hasn't answered the question what "explains the fashionable hostility to Israel," unless his occasional jibes at the anti-Jewish postures of some prominent Jewish writers count as an explanation. Explaining Jew-hatred has been a millennial past-time of the Jewish people, but our speculations haven't yielded any satisfying explanations.” I agree that Peretz didn’t explain much, Rav Gershom. Jew hatred is such a complex phenomenon that no single explanation would suffice. This is because there are many kinds of Jew hatred, religious, economic, social, political, and national. Wherever and whenever Jews come into competition with non-Jews anti-Semitism in some form will arise. Unlike you I think that there have been many good explanations but explain a phenomenon is not the same as changing it. If by fashionable people Peretz mean writers, educators and other Jewish intellectuals then there is a long tradition of anti-Zionism among these folk that goes back to the turn of the last century from Karl Kraus to Freud, from Trotsky to Rosa Luxemburg; or from Trilling to the writers at the New Yorker. This was due in part because they thought of themselves as “exceptions” while they were born Jews they believed that they were somehow above the “Jewish herd” the “superstitious riff raff.” Little did they think that they too cold and would be targeted as Jews. It came as a real shock to Trotsky when he realized that being a Soviet leader didn’t save him from the Russian peasant and worker antisemitism. Before he died in exile he changed his mind about Zionism. It was too late for him and millions like him. Same with Freud who made fun of Jews who went to live in Jerusalem because the “Arabs” didn’t want then while a decade later he had to leave for London because the Austrians didn’t want the Jew either. Fashionable “Jewish” antisemitism is a fool’s game. No one knows what the future will bring out in people and nations. I suspect that there will be lots of chnages in Europe in the coming decade and not all of it positive for Jews living there.

- arnon

July 20, 2011 at 9:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hope that Noga and 2K2 don't take over the discussion as they usually do.

- arnon

July 20, 2011 at 9:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The magazine is a trendy political web magazine from Israel but they did publish a good article on the flotilla: "Flotilla passengers are no more than post-modern tourists Passengers on the flotilla are a post-modern type of tourist, but only simply tourists nonetheless. They can role-play heroes, but ultimately they are not looking to participate in genuine, meaningful humanitarian activity – that would ruin their sense of vacation." By Dr. Evgeni Klauber, Tel Aviv University http://972mag.com/gaza-flotilla-2011-post-modern-tourism/

- arnon

July 20, 2011 at 9:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

btw: some Israeli academics like to see themselves as "exceptions" in order to satisfy the West's anti-Israel academics that they are not really with the Yids.

- arnon

July 20, 2011 at 9:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@Mikelawyr22 "What explains fashionable hostility toward Israel? Building. Settlements. In. The. West. Bank." There. is. no. such. thing. as. "west. bank". It's a leftist label for Judea and Samaria taken by Israel as a result of successfully repelling the agression launched from Judea and Samaria by Jordan, which had it for 20 years. Why didn't they build a "palestinian" state there in 20 years? Because "palestinians" had not been invented in Moscow until 1964. The goal of militarily defeating Israel was not achieved, so a Trozkyite "permanent revolution" was emplyed instead, which a bunch of these unfortunate souls in Gaza and Judea and Samaria chosed to be the avant-guard of the slow-bleeding revolution. Besides, their chosen Trozky named (self) Arafat, was universally hated by anyone close to the House of Saud. Jewish villages in Judea and Smaria have existed for 2500 years, far longer than Pan-Arabism invented by the British during WWI. What's an Arab? What's a Palestinian? Arabs live in Arabia, and the arabized peoples in colonized lands are hardly the pan-arabists that you think they are.

- SayNo2TAM

July 20, 2011 at 10:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...for which a bunch of these unfortunate souls in Gaza and Judea and Samaria WERE chosen to be... Hey, TNR, too many scripts running on the comments page, I have a paid subscrtion, quit locking up when I type

- SayNo2TAM

July 20, 2011 at 10:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...Obama is offended by Bibi’s rhetorical style. But why is he so offended? Is he as offended by President Chavez of Venezuela?" Interesting. Marty Peretz, who has never been near the mechanisms of military power and was never a player in International Relations, no matter what he thinks of his failed effort to elbow his way into the Democratic establishment of the '60s and beyond, is calling the guy who killed Osama bin Laden soft on international thugs. "Its name was changed to Park51, no historic resonance. It’s also in financial troubles which means not even one Saudi princeling has come to its rescue." Who else but a hater of religious freedom would gloat like this (If gloating doesn't do it for you, it's also true that Peretz never once brought up what, to him, would be an "acceptable" alternative spot for that which is not-no matter how often he and other bigots keep lying about it-solely a mosque, but a building containing a mosque.)? At least Leon Wieseltier-whatever his Peretzian talent for ticking people off-was clear in his thinking about Park51. Peretz's views on it read like a spell - checked Free Republic message board.

- JTester

July 21, 2011 at 6:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Marty Peretz, who has never been near the mechanisms of military power and was never a player in International Relations" So only those who are near the mechanisms of military power and players in International Relations are allowed, as journalists, to find fault with Obama's management style and substance?

- noga1

July 21, 2011 at 9:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So only those who are near the mechanisms of military power and players in International Relations are allowed, as journalists, to find fault with Obama's management style and substance?" That's a straw man. Peretz doesn't just "find fault with Obama's management style and substance." Peretz thinks Obama is SOFT on criminals and dictators like Chavez, more sympathetic to them than to democratically-elected leaders like Bibi Netanyahu. Read what Peretz wrote. It's a serious charge that amounts to calling the President of the United States a traitor, and I'm sure it delights those sick few who still think POTUS is a secret agent of a foreign country. What Peretz wants is for Obama to be chest-thumpingly belligerent to everyone who so much as looks at America the wrong way. Why, in his last column, Peretz mocked Obama for not opening a third war front against the Sudan on the grounds that Obama simply believes initiating another war would be "Bush - like." 'Ya see, the President doesn't care about the economic toll a new war might take on our country. Nor is POTUS worried about where he'd get the personnel without a draft, he's just so petty that the ONLY thing he is worried about is coming across the same way as his predecessor. (http://bit.ly/pZdb70) From the renowned psychologist Marty Peretz, we also learn that the President's "heart is not in" the battle in Libya (this is the last column, again), despite recent newspaper reports suggesting the dictator's willing to depart, meaning America, and by extension, its C-in-C did its job. I could go on about Peretz's indifference to past American torture of prisoners in the War On Terror, but then, he'd wonder how Muslims across the world could possibly think Americans despised their religion, even though I know America did not intend to crush a religion, just that it briefly took up a wartime tactic because its leaders wanted quick results, but didn't get them. I don't care about any murderous Islamist who was tortured. I care about the American soldier scarred by it, the West Point graduate who knows it goes against everything she learned there, the non-criminal wrongly caught in a dragnet and tortured. One can be a hawk on military matters, but it helps to be a thinking hawk. It'd be nice to see more than brainless belligerence from Marty Peretz. It'd be nice if, for once, he did some actual reporting from a local military hospital or vets' shelter in an effort to close the gap between his words and the people who act on them. It'd be nice if he answered how America could fight a war in the Sudan in the absence of a draft. Apparently, according to him, we shouldn't even be in AFGHANISTAN, yet he blasts POTUS for being soft! How should we have responded to 9/11, Mr. Peretz? That's another question I'd like an answer to. Finally, I'd like Peretz to imagine President Obama as something better than a traitor to America and Israel: a president taking a lot of lumps, while gaining a few big wins (such as on health care, bin Laden, and DADT) at a time in history that would challenge ANY American President, but this is probably too much to ask.

- JTester

July 21, 2011 at 11:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A few eclectic comments, joining in rather late in the communal rant. a) When does criticism of Israel spill into antisemitism? About 7 years ago or so, Natan Sharansky proposed what he calls the 3-D test (the article was first published in the Jerusalem Post but the original link doesn't seem to work; a similar article appeared about 6 years ago in The Forward and can be read here). His criteria are straightforward: when criticism of Israel takes the form of Demonization, Double standards, or Delegitimization, then the criticism is in reality antisemitism. I would add a 4th "D", effectively Denying Israel the right to defend itself. Arguably this just an example of a double-standard. However it has become so common -- "Israel has the right to defend itself but...." -- I think it should be listed separately. This is basically saying that Israel has the right to defend itself but just doesn't have the right to effectively exercise that right. In other words the proper role of Jews in the world is as powerless victims (their are some extreme left Israeli groups, for example Zochrot, that have effectively stated this quite explicitly). b) Roid is accurate in saying that there are those on the Israeli right who are actively advocating a single, unitary state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, but he is not accurate in saying that those who are advocating this position (a rather small but growing group) envision an apartheid state. Quite the contrary. Their position is basically to adapt the model of the post-'67 neighborhoods of Jerusalem -- immediate permanent residency for the Palestinians in Judea & Samaria (which gives all the rights of Israeli citizenship, except to vote in national elections) with the option, after a period of 5 or 10 years, to request citizenship. The advocates of this position (which include among others Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin, Likud MK Tzippy Hottobelli & others). They firmly believe (wrongly in my opinion) that Israel will still be able to remain a Jewish state under these conditions; those like myself who disagree with them have come, or are coming, to terms with the reality that the majority of what is the heartland of Jewish history will be lost to a Palestinian state that will effectively be Judenrein by abu Mazen's own statements. BTW, since the last election more and more Pals in the post-'67 neighborhoods of Jerusalem are applying for Israeli citizenship. I don't recall the exact numbers but it's several fold over what it had been in previous years. In other words these Pals don't want to take chances and be "left behind" to live under the P.A. and its minions. c) The term "West Bank" was invented by the Jordanians -- then the TransJordanians -- in the early 1950's as part of their annexation of the territory. At that time the term "Palestinians" still referred overwhelmingly to Jews lived in the Land of Israel under the British Mandate. What are now the Palestinians were then known simply as Arabs, or southern Syrians (the term Syria itself first came into active use only in the late 19th or early 20th century; the term appears in the Talmud (actually the Mishna) as "Sooria" and is used to refer to the western Golan Heights in discussions on the applicability of various agriculturally related mitzvot to crops raised in "Syria"; it may also appear in the Book of Macabees) BTW, when the Romans suppressed the Great Revolt in the year 70 C.E., destroying the 2nd Temple in the process, they issued commemorative coins (as was their wont) that showed a Roman soldier standing over a grieving Jewess, and had the inscription "Iudea Capta" -- Judea has been conquered -- and not "West Bank Capta" or "Palestina Capta". There is a reason for this. Can you guess what it is? d) The provisions of the recently passed anti-boycott law have been wildly distorted and misrepresented in the Western media and to a large degree the Israeli media as well (see Ha'aretz). Not surprisingly. The law is not a criminal statute; rather it is a civil one. What the law does is give an entity the right to sue for damages in a CIVIL proceeding if it can prove it has been damaged by someone or a group that publicly called for a boycott against that entity, because of their affinity to the State of Israel or its institutions or an area under Israel's control. This is allows those who are damaged by the calls for a boycott to be made whole again. Note that no one is being forced to change their opinions or to buy from settlements or even maintain academic relations with Israeli universities. But those who publicly call for such boycotts and successfully cause economic damage can be held to account. In other words those being boycotted can defend themselves. A reasonable analogy would be libel laws. In other words, the constitution is not a suicide pact. NGO Monitor (which opposed the law on practical grounds) has a very good analysis, including a translation of the law into English (here) worth reading. I personally was not thrilled with the law not because I felt it was inherently wrong, but because I knew it would be wildly distorted in the western media and as such would boomerang back at Israel. In other words, low expectations on the intellectual honesty of those who look for every opportunity to jump down Israel's throat. Unfortunately I was not disappointed. e) On the left's adoption of the Pals as an "anti-imperialist struggle" and the consequent rabid anti-Zionism: The origins of this go back to Stalin who in one of his major speeches defined Zionism as a non-legitimate national liberation movement (not surprising for a rabid antiSemite). The real push came from the Frankfurt School in the 60's who, despairing of fomenting Marxist revolution based on class struggle (you mean Karl may have been wrong?) recast that class struggle as anti-imperialism and adopted the Palestinians as a officially sanctioned national liberation movement. This accelerated after the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa with the realization that consistent and long term economic sanctions can work. Israel was particularly targeted because of its small size, lack of natural resources (this long preceded the discovery of large natural gas deposits in the Mediterranean), and wavering economy (again, before Israel became a high-tech powerhouse). Naomi Klein has stated this publicly. This is also discussed in Michael Gove's Celius 7/7, and in far greater detail (I'm told; I did not read the book as yet) in Robin Shepherd's A State Beyond the Pale: Europe's Problem with Israel . And as with the "Radical Chic" of the late '60s & early 70's the fashionableness of lefty antiIsraelism flowed from there. Enough for now. It's getting late and I still have to do my pre-Shabbat chores. Shabat Shalom - שבת שלום Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

July 22, 2011 at 9:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

good advice to the perenially politicking non-executive who still does not understand his current job description: "...In 2½ years, he has reached the point that took George W. Bush five years to reach: People aren't listening anymore. ... We're trying to begin a comeback, not a famine. We're trying to take actions that will allow us to grow. He's like a walking headache. He's probably triggering Michele Bachmann's migraines. ... The president, if he is seriously trying to avert a debt crisis, should stay in his office, meet with members, and work the phones, all with a new humility, which would be well received. It is odd how he patronizes those with more experience and depth in national affairs. ... For now, for his sake and the sake of an ultimate plan, he should choose Strategic Silence. Really, recent presidents forget to shut up. They lose sight of how grating they are." Peggy Noonan "Out of the Way, Please, Mr. President" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576460381949867902.html linked from RealClearPolitics today.

- K2K

July 22, 2011 at 9:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

had I known ginzy was posting such excellent points at 9:12 am, I would not have wasted my comment at 9:18 am on the O, even tho Peggy Noonan did brighten my morning. Shabbat Shalom to all, and to Jews being safe in Judea and Samaria, and an eternally undivided Jerusalem.

- K2K

July 22, 2011 at 10:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

People like simple stories. The narrative that is taking hold these days is that the Jews simply moved in and kicked people out of their homes and called it Israel.

- jacko

July 22, 2011 at 4:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For me it is a pleasure to read the deep love MP has for Israel and the Jewish people. His honesty is overwhelming. His strong feelings and expressions are of a true defender of my people. It is so refreshing and fills me of extreme positive karma. Because when I used to read, and I do not any longer, those detractors like the Roger Cohens, Thomas Freedmans of this world, with their dishonest attacks of Israel, it made me angry and sad at the same time. I became to realize that these people although articulate, are not very intelligent. Roger Cohen from the beginning showed so much ignorance that I have skipped him ever since. Thomas Freedman decided a long time ago to be intensely dishonest and a fraud. David Brooks on the other hand decided that he will write as little as possible about Israel. It is obvious that these gentlemen have decided to keep their jobs and not antagonize the Ochs Schulbergers who still control editorial power of the NYT. The Ochs Schulbergers family are self hatred Jews, and the damage done to Israel is very serious. I talk of encouraging with their reporting pro Palestinian and anti Israel to the murdering of Jewish lives. I stopped reading the New York Times a long time ago specially whenever Israel is concerned. Their anti Israel venom is so intense that makes me puke. Amazingly enough is for others not to have noticed or point it with enough strength. It is clear that we have taken the NYT and forgive their criminal bias because used to be an articulate well documented newspaper. But the New York Times was always hypocrite tendencious very good English. The damage this newspaper has brought to Jewish values and Israel is quite significant. Well we are humans have to be philosophical. Still I enjoy the New York Yankees, and other stories. I do not pay a cent for it. May be The NYT coalesced the Self Hatred Jews among us. Will there be justice? For the time being I will rejoice when the new owners like Carlos Slim the Mexican Lebanese new owners gets rid of the Ochs Schulbergers once and for all. Can you imagine a New York Times that is honest and fair ? That is when you become a mentsch, a human being. Thank you Martin Peretz you are a true mentsch you make me proud of being a Jew.

- JAIMECHUCH

July 22, 2011 at 6:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For me it is a pleasure to read the deep love MP has for Israel and the Jewish people. His honesty is overwhelming. His strong feelings and expressions are of a true defender of my people. It is so refreshing and fills me of extreme positive karma. Because when I used to read, and I do not any longer, those detractors like the Roger Cohens, Thomas Freedmans of this world, with their dishonest attacks of Israel, it made me angry and sad at the same time. I became to realize that these people although articulate, are not very intelligent. Roger Cohen from the beginning showed so much ignorance that I have skipped him ever since. Thomas Freedman decided a long time ago to be intensely dishonest and a fraud. David Brooks on the other hand decided that he will write as little as possible about Israel. It is obvious that these gentlemen have decided to keep their jobs and not antagonize the Ochs Schulbergers who still control editorial power of the NYT. The Ochs Schulbergers family are self hatred Jews, and the damage done to Israel is very serious. I talk of encouraging with their reporting pro Palestinian and anti Israel to the murdering of Jewish lives. I stopped reading the New York Times a long time ago specially whenever Israel is concerned. Their anti Israel venom is so intense that makes me puke. Amazingly enough is for others not to have noticed or point it with enough strength. It is clear that we have taken the NYT and forgive their criminal bias because used to be an articulate well documented newspaper. But the New York Times was always hypocrite tendencious very good English. The damage this newspaper has brought to Jewish values and Israel is quite significant. Well we are humans have to be philosophical. Still I enjoy the New York Yankees, and other stories. I do not pay a cent for it. May be The NYT coalesced the Self Hatred Jews among us. Will there be justice? For the time being I will rejoice when the new owners like Carlos Slim the Mexican Lebanese new owners gets rid of the Ochs Schulbergers once and for all. Can you imagine a New York Times that is honest and fair ? That is when you become a mentsch, a human being. Thank you Martin Peretz you are a true mentsch you make me proud of being a Jew.

- JAIMECHUCH

July 22, 2011 at 6:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For me it is a pleasure to read the deep love MP has for Israel and the Jewish people. His honesty is overwhelming. His strong feelings and expressions are of a true defender of my people. It is so refreshing and fills me of extreme positive karma. Because when I used to read, and I do not any longer, those detractors like the Roger Cohens, Thomas Freedmans of this world, with their dishonest attacks of Israel, it made me angry and sad at the same time. I became to realize that these people although articulate, are not very intelligent. Roger Cohen from the beginning showed so much ignorance that I have skipped him ever since. Thomas Freedman decided a long time ago to be intensely dishonest and a fraud. David Brooks on the other hand decided that he will write as little as possible about Israel. It is obvious that these gentlemen have decided to keep their jobs and not antagonize the Ochs Schulbergers who still control editorial power of the NYT. The Ochs Schulbergers family are self hatred Jews, and the damage done to Israel is very serious. I talk of encouraging with their reporting pro Palestinian and anti Israel to the murdering of Jewish lives. I stopped reading the New York Times a long time ago specially whenever Israel is concerned. Their anti Israel venom is so intense that makes me puke. Amazingly enough is for others not to have noticed or point it with enough strength. It is clear that we have taken the NYT and forgive their criminal bias because used to be an articulate well documented newspaper. But the New York Times was always hypocrite tendencious very good English. The damage this newspaper has brought to Jewish values and Israel is quite significant. Well we are humans have to be philosophical. Still I enjoy the New York Yankees, and other stories. I do not pay a cent for it. May be The NYT coalesced the Self Hatred Jews among us. Will there be justice? For the time being I will rejoice when the new owners like Carlos Slim the Mexican Lebanese new owners gets rid of the Ochs Schulbergers once and for all. Can you imagine a New York Times that is honest and fair ? That is when you become a mentsch, a human being. Thank you Martin Peretz you are a true mentsch you make me proud of being a Jew.

- JAIMECHUCH

July 22, 2011 at 6:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For me it is a pleasure to read the deep love MP has for Israel and the Jewish people. His honesty is overwhelming. His strong feelings and expressions are of a true defender of my people. It is so refreshing and fills me of extreme positive karma. Because when I used to read, and I do not any longer, those detractors like the Roger Cohens, Thomas Freedmans of this world, with their dishonest attacks of Israel, it made me angry and sad at the same time. I became to realize that these people although articulate, are not very intelligent. Roger Cohen from the beginning showed so much ignorance that I have skipped him ever since. Thomas Freedman decided a long time ago to be intensely dishonest and a fraud. David Brooks on the other hand decided that he will write as little as possible about Israel. It is obvious that these gentlemen have decided to keep their jobs and not antagonize the Ochs Schulbergers who still control editorial power of the NYT. The Ochs Schulbergers family are self hatred Jews, and the damage done to Israel is very serious. I talk of encouraging with their reporting pro Palestinian and anti Israel to the murdering of Jewish lives. I stopped reading the New York Times a long time ago specially whenever Israel is concerned. Their anti Israel venom is so intense that makes me puke. Amazingly enough is for others not to have noticed or point it with enough strength. It is clear that we have taken the NYT and forgive their criminal bias because used to be an articulate well documented newspaper. But the New York Times was always hypocrite tendencious very good English. The damage this newspaper has brought to Jewish values and Israel is quite significant. Well we are humans have to be philosophical. Still I enjoy the New York Yankees, and other stories. I do not pay a cent for it. May be The NYT coalesced the Self Hatred Jews among us. Will there be justice? For the time being I will rejoice when the new owners like Carlos Slim the Mexican Lebanese new owners gets rid of the Ochs Schulbergers once and for all. Can you imagine a New York Times that is honest and fair ? That is when you become a mentsch, a human being. Thank you Martin Peretz you are a true mentsch you make me proud of being a Jew.

- JAIMECHUCH

July 22, 2011 at 6:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was deeply disappointed when Arrifat was allowed to touch US soil without throwing his terrorist ass in jail back in 1988. Schultz put up a fight but relinquished after beacoup pressure from various interest groups to include Soviets, etc. Allowing a school bus bomber any space or credibility was a huge mistake. Those credentials disqualify the person and his supporters from making any kind of deal one can trust. It ratified the worst possible allowances to an incredibly convoluted rationale filled with lies and justifications via virulent contagion of victimhood pretense. Watching the ubiquity of terrorism has unfortunately and tragically been unsurprising. How does one make a deal that has any hope of integrity in such a circumstance?

- jacko

July 22, 2011 at 7:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now we are to believe that the Israeli right wants a unitary state and is willing to give all the inhabitants of the land between the Jordan and the sea full political rights. I don't believe this for an instant.

- roidubouloi

July 22, 2011 at 11:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But if it were so, then, by noga's definition, the Israeli right consists of a bunch of anti-Semites. Who knew?

- roidubouloi

July 22, 2011 at 11:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, It's disappointing for me that you aren't really addressing the meat of Peretz's article, which is that anti-semitism is on the rise and seems totally out-of-whack to whatever wrongs Israel has committed. I'd really love to hear your take. You can't possibly believe that this recent surge is completely due to the illegal/immoral buildiing in the West Bank. So what are your thoughts--I'm really curious to know. You wrote a very eloquent defense of Israel's right to exist a while back--and a negation of right of return. Surely you must have thoughts on this matter.

- MOLLYSIMON

July 23, 2011 at 12:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But if it were so, then, by noga's definition, the Israeli right consists of a bunch of anti-Semites. Who knew?" "noga's definition"?? I think you miss me, roidubouloi. I'm all a-flutter.

- noga1

July 23, 2011 at 9:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As per Ginzy's referencing Sharansky's 3D test: " When does criticism of Israel spill into antisemitism? About 7 years ago or so, Natan Sharansky proposed what he calls the 3-D test (the article was first published in the Jerusalem Post but the original link doesn't seem to work; a similar article appeared about 6 years ago in The Forward and can be read here). His criteria are straightforward: when criticism of Israel takes the form of Demonization, Double standards, or Delegitimization, then the criticism is in reality antisemitism. I would add a 4th "D", effectively Denying Israel the right to defend itself. " I want to add two things: 1. Ginzy's 4th D is a extremely important since the formula of " Israel has the right to defend itself but.." is employed in criticism of Israel not only by the extreme Left but by many mainstream leaders, politicians, media pundits, journalists, bloggers and what have you. Yet Ginzy is absolutely correct that it is effectively a denial of the right to protect oneself. My own understanding is that it is so dangerous because though it sounds moderate and humane while in actual fact it could be seen as the logical derivation from Sharansky's third D: delegitimization. There is an underlying presumption in this admonition that Israel's existence is an error, a travesty of history or whatever, and therefore this entity, this existence, while it technically has a right to defend itself, really shouldn't, because "A Wrong life cannot be lived rightly.” (Theodor W. Adorno). This denial is more than a denial of a right to self-defence. It is a denial of Jewish right of self-determination, which cannot be maintained while being defenceless. In 1994 Claude Lantzmann released a documentary, "Tsahal", a film about the Israeli army. Here is a key passage from an interview with Lantzmann following ther ecent re-release of the film: "In "Tsahal" I also knew exactly what I wanted to tell: the creation an army, the construction of an army, the creation of courage. This army represents a victory of the Jewish people over themselves. There had never been a Jewish army before. My film tells how Jews took their fate into their own hands to avoid ever become victims again. I show how they overcame the victim role and overcame a mental predisposition. In the Israeli army life is valued higher than anything else. And yet every soldier in the Tsahal is prepared to give his life. Unlike other armies of the world, the soldiers of the Tsahal do not die for the glory of their fatherland, they die for life alone. You should not forget that the genocide of the Jews in the Second World War was not just a murder of innocents. It was also a genocide of the defenceless. My film describes the path to overcome defencelessness. It describes how the Jewish people empowered themselves with weapons and it describes the psychological metamorphosis that the people had to undergo, in order to build an army like the Tsahal, in order to be able to defend themselves, to be able to kill. For decades, young Israelis have been growing up with the insecurity of knowing that no-one can guarantee that "Israel will still exist in 2025". 2. The demonization of Israel is akin to antisemitic demonization of Jews, and evokes in Jews the same feelings of fear and helplessness. It is the same moral outrage that Holocaust denial invokes. Why? Because demonization is about propagating huge lies, relentlessly, openly, loudly, that dismantling this edifice of lies becomes impossible, exactly like trying to collect back all the feathers the flew away from the torn pillow in the famous rabbinical fable about slander. The damage of the lie is irreversible. The proof is that antisemitism continues to flourish even in its classical formats. What popular lie does Israel have to defeat these days? http://www.ericlee.info/blog/?p=499 "All of that is left out, as if it doesn’t matter. And as a result, in a world in which there is no Hamas, no fascist regime in Iran seeking to build nuclear weapons to destroy the Jewish state — in that world, and only in that world, Vally’s article makes sense. He accuses Israel of “violent occupation, apartheid, genocide and gross human rights abuse” — no less. The Palestinians, of course, are just victims. The Israelis — the aggressors. I’m arguing for the importance of context, of seeing Israel as an embattled state with genuine security concerns. The vast majority of Israelis want a two-state solution and an end to decades of conflict. Probably most Palestinians want this as well. Labelling one side as perpetrators of apartheid and genocide hardly helps matters. Calling Israel an apartheid state is the core of the problem, because it’s a lie. It’s a potent lie, particularly in South Africa — and it must be challenged, every day, everywhere it is used."

- noga1

July 23, 2011 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Shavu'a Tov, Roid, nearly all of those on the right who favor a unitary state are quite open about granting the Pals permanent residency leading to an option (on the Pals part) to apply for citizenship. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. They firmly believe that Israel will still be able to remain a Jewish state even if most or all of the Pals ultimately elect to obtain citizenship. You or I may think that it's not the wisest of ideas and may think their considerations border on the delusional, but that doesn't change the reality that their plans exist. It was written up some months ago, maybe a year ago, in Ha'aretz. If I remember correctly, I think I read it in the Hebrew edition of the paper; I think I tried to find it in the English version (so I could send it around) but I never found it on the English language Ha'aretz site. If your Hebrew is good enough (and if my memory is not deceiving me) you still should be able to find it on the Ha'aretz's Hebrew site. BTW, from the perspective of Ruby Rivlin, the current Knesset Chairman who advocates this position, granting the Pals the option of citizenship flows directly from the writings of Jabotinsky. Others like MK Tzippy Hottobelli or author / journalist / former YeShA Council spokeswoman Emily Amrousi who come from the National-Religious sector, note that for years now there have been quiet contacts developing between many "settlers" and their local Palestinian neighbors getting to know each other and having frank discussions. So Hottobelli & Amrousi feel that if Hamas, Fatah, & the PLO were tossed out, peaceful coexistence would reign and Israel could still remain a Jewish state. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. I don't know that I want to do the experiment necessary to get the answer. BTW, a Palestinian from a nearby village who does some work for us periodically and occasionally have helped out financially, told us that he married off one of his kids a few weeks ago and wanted to invite us to the wedding (a very simple affair in his house) but did not because it was held on a Friday evening and he knew we couldn't come. Would we have gone had not been held during Shabbat? I honestly don't know... there a lot of complicating factors pro & con (for starters it wasn't exactly kosher-catered). Invites like this are not that unusual, although they were far more common before the advent of the Oslo Accords (Arafat & his minions frowned upon friendly relations between Pals & "settlers" and a frowning Arafat could be quite dangerous to a simple Pal's health); not surprisingly to the extent such contacts existed post-Oslo, they became even less common after the outbreak of the Oslo Accords War in September 2000, not the least because Areas A & B in Judea and Samaria are largely off-limits to Jewish Israelis, this by IDF rules. But they still exist. I recently met someone, a resident of Kiryat Arba (the Israeli community next to Hebron) who still has a lot of Pal friends deep inside the P.A. ruled parts of Hebron, and visits them periodically especially to attend weddings & the like. A year or two ago some Hebron Pals actually risked their necks by publicly stating that they would get along fine with the Jews if the left wing "human rights" NGOs & the press would only stay out of Hebron. Do you read about any of this in the allegedly august NY Times (a.k.a., Valhalla) or other stalwarts of the mainstream media? Of course not. That would take way too much intellectual honesty, to say nothing of some journalistic hard work to dig up the stories. And both of these commodities are very hard to find among those who report on Israel as well as their employers. hg

- ginzy

July 23, 2011 at 3:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

thanks noga and ginzy, for adding to the dialog depth. it seems increasingly difficult for "the left wing "human rights" NGOs & the press" to focus on Israel - too many other places where state-sponsored violence against their own citizens; actual devastating famine; and the very interesting repercussions of South Sudan joining the UN (Kurdistan, Somaliland, and Puntland actually make the news on the subject of self-determination). hard to describe the suffering in Gaza when supply of BMWs can not meet demand. I confess to being amused when BBC America news has no time to even mention Israel in the bottom banners.

- K2K

July 23, 2011 at 7:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear Ginzy, Please allow me to express appreciation for your offerings. They wear the marks of sincerity and honesty. I often think and feel myself better informed by your contributions here. I should mention that I am not Jewish but do have a fairly intense interest in the issues which you explore. Once again, thanks for your perspectives. Be well. Jack

- jacko

July 23, 2011 at 8:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The direct impact of Natan Sharansky on Governor Rick Perry during his visit to Israel in 2007: http://governor.state.tx.us/news/editorial/10319/ Just a coincidence that Texas companies are in the lead in working to develop Israel's offshore gas and shale oil :)

- K2K

July 23, 2011 at 8:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear Jacko, Thank you for your kind words. Ditto to you too K2K. Regarding why Texas companies are in the lead to develop Israel's offshore gas, it could just as easily be having extensive experience in deep water drilling & gas production. Regarding the shale oil, I think it's more a matter of advanced, cutting edge technology to get the oil out of the shale. I should note that many, if not most Israelis would probably be happy to forgo the shale oil if the natural gas deposits live up to expectations. Shale oil production is rife with environmental problems especially for a small country like Israel. hg

- ginzy

July 24, 2011 at 8:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see nothing has changed here -- excellent comments from Peretz, Noga, Sophia, and K2K, and drivel from RoiDuBoisDeBoulogne.

- TNR.Reader

July 24, 2011 at 10:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

... and a superb post by GInzy: "A year or two ago some Hebron Pals actually risked their necks by publicly stating that they would get along fine with the Jews if the left wing "human rights" NGOs & the press would only stay out of Hebron. Do you read about any of this in the allegedly august NY Times (a.k.a., Valhalla) or other stalwarts of the mainstream media? Of course not."

- TNR.Reader

July 24, 2011 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ginzy: if Israel has shale oil reserves comparable to Saudi Arabia, then solve the environmental problems! I thought the shale formation is at least two miles above the aquifer southwest of Jerusalem. Colorado apparently has more than one trillion barrels of shale oil reserves, but the aquifer runs through the shale formation. My attitude is that Colorado should be sacrificed (eminent domain) for the economic security of America. as to why Texas companies are in the lead in Israel? well, not like Norway's offshore techno-companies would be willing to invest...

- K2K

July 24, 2011 at 1:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've been told that, in the very near future Israel's water supply will come mainly from desalination plants.

- noga1

July 24, 2011 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the real advantage of Israel's shale oil deposits being same volume as Saudi Arabia is how that can totally change geo-politics. No one would have to bow to The Kingdom, which would become another Chinese economic colony. I think ginzy was referring to the environmental issues associated with the shale oil extraction process - use of chemicals. I think the risk of Arab invasion to take Israeli oil is a far bigger risk...

- K2K

July 24, 2011 at 7:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

from a more complex analysis at: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/07/24/3088679/norway-killer-espoused-new-right-wing-pro-israel-philosophy assuming this is based on post-massacre interviews, this is beyond "fashionable hostility": "...German journalist Ulrich Sahm reported on the pro-Israel Israelnetz.com website that many of the youths who survived the massacre said they thought the killer, dressed as a police officer, was simulating Israeli crimes against Palestinians in the occupied territories. They believed that "the cruelty of the Israeli occupation" was being demonstrated to them, Sahm wrote. ..." [I confess to being stunned by the thought that educated Norwegian teenagers thought this. I kind of hoped that maybe a few Norwegians would realize the threat of this kind of brutal terror-murder is what Israeli Jews live with 24/7. Silly me. It is a Norwegian media company that owns Sweden's Aftonbladet, source of the 2009 blood libel against the IDF]

- K2K

July 24, 2011 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close