FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

One of my earliest memories was of my grandfather sitting in his armchair, smoking his Camels and reading his Yiddish newspaper, the Forward (פֿאָרװערטס). It was a big deal in our neighborhood one day when he was elected to a post in The Union, and a tiny picture of him (with Camel, of course) appeared in its columns.

The Forward was always a socialist paper, but that was before this necessarily implied anti-Zionism. Today the Forward rarely misses an opportunity to dump on Israel. But I’m still shocked when what is supposed to be a responsible newspaper prints something which is obviously, demonstrably false:

From the moment the Goldstone Report was released in September 2009, its lead author has been subjected to fierce, well-orchestrated attacks by Israeli and American Jews who purport to be defending the legitimacy of the Jewish state and the safety of the Jewish people. Rather than discuss the contents of the report — which concluded that during the 2008-2009 Gaza war, Israel (as well as Hamas) may have committed war crimes — Israel’s defenders launched an all-points campaign to bury it. — Letty Cotton Pogrebin, “The Un-Jewish Assault on Richard Goldstone”

I don’t know what Ms Pogrebin was smoking when she wrote this, but it was definitely not my grandfather’s Camels!

The Goldstone report was commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council, a UN body dominated by countries belonging to the Islamic bloc. It was based on reports from hostile non-governmental organizations financed to a great extent by the European Union and left-wing foundations, and accompanied by Hamas representatives during their ‘fact-finding’. Hamas inventions were uncritically accepted as true reports, and casualty figures — especially civilians and children — were massively inflated. Worse, a vicious lie — the accusation that it was official IDF policy to harm civilians in order to ‘punish’ them for supporting Hamas was promulgated.

Pogrebin is correct that the Goldstone report was immediately attacked by Jews and others who were outraged at the slander, reminiscent of medieval blood libels. But she is clearly flying beyond the orbit of Pluto when she says that they did not discuss the contents of the report.

One of many pro-Israel bloggers who attacked the contents of the report is the one called ‘Elder of Ziyon’, who wrote more than 25 in-depth articles detailing factual and legal errors in the report, articles totaling more than 21,000 words. In addition. he and several others performed an exhaustive analysis of claimed civilian casualties, and showed that the great majority were indeed combatants (see here and here).

A great deal of the research carried out by these writers appears on the Understanding the Goldstone Report site.

True, there is criticism of Judge Goldstone himself. How could there not be, given the profound dishonesty of the report that bears his name? And yes, it matters that he is a Jew, just as it matters that Pogrebin is, because both  of them trade on their Jewishness as a qualification for their anti-Zionism.

But please don’t tell us that Goldstone’s critics ignored the contents of the report and attacked him ad hominem, while you do precisely that to them!

And to the Forward’s editors: whatever happened to editorial judgment and fact-checking?

Technorati Tags: Goldstone report, Letty Cotton Pogrebin, Israel, Forward

News item:

A diplomatic cable from the UK embassy in Tel Aviv, dated May 4, 1980, warned “the situation in the region is deteriorating and with it Israel’s dangerous mood of isolation and defiance will grow. If they are to be destroyed they will go down fighting this time. They will be ready to use their atomic weapon. Because they cannot sustain a long war, they would have to use it early.”

The other time, of course, was the Holocaust. We don’t know what the man was thinking, so we don’t know if there is admiration here, or if he simply wishes ‘they’ would let themselves be destroyed without making a radioactive mess. Or maybe it’s just a straightforward analysis.

Thatcher said of Begin that she “had never had a more difficult man to deal with.” When she told Begin that his West Bank settlement building policy was “unrealistic” and “absurd” his reply had been “Judea and Samaria had been Jewish in biblical times and that they should therefore be so today.”

And Mrs. Thatcher’s argument that they should be Arab was somehow more to the point?

Technorati Tags: Israel

I have a problem with this.

Gil Troy denounces what he calls “Zionist racism”:

…in a strange perversion whereby victims of a smear absorb some characteristics bigots attribute to them, an ugly strain of Israeli racism is festering, threatening to delegitimize Zionism from within. Silent centrists must not stand by, idly watching racist rabbis in Tsfat ban selling houses to Arabs, young Jewish hooligans in Jerusalem beat Arabs, and loud bigots rally against Arabs and immigrants in Bat Yam and Tel Aviv.  Zionists must reject these immoral and outrageous acts as unwelcome in our otherwise big broad Zionist tent devoted to building a thriving, democratic Jewish state in the Jewish people’s traditional homeland.

Jewish racists betray Judaism and Jewish history. Having taught the world how humane and open religion can be, we must never forget Judaism’s sensitivity to others. Having suffered from discrimination, we must never practice it.

Similarly, Zionist racists betray Zionism and the Zionist mission.  Zionism’s rise is intertwined with liberal democratic nationalism, mixing ethnic and civic nationalism. And Zionism’s mandate to end anti-Semitism must never degenerate into discrimination against others.

First of all, I want to say that Troy is a Zionist and I often entirely agree with him. But this is unhelpful.

I really don’t want to get too deeply into a dissection of the concept of ‘racism’, but there is one thing that is essential to it: it is dislike or maltreatment of an ‘other’ simply because he is an other. And that’s not what’s going on here.

There is a problem between Jews and Arabs and it isn’t related to race, or language, or even — at least on the Jewish side — religion.

It’s based on the fact that the Arabs believe themselves to be the owners of the land, all of it, and they don’t want the Jews on it. This leads to all kinds of unpleasant behavior, from terrorism, to serious or petty crime, to demographic pressure, to merely trying to humiliate Jews in various ways.

This unsurprisingly creates a reaction among the Jews. The poorly-educated ones respond by becoming hooligans, a form of self-defeating behavior. The over-educated ones respond by internalizing the point of view of the Arabs and becoming traitors, also self-defeating.

But the struggle to stay on the land is real. Every neighborhood has a ‘Jewish character’ or not. If enough neighborhoods lose this character, then Israel isn’t a Jewish state any more.

In North America this doesn’t make sense (but in Europe it is beginning to). Here in California there is some hostility to immigrants. As more of them arrive, the culture changes. But California is both a patchwork of cultural enclaves and a melting pot. A new culture grows out of the meeting between the original residents and the immigrants. Things change, but it’s not an ideological struggle. Nobody in his right mind sees this as a conflict for possession of land.

Zionism is about self-determination for the Jewish people in the land of Israel. The ‘Palestinian cause’ is about expelling the Jews and taking the land, by whatever means works. Polls have showed time and again that the great majority of Palestinian Arabs, citizens of Israel or living in the territories or in the ‘Palestinian Diaspora’, support this cause.

The assumption that the behavior of the rabbis of Tzfat or even the hooligans of Jerusalem is entirely motivated by racism, if at all, is suspect. There are much better reasons to want to discriminate against Arabs (but not to beat them up, of course).

So it is probably wrong to do as Troy does, and hysterically accuse Israelis of racism, along with the legions of Israel-haters, like the ones in this video.

There can’t be a “thriving, democratic Jewish state in the Jewish people’s traditional homeland” if we allow ourselves to be pushed out of it.

This reminds me of a recent discussion in which a friend said that she found the violence of the struggle between Israel and the Canaanites repellent. So I asked her, “out of concern for the Canaanites, should we have stayed in Egypt?”

Technorati Tags: Israel, racism, Gil Troy

Avigdor Lieberman

News item:

In the harshest public words by an Israeli minister toward Turkey in months, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Sunday that Ankara’s demand for an apology over the Mavi Marmara incident is “beyond chutzpa.”

“There will be no apologies, and if so, we’re waiting for one from Turkey,” Lieberman said at an annual gathering of Israel’s ambassadors and counsel-generals at the Foreign Ministry. Ankara needed to apologize for its cooperation with terrorists, such as the IHH – which organized the violent incident aboard the Mavi Marmara – Hamas and Hizbullah, he said…

Lieberman’s comments came on the same day that some 10,000 people welcomed the Mavi Marmara back to Istanbul. Hundreds of balloons were released as the ship sailed into Istanbul’s Sarayburnu port, following repairs at a port on Turkey’s Mediterranean coast. The activists, mostly members of pro-Islamic groups, waved Palestinian and Turkish flags and chanted “Down with Israel” and “Allah is Great” as they greeted the vessel. Protesters also boarded boats to welcome the approaching ship, which was adorned with a poster of the nine Turks killed during the raid.

Welfare and Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog [Labor Party] took issue with Lieberman’s comments, issuing a statement saying that as foreign minister Lieberman does not understand that his job was to “open doors,” not slam them shut.

Herzog said that [Turkish FM] Davutoglu’s comments in their entirety showed that he was interested in reconciliation with Israel and indicated that a “window of opportunity has been opened to renew relations between the two countries.”

Herzog said Israel did not have the “privilege” to miss this opportunity, even if it “demands Israeli flexibility,” and that a way to repair ties with Turkey needed to be found, even if it entailed “bypassing” Lieberman.

In many ways nations aren’t like people. Applying ideas that normally apply to relations between individuals to relations between nations can be what philosophers call a ‘category mistake’.

One of the concepts that’s often abused in this way is that of ‘friendship’. Between people, it means a warm relationship, a relationship that allows one to let down one’s guard, to trust, depend on, and to confide in the other. Perhaps diplomats may feel friendship in this sense for other diplomats, but nations do not. Between nations, ‘friendship’ means a congruence of interests which allows them to work in concert. A good example might be the relationship of the US and the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945, when they worked together to defeat Hitler. After 1945, ‘Uncle Joe’ was no longer our ‘friend’, he was our ‘enemy’. But what changed?

FDR meets "Uncle Joe" Stalin (probably Teheran 1943)

This particular logical fallacy is of great use to a regime that needs to get its population on its side to support its policies. So a great deal is made about the relationship of Turkey and Israel being ‘warm’ or ‘cool’.  Turkey, says PM ErdoÄŸan, requires an apology — the nation was ‘insulted’ by the Mavi Marmara affair (in which Turkish thugs tried to kill Israelis and got killed themselves).

Nations cannot be insulted. That is a category mistake. But nations can hold general elections, and that is what Turkey will be doing in 2011. So ErdoÄŸan’s strategy is to create a lot of anger and then to force Israel to ‘apologize’. Thus he proves that he is strong, that he is the champion of Islam and the Palestinians, that he defends the ‘honor’ of Turkey and humiliates the hated Israel. And gets re-elected.

Since ErdoÄŸan’s Islamist AK party took over in 2002, relations between Turkey and Israel have deteriorated as Turkey positions itself closer to the Iranian bloc and farther from the US. In 2009, ErdoÄŸan took the opportunity of the war in Gaza to demonstrate his righteous anger at Israel by stomping off a stage he shared with Israel’s Shimon Peres at Davos, Switzerland.

The AK party has also repressed Turkey’s armed forces, accusing generals of conspiracies against the state.  Some of them are being tried now, and face up to 20 years imprisonment if convicted. The military has traditionally been a secularizing influence, and has overthrown governments in the past, so a coup isn’t impossible, although some of the charges are fantastic.

The Turkish military is also the group that has seen the most advantage from a relationship with Israel, buying weapons and sharing intelligence, providing another reason for Turkish Islamists to attack Israel.

Israel should not try to appease Turkey in the present crisis. For one thing, it’s impossible. ErdoÄŸan’s goal is to get re-elected and reconciliation with Israel would remove a hugely effective issue. An apology would be spun as a triumph over a despicable foe, would help ErdoÄŸan’s prospects and would not improve relations. Israel’s objective with Turkey should be to defeat the AKP, not enable it.

Just because nations don’t have emotions doesn’t mean that the emotions felt by individuals aren’t dangerous. The demonization of Israel so widespread in Arab countries, Turkey, Iran and even the UK motivates terrorists to act, against Israel if they can, or against softer Jewish targets. Probably more important, the overall climate of opinion created by the overwhelming volume of anti-Israel propaganda makes it easier for countries to justify actions against Israel — actions taken, as always, in emotion-free pursuit of their perceived interests.

An apology or anything that even looks like one will be a lost battle in the infowar. It will imply that Israel lied about the incident and present Israel as impotent and fearful. A weak horse. A loser.

So Lieberman is right and Herzog is wrong, in the information realm as well as the diplomatic one.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Turkey, Mavi Marmara, ErdoÄŸan, Lieberman

In many ways nations aren’t like people. Applying ideas that normally apply to relations between individuals to relations between nations can be what philosophers call a ‘category mistake’.

One of the concepts that’s often abused in this way is that of ‘friendship’. Between people, it means a warm relationship, a relationship that allows one to let down one’s guard, to trust, depend on, and to confide in the other. Perhaps diplomats may feel friendship in this sense for other diplomats, but nations do not. Between nations, ‘friendship’ means a congruence of interests which allows them to work in concert. A good example might be the relationship of the US and the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945, when they worked together to defeat Hitler. After 1945, ‘Uncle Joe’ was no longer our ‘friend’, he was our ‘enemy’. But what changed?

FDR meets "Uncle Joe" Stalin (probably Teheran 1943)

This particular logical fallacy is of great use to a regime that needs to get their population on their side to support their policies. So a great deal is made about the relationship of Turkey and Israel being ‘warm’ or ‘cool’.  Turkey, says PM ErdoÄŸan, requires an apology — the nation was ‘insulted’ by the Mavi Marmara affair (in which Turkish thugs tried to kill Israelis and got killed themselves).

Nations cannot be insulted. That is a category mistake. But nations can hold general elections, and that is what Turkey will be doing in 2011. So the strategy is to create a lot of anger and then to force Israel to ‘apologize’. Thus ErdoÄŸan proves that he is strong, that he is the champion of Islam and the Palestinians, that he defends the ‘honor’ of Turkey and humiliates the hated Israel. And gets re-elected.

Since ErdoÄŸan’s AK Islamist party took over in 2002, relations between Turkey and Israel have deteriorated as Turkey positions itself closer to the Iranian bloc and farther from the US. In 2009, ErdoÄŸan took the opportunity of the war in Gaza to demonstrate his righteous anger at Israel by stomping off a stage he shared with Israel’s Shimon Peres at Davos, Switzerland.

The AK party has also repressed Turkey’s armed forces, accusing generals of conspiracies against the state.  Some of them are being tried now, and face up to 20 years imprisonment if convicted. The military has traditionally been a secularizing influence, and has overthrown governments in the past, so a coup isn’t impossible, although some of the charges are fantastic.

The Turkish military is also the group that has seen the most advantage from a relationship with Israel, buying weapons and sharing intelligence, providing another reason for Turkish Islamists to attack Israel.

Just because nations don’t have emotions doesn’t mean that the emotions felt by individuals aren’t dangerous. The demonization of Israel so widespread in Arab countries, Turkey, Iran and even the UK motivates terrorists to act, against Israel if they can, or against softer Jewish targets. Probably more important, the overall climate of opinion created by the overwhelming volume of anti-Israel propaganda makes it easier for countries to justify actions against Israel — actions taken, as always, in emotion-free pursuit of their perceived interests.