I recently commented that Jews are sometimes their own worst enemies when attempting to blindly support Israel, spewing vitriol in an attempt to defend the indefensible. We now have another specimen for examination.
Andrew Klavan is a crime novelist. His recent piece in the LA Times is a classic piece of kicking an own-goal style of writing. Titled "Why God chose the Jews", enjoy this sample of Klavan's prose:
"There is one good thing about anti-Semitism: It lets you know who the bad guys are. Right, left, black, white, freak or straight, the minute someone starts rattling on about the evil Jews, you know your train just pulled into Slimeball Station.
"All bigotry is wrong, of course, but there's something about this particular form of prejudice that is weirdly reliable as a sign of deeper wickedness. Perhaps it's because the Jews contributed so much to humanity's moral code that to hate them as a race is to despise the restraints of morality itself
"Whatever the reason, true, virulent anti-Semitism is such a good indicator of the presence of evil that I'm tempted to believe that when God made the Jews his chosen people, this is what he chose them for: to be a sort of Villainy Early Detection System for everyone else.
"Unfortunately, in his infinite love for his creation, I suspect the Big Guy may have overestimated our intelligence. Maybe he thought that after Hitler we'd just, you know, like, get it. Instead, we still see apparently intelligent people appeasing, making excuses for and even embracing the sorts of stinkers who ought to set off the Big Alarm."
Is that clear? There are evil people everywhere, hiding in Iran and Venezuela and South America, determined to destroy Jews and Israel. Any criticism of Israel is therefore a sign of this evil and must be eradicated (ideally by military force.) Furthermore, Jews are the moral inspiration for the world, "chosen" by God for a special purpose, namely to warn others about, er, evil.
Does the boy who cried wolf sound familiar?
Andrew Klavan is a crime novelist. His recent piece in the LA Times is a classic piece of kicking an own-goal style of writing. Titled "Why God chose the Jews", enjoy this sample of Klavan's prose:
"There is one good thing about anti-Semitism: It lets you know who the bad guys are. Right, left, black, white, freak or straight, the minute someone starts rattling on about the evil Jews, you know your train just pulled into Slimeball Station.
"All bigotry is wrong, of course, but there's something about this particular form of prejudice that is weirdly reliable as a sign of deeper wickedness. Perhaps it's because the Jews contributed so much to humanity's moral code that to hate them as a race is to despise the restraints of morality itself
"Whatever the reason, true, virulent anti-Semitism is such a good indicator of the presence of evil that I'm tempted to believe that when God made the Jews his chosen people, this is what he chose them for: to be a sort of Villainy Early Detection System for everyone else.
"Unfortunately, in his infinite love for his creation, I suspect the Big Guy may have overestimated our intelligence. Maybe he thought that after Hitler we'd just, you know, like, get it. Instead, we still see apparently intelligent people appeasing, making excuses for and even embracing the sorts of stinkers who ought to set off the Big Alarm."
Is that clear? There are evil people everywhere, hiding in Iran and Venezuela and South America, determined to destroy Jews and Israel. Any criticism of Israel is therefore a sign of this evil and must be eradicated (ideally by military force.) Furthermore, Jews are the moral inspiration for the world, "chosen" by God for a special purpose, namely to warn others about, er, evil.
Does the boy who cried wolf sound familiar?
32 Comments:
Yes, Jews are their own worst enemy, but it is not those Jews who may support israel a little more zealously than neccesary. It is those, who were born Jewish, while espousing a divirce from the religion, feel that that accident of birth gives them carte blanche to be antisemites.
AL is that type. And as such, his actions are indefensible.
Andrew Klavan may where his religion on a sleeve. religiously, he may have a point on why God choose the Jews. AL may disagree, and I'm sure if God regreted his decision, AL would be a good reason why.
AL biggest disagreement comes from having been identified as a slimeball. It has already been disclosed why AL is an antisemite.
We should all be grateful that he has identified himself as a problem in Austrailian society.
Another 'I believe' statement, based on guesses.
Stev - You're not for free speech. So don't even try to justify your bigoted statement.
You're going to make heaps of progress reasoning with someone who believes he's racially superior as ordained by god Stev.
The article itself is offensive and ignorant:
"All bigotry is wrong, of course, but"
- Golden "but". But if it's settler bigotry, or bigotry against blacks, or bigotry by azeris against armenians or armenians against azeris, it's not the same, really. They don't count the same way.
"there's something about this particular form of prejudice that is weirdly reliable as a sign of deeper wickedness."
The "particular" here is the object group. Once again, it's more evil to be prejudiced against jews. If you were a section leader of the interahamwe having pangs of conscience you could at least rely on this for comfort.
"Perhaps it's because the Jews contributed so much to humanity's moral code that to hate them as a race is to despise the restraints of morality itself"
... the small-minded ethnocentric idiocy of this statement needs no further parsing.
Stevy boy, you already stated you were not for free speech, after you stated you were. So I'm just restating what you said. You are only for speech that you, in your bigoted glory, feel contribute to the debate, of the ideas that you, in your bigoted glory, approve of.
And as Antony has already told you the Jews are morally superior, don't come crying to me.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Andrew Klavan is right and wrong.
He is right that it is a sign of serious dysfunction .... call it evil if you like because in essence evil is ignorance...to talk about Jews killing Jesus .... as in who cares and Jesus is more figment than fact anyway, or to infer that Jews are responsible for wrongs in the world (Palestine aside and aggression in the Middle East).
Where he is wrong, and it is a wearingly boring story, is to suggest that criticism of evil equates with these things ....
It's a way to distract people from the issue of the Middle East and the human rights abuses committed by Israel toward the Palestinians. Not to mention those of their neighbours that they bomb.
But it is important to make a distinction between the 'nut' factor which talks about Jesus killers and the Protocols of Zion and any sort of Jewish 'plot' to rule the world and the legal and moral abuses for which Israel is responsible in regard to Palestine and its neighbours.
Needless to say Kavan's approach is reflective of a 'victim mentality', a dysfunctional state which prevents the person from acknowledging any capacity for wrongdoing because, to do so, would mean relinquishing the mantle of victimhood.
It's a comfortable cloak the victim wears. It lets you off the hook for absolutely everything. Well, it does in the dysfunctional world which you inhabit if not in any sort of sane reality.
The true meaning of the Jews being a 'chosen' people is that they are meant to be a ' light unto the world.'
In other words, it is not that they per se: are superior in terms of their religious teaching but that they are 'called' by that teaching to act in ways that are the best they can be.
The fact that Israel has come to represesent the 'worst' not the 'best' is a matter of grief to enlightened Jews whether religious or not.
Interestingly the belief in being 'chosen' is not uncommon. Not surprising of course. Many groups like to think of themselves as special.
You find elements of this sort of belief in other religions like christianity and Islam and it is quite common in pagan (tribal) belief.
It has been literalised in Judaism, no doubt because the years of diaspora ossified much of the religious thought which created the culture.
A humanised God is a problem. Luckily S/He has a sense of humour.
To think that any God worth bothering about would be so petty and trivial as to single out any group stretches reason. But then faith all too often negates reason.
Any god that exists can only embrace all human beings at all times. Any other God is not God, but merely a God figure created by human beings in their deeply flawed image.
Judaism, like Christianity and Islam suffers from this personalised view of God. Buddhism is something of an improvement, although with the influence of patriarchy, very mysoginistic.
The old Goddess religion, what the christians and jews rejected as pagan, had a rather healthier view of it all: that everything which exists is sacred; every fibre, bone, grain of sand, rock, tree, human being is God and worthy of honour.
No rules about what to wear, what to eat, how to have sex or not have sex, who to love, how to love, just the basics about honouring all things which of course cuts out murder, theft, violence and any form of abuse... toward nature as well as human beings.
We are all, each of us, no more than vibrating matter and we are all connected.
Interestingly it is a concept which fits neatly with the structure of quantum physics: a place where science and religion can find common ground.
Even more important it is actually kind. Kindness is a quality which is often hard to find in most religions.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
You are right, they took on certain aspects. So did Judaism.
Recent translations of Egyptian hieroglyphics show for example the Ten Commandments were Egyptian.
There's a very bood book written by archeologists, Jewish actually, which shows the links between Judaism and the ancient Egyptians and even posits the case for the Hebrews being followers of Akhenaton, the pharaoh who was the first, in recorded history, to worship God as one being.
Much of the Jesus story for example can be found in the ancient Egyptian religion and in the later Roman, Mithraic religion, which clearly has drawn on the Egyptian and pagan belief.
Many of the attributes of Mary for example were originally recorded of Isis, the Egyptian Goddess.
The good thing about it all is that in essence it reveals a core spirituality which has come down through the ages and which is not specificially christian, jewish or even islamic.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Here,here! Luckily, battling the antisemitic posts made by Loewenstein, addamo, RHR, eddie and others is very easy to do.
Loewenstein made it easier by posting about his racial superiority and then blasting apart the "canary in the coal mine" senerio with a characteristic blast straight off a white supremist site.
Saying that "Vitriol, histrical ramblings, slader, insults" are the signature of the pro-zionist camp is merely admission of your bigotry. Nothing to do with the truth.
What denial? You are a proven liar. That has already been confirmed. Your rants are about the same as seen on Kundel's and Irving's websites.
But you're no poster boy. We'll leave that designation for eddie and AL. They know scads more than you. You have the ignorance level of rhr.
ibrahamav
You are very quick to call people liars without actually making any case that would prove deception.
The real deception is the fantasies you hold about Israel and what this continued occupation and colonisation has done to it.
This war is destroying Israel. There's a piece in The Australian today citing a report which shows one in four Israelis live in poverty; a third of Israeli children are impoverished and there has been a 45percent increase in those living below the poverty line in the past five years.
This is what war, colonisation, walls and denial does. This is how a country is destroyed ... from within.
As is your way no doubt you will dismiss this as a lie. The Prime Minister of Israel does not. He is concerned. Rightly so.
Israel's economy is heading for ruin. Only peace can bring any sort of future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Only recognition by Israel and its supporters that it cannot continue on its current path will bring some sort of hope.
The case was made on another thread. _01 stated that I said something and it was easily proven that I never said it.
_01 has constantly posted lies in one form or another.
I, myself, have no fanasies about israel. But it is apparent that you have such, and AL has worse.
One in 4 Israelis would be living in poverty whether they lived in actual peace or not. That's economics, not war.
All economies cycle. Israel's has improved over the last 2 years.
The only time that the palestinians improve is when they are actually on the road to peace.
In fact, Israelis realize that they must be more ruthless in order to force the palestinians to come to the peace table, but they can't do that because to many innocent palestinians will die.
But it doesn't seem like the Palestinians care. Golda was right.
You are a bigot. It doesn't take gall for anyone to recognize you for what you are.
That you didn't know about those websites shows how incredibly stupid, ignorant, and clueless you are. Or that you lie as well as eddie. Your choice. Out yourself as a moron, or a deliberate liar.
children, children!
Why don't you stop slinging insults at each other and talk to each other. This is playground stuff! Not at all interesting and very immature.
You have no room to talk. Your posts based on outlandishly outdated information, along with your guess work, ala _01, leaves little to be desired in your work.
It is not only ridiculous, but wastes time just by having to refute it.
I suppose addamo the thing is not to lower yourself to the same level.
I suspect Ibrahamv is capable of mature debate but he finds it hard to do and is easily distracted.
addamo
It's interesting. I'm new to this forum although I spent time a few years ago on forums created by The Guardian and The Washington Post .... I guess I dabbled for about nine months.
Anyway, I haven't bothered since then simply because they too were taken over by 'ibrahamav's,' saying pretty much the same stuff, quote for quote, pushing the same views, line for line, using abuse, ridicule, name-calling and insult.
It was all very adolescent in terms of approach and content.
I remember thinking at the time that it was almost as if they were part of some organisation, or group, no doubt huddled in some bunker in the Negev Desert, whose job it was to 'sabotage' any forum discussing the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
Honestly, Ibrahamav and the others are at times is word for word clones of posters on those other forums.
Call me paranoid if you like .... probably my Jewish ancestry at work there.... but it is all spookily familiar. Either that or rabid Israeli supporters are seriously emotionally and psychologically dysfunctional and therefore incapable of discussing the topic calmly and rationally.
addamo,
As long as there is something interesting to read I will stick around. I suspect that unconsciously if not consciously the goal of ibrahamav and co. is to downgrade, dilute, if not destroy any capacity for intelligent discussion.
It's probably why it is best to completely ignore them. Unless of course they display a capacity for rational discourse.
It is a very complex subject though and one can understand the emotional baggage that some people carry. However, it is a sign of self discipline and maturity when people can keep that baggage in check and not dump it on everyone else.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
addamo
There's an interesting piece by Robert Fisk on the website Countercurrents, on Spielberg's film, Munich. It's worth reading.
He also makes the point that the core issue in this horrible mess is the fact that the Palestinians had their land taken away from them in order for Israel to be created. That is the one thing which many Jews, not all, and many Israelis, not all, and their supporters, pretty much all, refuse to acknowledge.
Until they do they are dancing around denial and fantasy and there's little hope of any resolution.
I still feel that just as America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have had to acknowledge the fact that they only exist because they dispossessed and colonised and deal with that fact and make redress for it, then so must Israel.
It's like the seriously dysfunctional family refusing to talk about the 'secret'; constantly trying to deny and hide the truth. They just become more dysfunctional.
In terms of the foundation of Israel it's another version of 'don't mention the war'..... it's don't mention that the land we took to create Israel had people living on it.
That's why Israel's supporters resort to abuse and denial because they are, for the moment, incapable of admitting the truth, and therefore, in essence, have no defence.
addamo
it's just another distraction. ignore him/her. There is never any reasoned argument or evidence. It's just a ploy to get people talking about nothing.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Quit spreading the addamo. Your beginning to sound like your commuting between eddie's ass and AL's ass.
The Palestinians didn't have their land taken from them. Most Arab leaders were more than happy to sell their land (And complain afterwards)
There was a war, the Palestinians lost. Too bad for them.
THIEVES GET NO SYMPATHY
by Max Singer
We should not be surprised when Europeans, among others, refuse to be moved by Israel's complaints about Palestinian terror and have no patience for arguments about the need for defensible borders. The reason, though straightforward, goes almost unnoticed: Israel talks about its needs; while Palestinians talk about their rights.
This is not to say that Europeans and other well-meaning people think it is right to pummel Israel with suicide bombings - although they have become so fed up that they do not visibly object. Even if they agree, on paper, that terror should stop, Israel's fundamental case is seen as a series of excuses to keep land it stole from the Palestinians.
Palestinians talk about justice and Israelis talk about violation of agreements. So long as the dispute with Palestinians is seen as a fight between a thief and his victim, a fight about when "Palestinian land" will be returned to its rightful owner, Israel's talk of its security needs will fall on deaf ears.
In emotional terms, thieves don't have rights, even to security. How could we expect support for a "thief's" assertion that the victim shouldn't use illegal means to recover his land, that he, the "thief," needs stolen property to protect his security, or that consideration should be given to the citizens the usurper has settled on the stolen land?
Our demand for "defensible borders," for example, is heard as "Israel needs to keep Palestinian land in order to defend itself." This doesn't grab Europeans who don't even worry much about being able to defend themselves, much less Israel.
The Palestinians, by contrast, are heard as saying, "we are a proud and ancient people; our land was stolen by colonialist foreigners, and we will fight until we get it back." The reply that they are fighting too dirty, or that Israel needs the land to protect its security, doesn't carry much emotional weight.
Of course European and other opinion and policy is also affected by other factors besides the basic moral sense of the citizens, but the great wave of anti-Israel feeling that has been built on this moral misjudgment has a momentum which must be countered to make a change in policy possible. Israel needs to concentrate on making Europeans and others understand that the Palestinians are not victims of a theft, but rather defeated litigants who refuse to accept the authoritative decisions made against them.
Entrenched anti-Israel sentiment will not be moved until we state that we are a proud and ancient people; that the disputed land is our homeland, and was ours historically; that the land was assigned to us by the League of Nations, and we will fight to protect our country.
We must distinguish between our willingness to give up part of our homeland - short of making it indefensible - for the sake of peace, and relinquishing "stolen" territory. Further, we should be pointing out that we allow Arabs to live as full citizens on the land that we control while the Arabs expel Jews from any land they acquire, even though there is no other Jewish land and there are millions of miles of other Arab land.
Israel has to act as if it believes that its moral, legal and historical claims to the disputed territories are as good or better than the claims of the Palestinians, and that it is as passionate to protect its land they are to acquire it. Only then will the Europeans come to understand that "occupied Palestinian land" is instead disputed territory for which Israel has legal and moral claims that have been formally endorsed by the international community.
THE DISPUTED land, we should remember, became available in 1920 when its former sovereign, the defeated Ottoman Empire, was removed. The League of Nations heard the dispute between the Jews, represented by the Balfour Declaration of Great Britain, and the Arabs living in the land, represented by other Arab countries.
Aware that the Jews had ruled the land in ancient times, had no other homeland, and were displacing no existing state, the League decided that the Jewish people should be invited to settle the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea as its homeland. The Arabs, including the Palestinians, never accepted this decision - which has never been rescinded.
Some argue that the League of Nations decision was a "colonial" decision and should not stand against the right of self-determination. But the League decision was the binding legal authority in 1922 and all Jews who came to the land after that date to build a state came on the basis of that authority. And the many Arabs who moved to the land after 1922 came knowing that it had been legally designated as the future Jewish homeland. While this may not be the end of the story it is an essential beginning.
Israel's rights are not perfect or exclusive, but they are certainly strong enough so that it does not come to the table as a "thief of Palestinian land." The Palestinians' claims may be strong enough to justify giving them some of the land they want. But since the Palestinians have never been rulers of the land, it could not have been stolen from them.
Palestinians, therefore, are claimants, not the victims of theft. Their behavior should be judged as the acts of a claimant seeking land to which he thinks he is entitled, not as the acts of a dispossessed owner.
Max Singer's case for Israel's rights has no legal basis.
There is little or no archeological evidence for the sort of ancient Israeli state about which the Bible speaks. But the Bible is of course no more than a collection of myths, stories and writings and has no legal basis in a court of law... in terms of content.
But if one wished to pursue this argument and take into account Biblical writings, then clearly, the original owners were the Canaanites who were dispossessed and colonised by the Hebrews.
given that those who were not slaughtered were enslaved, and one presumes continued to live on the land, there's a good chance that any non-Jews with historical links to this bit of the world, have Canaanite ancestry and therefore the 'greatest' right to the land.
Needless to say such arguments carry little weight. On the same basis the Italians (Romans) have as much right to southern England and London (which they founded) as Jews have to Palestine and Jerusalem.
But, at the end of the day, all of this is irrelevant. Any debate about Jewish rights is irrelevant. What was and might have been is irrelevant.
The only relevance is this: a State of Israel was established on land which belonged to others, the Palestinians. The world now recognises that State, whilst illegal in creation, should exist.
This means the Israelis and Palestinians have to share the land as fairly as possible. This means each should have a viable State.
This means the occupation must end and all settlements beyond original borders of Israel must be given back to the Palestinians.
This means the Palestinians must have complete control over their air, land, sea space and the same rights that Israelis expect to have in terms of defending themselves.
It is called justice and it is about the here and now, not what may or may not have happened a few thousand years ago.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Nowhere does it state that Israel's claim is forfeit.
There is an enormous amount of archeological evidence for the sort of ancient Israeli state about which the Bible speaks.
That you profess ignorance of such is just more proof of your ignorance.
Post a Comment
<< Home