tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30603050.post9190041674429798173..comments2023-10-10T12:29:32.468-04:00Comments on Bleier's Blog: James Petras: Dual Loyalty Cripples Anti-War JewsRonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30603050.post-13464085939230875962008-01-02T22:56:00.000-05:002008-01-02T22:56:00.000-05:00Thanks, VFP (feel free to email me.) It's a pleasu...Thanks, VFP (feel free to email me.) It's a pleasure to see someone so knowlegeable.<BR/>And I'm in general agreement with you. At the risk of repeating myself, I see no evidence that the secular grassroots, not to mention the affiliated and the orthodox, are effectively strong supportes of Israeli policy and strong supporters of US aid to Israel. <BR/>Interestingly while they don't support Bush or the Iraq war, they're not unhappy with the result nor do they make the connection with the war against the constitution and civil liberties at home.<BR/>Ronald<BR/>Yes, I've already linked to you.Ronaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30603050.post-53395635627432043002008-01-02T01:49:00.000-05:002008-01-02T01:49:00.000-05:00Petras writes: "... for the majority of American J...Petras writes: "... for the majority of American Jews ... the source of their identity stems more from their loyalty to Israel than to the Talmud or religious myths and rituals, ..."<BR/><BR/>I think Petras is mistaken here. Jewish identity at its very core is inextricably linked to "religious myths and rituals" even among so-called secular Jews. For example, according to the National Jewish Population Survey, 2000-01, 67% of American Jews "Hold/attend a Passover seder" The only "indicator of Jewish connection" to achieve a higher result was "Light Chanukah candles" (72%). I know at least four self-styled atheist Jews who hold or attend seders. Both of these holidays, not to mention Purim, have violent nationalism at the core and I think this has a profound effect on how Jews perceive themselves and others. I've written a lot about this on one of my blogs: zionistsout.blogspot.com .<BR/><BR/>I am in general agreement, though, with Petras and Henry Herskovitz with whom I am well acquainted. So-called secular Jews and Jewish anti/non-Zionists in my community have played a significant role in protecting the Jewish state and shutting out anti-Zionists of local liberal-left political groups and discourse.<BR/><BR/>I've also met Paul Eisen and had time to get to know him. He is a fine person and a great defender of the freedom of intellectual inquiry and expression. I think Paul's *Holocaust Wars* should be studied by every anti-Zionist and evaluated on its merits. Contra Seth's cheap ad hominem shots, IMO, Paul is no "racist or racialist." Nor is he "unhinged from reality" or a self-hating Jew. IMO, Seth is also wrong about the American Council for Judaism. They lost the right to claim the mantle of anti-Zionist when they ousted Elmer Berger in 1967/68. You can read about it <I>The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time</I> by Moshe Menuhin. That is, if you can find a copy. At best, the ACJ is non-Zionist.<BR/><BR/>I would be interested in exchanging blog links with you. I also blog at <BR/>vfpdissident.blogspot.comVFPDissidenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10704692795082435401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30603050.post-58087967249415371732008-01-01T15:47:00.000-05:002008-01-01T15:47:00.000-05:00Thanks for this Henry. I agree with you about the ...Thanks for this Henry. I agree with you about the powerful grassroots attachment to<BR/>Israel even by secular non affiliated Jews. There should be a way of measuring this, but maybe<BR/>there's a good reason they don't make a point of it.<BR/>RonaldRonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30603050.post-1936760295904194622008-01-01T10:56:00.000-05:002008-01-01T10:56:00.000-05:00Seth is whistling past the graveyard if he is atte...Seth is whistling past the graveyard if he is attempting to convince anyone that young people have no attachment to Israel. Beth Israel Congregation (our weekly vigil site in Ann Arbor) takes children on tours of Israel with special visits to military bases, and good ol’ boy meetings with IDF soldiers. Peacemonger has documented this phenomenon of inculcating love of racism in the young. See “Building Monsters at Beth Israel”, (link below) for some revealing photos. And if any youngsters elude their grasp during pre-teen years, there’s always the Hillel foundations with their Hasbara (propaganda) Handbook to secure them. Not to mention the Birthright Israel junkets,and the requisite kool-aid all Jews, myself included, are required to drink from birth. <BR/><BR/>And Seth, why do you find it perfectly acceptable to trash my friends Paul, Dan and Atzmon, when the slightest phrase from Petras - which has not been identified - sends you crying "anti-Semitism". Blankfort, you might remember, calls such labelling the first refuge of scoundrels. I seriously hope and expect you can rise above such name calling.<BR/><BR/> hisblog:http://zionistsout.blogspot.com/2007/08/building-monsters-at-beth-israel.html.Henry Herskovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07504445681285093910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30603050.post-59010353605476588402007-12-31T22:54:00.000-05:002007-12-31T22:54:00.000-05:00Seth wroteRonAlthough I agree with Petras' positio...Seth wrote<BR/><BR/>Ron<BR/>Although I agree with Petras' position on the Lobby, I find him often offensive. There is always something in his wording that strikes me as indicative of prejudice.He promulgates this stereotypical anti-Semitic canard that Jews are a "clan" who always stick together. It seems obvious to me that Petras has animus against Jews per se(as I mentioned in my response to Abraham)--just like Blankfort. But it's less obvious with Jeff because he is Jewish, although he is a friend of Nazi sympathizer--I forgrt his name. Not Atzmon--worse than Atzmon.. Do you know Abraham? He's sort of a neo-Bundist anti-Zionist--in Canada. Here is another conclusion that requires qualification "Over eighty <BR/>percent (82%) of American Jews agree that 'the goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel'" I would guess that this reflects distrust of ARAB STATES. I would bet that the percentage would be a minority if they were asked about the goal of "Palestinians" instead of "Arabs." This is not to deny the massive prejudice against Arab people in the US in general.The fact is however that contrary to Petras most Jews under 40 or 50 feel no identification with Israel. But most of them are NOT activists and BTW feel little or no identification with Judaism. Why Petras overllooks this or is unaware of these facts is beyond me. But it is suspicious. Best, Seth<BR/><BR/>David responded:<BR/>Petras' lobby book was sloppy & dissappointing, and he's an apologist for the FARC.<BR/>Seth, the Nazi apologist you're thinking of is Paul eisen. eisen's colleague at deir yassin remebered, Daniel mcgowan, even went to visit Zundel (author of the Hitler we loved, and why) in prison, and wrote about it for dissident voice. why these idiots waste thier time and energy on a Nazi judeocidedenier who once hawked pamphlets about how UFO's were created by Jewish scientists who the Nazis squirreled away in Antarctica is beyond me, but who am I to talk, I've corresponded with people who beleive we're controlled by a race of alien-lizard human hybrids; and with an even bigger time and energy waste-- meretzniks.<BR/><BR/>Ronald responds to Seth:<BR/><BR/>Thanks Seth:<BR/>I couldn't disagree more --how I wish you were right.<BR/>It's precisely the Petras paragraph you cite which I think is the heart of <BR/>the matter<BR/>(I say pretty much the same thing in anecdotal terms in my article.)<BR/>As someone who has just reached 65, I have much more experience with <BR/>people roughly my<BR/>age and the older generation. However, I have had anecdotal experience <BR/>with younger<BR/>people and I see no evidence of any difference, nor do I see any evidence <BR/>in the same<BR/>line of thought and the power they weild.<BR/>My experience makes me question the relevance of the statistics you cite<BR/>when it comes to anti Arab racism which is necessarily the other side of <BR/>the pro Zionist coin.<BR/>(I find that they feel the same way when<BR/>it comes to giving anything to the Palestinians --when it comes to these<BR/>political matters it makes NO difference -they're all Arabs from a Zionist <BR/>perspective.<BR/> They are hated with the same prejudice for tribal reasons.<BR/>The numbers you cite are similar to the ones I hear from people like<BR/>Lenni Brenner who has have been predicting the end of the Jewish American<BR/>community. We should be so lucky.<BR/>No, I think Petras is right. The bottom line is a JEWISH state. From that<BR/>elemental racism everything flows -- and Blankfort has shown how it infects<BR/>the anti-war movement.<BR/>Ronald<BR/><BR/>Seth responds to Ronald<BR/>I don't have much anedotal evidence because every one I know my age or younger is anti-Zionist and on the far left.What younger population is your own anecdotal evidence based upon?I have seen this statistic repeatedly-- mostly from articles reprinted from mainstream sources by the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism http://www.acjna.org/acjna/default.aspx (I get their newsletter.)Young Jews do not identify with Israel--or with Judaism.Do you think these surveys are made up? What motive would there be to falsify this? The Zonists would want to do the very oppositeYes Lenni Brenner says the same thing. ( But Brenner's data does not mean the Lobby is not going to die out soon. Clearly the richest and most politically aggressive Jews (young and old) are reactionary pro-Israel zealots. You can see them at Columbia University. But these are two different issues..Perhaps you reached an erronious conclusion based on the fact that the most ACTIVIST Jews, the most vocal Jews are despicable Zionists. Whereas the anti-Zionist Jewish activists are a small group on the "farleft." Also as I stated within the anti-war movement the Tikkun Zionists predominate and they deem any mention of the Lobby anti-Semitic. --Seth<BR/><BR/>Seth responds to David<BR/>David,Eisen. Yes Eisen and Atzmon got all upset 2 yrs ago because I referred to Eisen in an article as a racist or racialist. As you recall Eisen seemed very passive and rather unhinged from reality---he was thrilled that Zundel and Mrs Zundel accepted him even though he is a dirty Jew himself. He spoke of Hitler in ludicrous terms as a great German patriot who Eisen admitted did some things to the Jews that were not very nice (although maybe not the holocaust, he seemed to vacillate--depending on who is listening I suppose). And just because of that poor Hitler has been denied his place in history as a great German patriot. Eisen as I recall considers himself Jewish--and hates himself for it. Atzmon is more aggressive--Israeli.Is McGowan in their group? (I know he co-founded DYR) Did McGowan write a piece bemoaning the fate of poor Zundel? I'm surprised DV published it. (Not that I favor the laws--just I have no sympathy for Nazis.)There seemed to be several motives: 1)Anti-Semitism and/or 2) German nationalism. I have been out of touch with Ickeites. But they are not racists.Ralph you mean. Or do you know others? Seth<BR/><BR/>David responds to Seth:<BR/>you read tikkun lately -- Lerner has had a big turn around on the lobby, defends moran, even attacks zunes.<BR/><BR/>Larry responds to Seth:<BR/> I don't find anything anti-Jewish in Jim Petras's piece. The answers to the questions asked in his 2nd paragraph are obvious. It would have been better if Petras had cited the Pew Charitable Trust and Zogby polls rather than the ones chosen. The majority of US Jews do not support the establishment Jewish/Zionist groups. But those non-Zionist or unconcerned Jews: 1. Are not as committed to their position as are the putative "leaders."2. Therefore, they are not nearly as well organized.3. They are less rich by far than the machers of ADL, Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, AIPAC, Commentary, AJC, all the synagogues and temples.4. They are not donors to candidates.5. They have little access to the media. I find it noteworthy that a clear majority of North American Jews, in polls, show no great enthusiasm for Israel. More impressive, an even greater Jewish majority opposes the Iraq invasion and the possibly pending Iran invasion -- and this despite the large role played by individual Jews, Israel and US Zionists in advocating US aggression in the Middle East and being the most vocal cheerleaders. Thus I conclude that Zionism does not motivate the majority of US Jews and this is promising. I have no idea how to reach and organize this group of people. But the effort is worth making. Larry<BR/><BR/>Seth responds to Larry:<BR/>Larry,Yes you are exactly right about this below --I tried to indicate it but you spelled it out. I find it odd that Petras does not know this. And suspicious that he repeatedly refers to Jews loyalty to their ethnic group and Israel as the primary motive for their actions. In all his writings on the topic. As stated I think one proposition was true "Worse still, progressive liberal and radical Jewish peace activists have acted as gate-keepers in the anti-war movement –prohibiting any criticism of Israel and labeling individuals or citizenactivists critical of the pro-war Zionist lobby as ‘anti-Semites’. " Michael Lerner DID do that. But as David (Blooom) points out, his recent editorial in Tikkun represents a shift in Lerner's views. Seth<BR/><BR/>David F. responds to Seth<BR/>Regarding Seth's point on Michael Lerner: It's worth noting WHY Lerner shifted away from his previous "Love of <BR/>Israel and Israel's security as the uber-alles priority and anti-semitism as the biggest issue facing the antiwar <BR/>movement" psychobabbling. He discovered that his Jewish audience is repelled by that kind of thing and wants a <BR/>stronger, more critical stance. Lerner is worth reading as a straw in the wind -- it's what he's good at.<BR/>-- David F,<BR/><BR/>Julie responds to Ronald<BR/>Ronald, haven't you read, "Rebuilding America's Defenses?" The (conscious) goal of the neo-cons is not to <BR/>destroy the U.S. empire but to take advantage of the U.S.'s current pre-eminent military position to re-<BR/>consolidate the Empire on a new footing. (I'm not saying that they're not unconsciously nihilist like Hitler and <BR/>Pol Pot. Sadism and nihilism usually do co-exist, probably; Hitler's generals gossiped early on in his <BR/>aggressive exploits that he must have some sexual fetish that led him to take the country to war without adequate <BR/>preparion.) With the USSR gone, the neocons theorize that, because of the size and strength of the U.S. military,<BR/> it no longer needs allies; the U.S. instead needs and intends to be able to intimidate everyone, to deny <BR/>military parity even to closest allies by, for example, unilaterally militarizing space. Their view: the U.S. <BR/>is the only pole, for now, in an essentially unipolar world, and had better take advantage of that fact fast, to <BR/>conquer and extract resources and establish a permanent regime of exploitation with no rivals (before any rival <BR/>emerges). 9/11 took place in order to gain support for funding massive rearmament in order to carry out these <BR/>conquests. The main potential rival, China, is the ultimate target of the series of attacks planned on <BR/>Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea. Please note the plans (as in the discussion of the need for a "new Pearl <BR/>Harbor," framed as though it's going to happen the way the weather does, by forces that can be predicted but for <BR/>which no responsibility is acknowledged) for the development of biological weapons that can target specific <BR/>ethnic groups.<BR/> <BR/>I agree with you that Cheney et al represent a danger to human civilization and viability perhaps even more <BR/>serious than Hitler. Even Hitler, however, did not consciously intend to wipe out Germany or civilization, in <BR/>fact the Nazis confiscated, catalogued and repatriated many important cultural artifacts. He wanted world <BR/>domination, and thought the way to get it was to consolidate power in his own hands by intimidating his opponents <BR/>through brutality (the way any gangster maintains control of his organization and territory). Hitler <BR/>overestimated his strategic prowess, that's all, as did many of his generals, whom he also succeeded in <BR/>intimidating with a string of military "successes" for the first third or so of the war largely consisting in his <BR/>enemies' failing to defend themselves (e.g. Czechoslovakia, which was likely well enough fortified to have <BR/>defeated Hitler's unprepared invading force, had it engaged them; and Austria, where Hitler was popular.) (Remind <BR/>you of the current celebrations of the "success" of the "surge," intimidating the Dems out of opposition to <BR/>further expansion of the war?) (By the way, don't think I'm any authority on WWII; I've just been browsing in a <BR/>couple of onine Hitler bios and extracts of bios the last couple of days.)<BR/> <BR/>As for the U.S. funding the Sunnis and Shia, that is nothing exceptional. The U.S. funded both sides of the Iraq/<BR/>Iran war throughout the conflagration, deliberately alternating sides to keep the conflict going. Empires always <BR/>aim to divide and conquer, and false flag operations to get people fighting eachother are an old game: if <BR/>they're not afraid of each other, why would the Sunnia and Shia allow the U.S. to remain? They would unite to <BR/>drive the U.S. out, and then the U.S. would lose those permanent bases and long-term military control of the <BR/>resource that will enable the intended domination of Europe (again, I'm just citing "Rebuilding America's <BR/>Defenses." Besides, only through war can the U.S. economy survive, dependent as it is on arms exports. So our <BR/>"national interest" as the neocons view (and profit from) it depends on fanning global flames of hatred. And has <BR/>for a long time. "Stability" and "peace" are not in the interests of our oil or military-industrial complex, <BR/>only of smaller manufacturing factions. The price of oil, and oil profits, are highest during middle east wars. <BR/>And, obviously, armaments are best sold to nations embarking on or enmeshed in war.<BR/> <BR/>JulieRonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30603050.post-43306350287872393312007-12-27T21:05:00.000-05:002007-12-27T21:05:00.000-05:00Petras’ article highlights what my observations ha...Petras’ article highlights what my observations have concluded: that jewish ‘progressives’ operate as the fifth column to undermine any traction that the peace movement might otherwise achieve. The “impotence of the majority of American Jews” stems not from fear of challenging jewish leadership; rather it’s a carefully crafted and executed self-silencing, obligated, as James points out, to a trumping, tribal loyalty to a state.<BR/><BR/>And this self-silencing easily morphs into silencing the voice of others: our group in Ann Arbor appears alone in our attempt to hold the local jewish community accountable for their financial, spiritual and political support of apartheid Israel; we hold weekly vigils at the conservative synagogue. For our efforts we receive constant criticism, attack and ridicule from the ‘progressive’ jewish community, including Brit Tzedek and JVP, which interestingly is identified as a member of the Israel Lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt.<BR/><BR/>Progressive? We need a new word!Henry Herskovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07504445681285093910noreply@blogger.com