Yes, There Is a Guerrilla War Against Zionism in the U.S. What Should Jewish Institutions Do?

I just looked at the comment section of the youtube speech by Congressman Howard Berman the other night in Sherman Oaks. It's stunning how much rage there is toward Berman:

Portrait of a hypnotized zionist tool. He can't even see how he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. PeaceThroughJustice above has it bang on: HB says he is an ardent supporter of israel and he firmly stands behind israel's security"; then he is shocked that anyone would suggest that US foreign policy is controlled by zionists.

There is no end of evidence that this kind of rage is bubbling to the surface all over America. My sister-in-law tells me that the almost-censored If Americans Knew speech at the Greenwich Library last week was "a mob scene." I've blogged about the fact that at a Yivo event, neocon Iraq-war-planner Bill Kristol had a hunted look as he spoke of the craziness that had surrounded neocons since the war. Neocon chronicler Jacob Heilbrunn has seemed fearful in his public statements about his book, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, stepping away from his own assertion that neocons formed cabals in the government. It is as if he is spooked by the snakepit he stepped into. The fact that our Israel policy has hurt us across the Arab world is no longer a revelation to Americans. They know it, and seem to want to do something about it. Jimmy Carter and Walt and Mearsheimer and the Iraq debacle have been an IV-drip into the American bloodstream.

The rage out there is not antisemitism. It may be antiZionism, it may be isolationism. It is a groundswell that needs to be addressed honestly. When Congressman Berman went into fits of denial that there is an Israel lobby, after saying that he joined the Foreign Affairs Committee because he cared about Israel, this was not honest.

What should Jewish institutions do about it? The answer is obvious, they should have forums. They should express the range of Jewish opinion re Israel (not the narrow range that Yivo gathered in its Martin Peretz-organized forum on Walt and Mearsheimer in November). They should encourage that range. They should begin an open discussion within the Jewish community of what Zionism has done to Jewish identity and American foreign policy. They should grill the neocons and give a platform to post-Zionist Jews like Joel Kovel and David Zellnik, rather than just smearing them. They should confront the extent to which the adamant refusal by the Jewish establishment to acknowledge Palestinian suffering even as it insists that Israel is a democracy has hurt Judaism and hurt U.S. foreign policy. They should wake up.   

Comments

[Richard Witty]

"The rage out there is not antisemitism."

Some of it is. Thats if you are sincere in wanting to address it honestly.

If you've been around Jewish communities for decades, participating, you would have seen the kind of open inquiry widely conducted, that you claim doesn't happen.

Annually, in my shul, we discuss politics. Our community spans a very wide of political spectrum, including those that are overtly anti-Zionist, a few that are religiously anti-Zionist. The majority, the vast majority, are pro-peace, and very cognizant and sympathetic with the history of Palestinians and current situation.

Contempt is not the answer.

I can understand the feeling of newbies, whether adults new to the discussion, or young adults that have not seen congregations and communities argue and agonize over the internal moral conflicts.

But, in most, its happened. And, in most, there were many that didn't want to be bothered with the confusion of a good action (Zionism), having negative consequences to others, that need to be resolved fairly.

But, most Jews now accept that Palestinians are a people, and deserve to self-govern, and in a manner and scale that is viable and sovereign.

[Richard Witty]

What should Jewish institutions do?

They/we should encourage our representatives and those Israelis that we have contact with to take up the offer of reconciliation that the Arab League suggested.

Israel should not drag its feet on those many actions that it can confidently and safely take unilaterally.

And, we should communicate convincingly and often of the need for the US to actively participate, particularly in holding bi-lateral and multi-lateral parties accountable to agreements that they've made.

In the case that the US and Europe can hold Israel accountable, and the Arab League can hold the PA and Hamas accountable, reconciliation is possible.

The tragedy is that the US is administered by an incompetent.

As galling as it is, it is better to wait until a more competent leader is available.

[Val]

oh come off it, Phil. This is about Jewish control IN America NOT Israel per se. This is about isolation, but it's elitist Jewish isolation not the rest of the countries. The fiscal control, the media control and so forth.
Israel is the focus to an extent but the real problem cannot be diluted by using Israel as a whipping boy. Like if Israel dissolved tomorrow the'd be no problem in America? The problem is the people involved, not ALL Jews and not Irseal per se.

[D.]

"But, most Jews now accept that Palestinians are a people, and deserve to self-govern."

What did they think before?

[peters]

FINALLY!!!!!!! YES!!!!! THERE IS RAGE!!!!!
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this post. Of course there is rage. We have been prevented from speaking, information has been suppressed, and that is CONTROL. Freedom has not been allowed, which is experienced as a form of abuse. It is highly painful, especially for people who care about our country, our society. It is exactly the same as any family system- if there is a big fat problem and no one is allowed to talk about it, there is disfunction, rage, and acting out. No wonder little explosions of anti-semitic verbal abuse are bursting out. It is not right, just as the teenager of the family stealing cars isn't right, but it's not without its etiology.
I believe Phillip is dead on about the cure as well.
I am very grateful for this post. This blog is the most important blog in America.

[peters]

FINALLY!!!!!!! YES!!!!! THERE IS RAGE!!!!!
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this post. Of course there is rage. We have been prevented from speaking, information has been suppressed, and that is CONTROL. Freedom has not been allowed, which is experienced as a form of abuse. It is highly painful, especially for people who care about our country, our society. It is exactly the same as any family system- if there is a big fat problem and no one is allowed to talk about it, there is disfunction, rage, and acting out. No wonder little explosions of anti-semitic verbal abuse are bursting out. It is not right, just as the teenager of the family stealing cars isn't right, but it's not without its etiology.
I believe Phillip is dead on about the cure as well.
I am very grateful for this post. This blog is the most important blog in America.

[Shlomo #5]

"This blog is the most important blog in America."

I think you may be right.

[uk]

Richard:

Zionism is " a good action"? To use the money power of the Rothschilds (to whom was the Balfour declaration addressed to, Richard?) and the military and political power of the British empire (and then the US) to create a colony for people of one race/religion at the expense of the native people in Palestine through ethnic cleansing induced by terrorist gangs (Irgun, Stern, etc.) and then by the Israeli government. To flaunt all international law and standards of human rights and keep the region (and now the US) perpetually at or on the verge of war.

If this is a "good action" one has to wonder what a "bad action" might be.

[Gene]

Witty: "Annually, in my shul, we discuss politics. Our community spans a very wide of political spectrum, including those that are overtly anti-Zionist, a few that are religiously anti-Zionist. The majority, the vast majority, are pro-peace, and very cognizant and sympathetic with the history of Palestinians and current situation."

All this is well and good. What isn't so good is that the people who schedule public forums are terrified of holding such discussions and, on the rare occasions when they do, the mainstream media is terrified of covering them (or their editors don't want to cover anything where a disparaging word might be heard about Israel).

[Jaffr]

Phil and all:

A bit of realism (but some wishful thinking also) on the possibility of a new discourse on Palestine/Israel in a fine article in the current Al-Ahram:
THE LIMIT OF OBAMA'S IMAGINATION
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/885/op111.htm

"At a time when Obama's moral voice was most needed, the reach of his wings proved to be cautiously perforated on an AIPAC line, writes HAMID DABASHI...

"Israel," Senator Obama has assured his AIPAC audience in a speech on 3 March 2007, is "our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. . . We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs...

"Obama has had to renounce his connections not just with the Palestinian cause but also even to the pastor of a church he faithfully attended because he is a liberation theologian. How many of his wings will the Illinois Senator have to cut short before he can fly, and if he ever gets actually to fly how far can he soar, how deep will he fall? The thing that he has failed to understand is that he can never out-Hillary in appealing to, satisfying, and securing the endorsement of the pro-Israeli lobby. Every corner that he comes to cross and sell a bigger part of his soul to AIPAC, Hillary Clinton has already been there and done that. If he only had the courage of his convictions, if he only believed in the spectacular hope that he has generated in millions of young and idealist Americans -- including (and in fact particularly) young and idealist Jewish Americans."

And much more!

[americangoy]

The first thing that needs to happen is a news anchor, casually slipping on air, that Israel is and has been getting $3 billion per year, every year, making it the number 1 aid recipient of US aid money for years.

Most Americans don't know that simple fact.

Start with that and lets see how much Americans, the working Joe Schmoes, support and love Israel and think its goals are the same as the United States.

Once that meme spreads, other information will be more easily slipped thru the censorship.

Perhaps some actual news feeds from Gaza... the sky's the limit by then.

Now, re: the rage.
Of course there is rage and it has been bubbling. Whereas Israelis freely talk amongst themselves about all kinds of issues, including settlements and the Gaza situation (like any normal democratic country), we in America do not do so.

It used to be so bad that a person who dared to utter a weak criticism of Israel was immediately called a nazi, an anti semite, a Hitler lover.

Yes, that is exactly the phrases that were (and still are, to some extent) used.

Then the smears would begin, making a university professor lose his job, a business professional to lose hers...

Literally, criticizing Israel was bad for your career.

When faced with this censorship in the media (and that is exactly the right word we have to use), when faced with damaging one's career if one dared to speak out, as well as threatening phone calls, nasty emails, letters written with "anti semite" written prominently on them, as well as other harassment; when faced with all that, what do you think a calm, professional yuppie's reaction will be?

When in a so called democracy we have effective censorship, when speaking free speech to criticize (mildly at first) another country and then paying a shattered career price for it, what happens?

Democracies have an outlet to deal with dissatisfaction - people can speak out, form a political party, march in protests.

In America re: Israel issue, we cannot speak out, we cannot form a political party (the system is made for 2 parties for very rich people to be members of), we can protest as long as we do it in "free speech zones".

So when the democracy turns out to be a sham, a nice looking facade, what happens?

We become radicalized of course.

Just like the Arabs living under dictatorship of Mubarak, who effectively created al Kaida (Osama was just the money man).

Just like Palestinians living under control of a foreign power for decades became radicalized terrorists, stone throwers and Hamas supporters.

Just like Iraqis now...

[P.A.Z.-J.E.W., innocent victim of guerrilla attacks]

Phil is right to call this a guerrilla war. What can be seen on the internet is an act of aggression against Zionism.

In much the same fashion, poor people have been waging aggressive class war on the rich for time eternal.

"The first thing that needs to happen is a news anchor, casually slipping on air, that Israel is and has been getting $3 billion per year, every year, making it the number 1 aid recipient of US aid money for years.

Most Americans don't know that simple fact."

This is a blatant misrepresentation. Borderline anti-Semitic fascist extremism.

Americans do know they have a friend in Israel.

And Israel does have many of the same goals as the United States.

(Consider: getting American taxpayers to cough up billions for fighter jets, cluster bombs, and other progressive solutions for humanity in the 21st century.)

Other proud, Progressive American Zionist Jews for holo-Exaleipsis When-necessary and I have frequently pointed out that Zionism is to always be conflated with the concept of Jewish SELF-DETERMINATION.

(That is, Jews were not self-determining prior to Zionism, or cannot be self-determining without Zionism; ergo Judaism itself is dependent on Zionism to survive as a people.)

If that quest for self-determination necessitates the deliberate manipulation of history and current events in mass media, that is STILL within the rights of a self-determining PEOPLE.

Still, I contend that Americans do know and love their relationship with Israel and in particular how much their Congress, Senate, and executive branch candidates are ENCOURAGED to love and protect Israel.

To deny that is to become akin to the reprehensible Father Coughlin, an extremist who in the 30's "preached more and more about the negative influence of 'international bankers' and of Wall Street on the general welfare and about the need for monetary reform ...[and] claimed that the Depression was a cash famine (modern economic historians, in part, agree[4]), and proposed monetary reforms, including the elimination of the Federal Reserve System" (Wikipedia).

Only a dehumanizing extremist would contend that colonizing Palestine for a century, or creating mountains of worthless paper to finance invading and occupying a Middle Eastern country, aren't actions completely legitimate, morally justifiable, and full of wholesome goodness. These are good actions.

To say otherwise is malevolent, and should be removed from public discourse and public airwaves.

This is not thought-policing, this is SELF-DETERMINATION and humanism.

americangoy, you should read more of the historians that I read, like Philip Roth. I enjoy telling people they don't read enough, because when they demonstrate a different historical narrative basis than my own, they clearly have not read enough.

I also particularly enjoy NOT reading a book, then making a public point of not having read it, and then commenting on the strength of the arguments therein and the motives of its authors.

In the difficult situation of a good action that has had some negative consequences for others, it is impossible for PEACE to emerge when there are so many polemicists stubbornly perpetrating misunderstanding, and spreading counterfactual myths.

[Jesus Reyes]

We are all Palestinians. They in Palestine are in a physical cage and we in the US are in a mental cage.

[cj]

It has been a staple of public discourse for decades, that those who criticize Israel specifically because they love the country and believe in the more lofty and challenging and just of its ideals, are routinely pilloried for it, berated by rightists as self-haters and anti-Semites and destroyers of Zionism.

Now meet a refreshing new phenomenon - bashing and negation of those same critics of Israel, but this time, the attacks are coming from Palestinians, other Arabs and Muslims, and their allies on the European ultra-left.

The message is: We don't care what you think, we don't care what causes you care about and advance, we don't even care if you think just like we do - You're Israelis, and that's good enough for us - in fact, bad enough for us - reason enough, in short, to boycott you.

We've seen it in the serial boycott obsession of elements of the British intelligentsia, who essentially seek to penalize and punish Israeli colleagues for little more than the original sin of being Israeli. It matters not at all to the boycott-bent if many of their targets are on-site leaders in the struggle for Israeli-Palestinian peace and reconciliation.

Yes, we've come a long way from UN resolution 3379, adopted in late 1975, the declaration which determined that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination."

Now we have Anti-Zionism as a form of racism.

Actually, the clue to understanding the phenomenon may lie in the wording of the resolution itself, which included an explicit endorsement of the "elimination" of Zionism alongside "recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination."

The bottom line, of course, is that the very idea of a movement to found and foster a Jewish state is illegitimate, and, by very short extension, such a state in the Holy Land - or anywhere, for that matter - has by definition no right to exist.

Though the resolution died a formal death when it was revoked in 1991, some of its spirit lives on. The most obvious and most widespread form is the rise of Islamist ideology, which in its most radical forms explicitly views the Jewish people in the Holy Land - and even in places like Buenos Aires - as a cancerous presence and a preferred target.

In its more subtle forms, the resolution lives on in such phenomena as the recent response to a decision by the organizers of the Turin International Book Fair to declare Israel as its guest of honor.

In an initial salvo, The New York Times reported, a local pro-Palestinian group "stormed the book fair offices in Turin, demanding that the invitation to Israel be rescinded."

They distributed leaflets reading "We are appalled to see the world of culture take the side of those who methodically operate to annihilate Palestine and the Palestinians."

It mattered not at all that among the authors to be most prominently featured at the fair are David Grossman, Amos Oz, and A. B. Yehoshua, writers closely identified with the search for peace with the Palestinians and for an Israel more closely committed to equality, democracy and human rights.

In a further move to underscore the idea that the only good Israeli is an absent Israeli, Swiss Muslim academic and activist Tariq Ramadan and British-Pakistani author Tariq Ali, along with Italian ultra-leftists are calling for a boycott of the entire event, slated to coincide with May commemorations of the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel.

Perhaps most remarkable in the Book Fair controversy - and the most direct recognition of the inherent racism on the part of the boycott proponents - has been the response of a group of more than 30 Italian intellectuals and artists. In an open letter, they called on Italian President Giorgio Napolitano to preside over the opening of the fair, and to speak out "against any discrimination and blind intolerance towards the citizens and culture of Israel."

Where does the line fall between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies on the one hand, and a racist anti-Zionism on the other? There is, in fact, such a line.

It is racist to suggest that all peoples have a right to self-determination in the land of their ancestors, with the exception of the Jews.

It is racist to maintain that Muslim historic and religious claims to Jerusalem and the Holy Land are absolute and date to antiquity, and at the same time to negate and dismiss Jewish historic and religious claims, to call Jews interlopers and usurpers and carpetbaggers in the land of their Bible, which is a sacred reference for Muslims as well.

It is racist to declare Zionism as an evil before which all other evils in the world pale, and to argue that any act of violence against non-combatants is justified in the service of defeating Zionism.

It is racist to take Israel and only Israel to task for its shortcomings in the areas of civil equality, sharing of resources, and the search for peace, while keeping silent or even taking pains to legitimize the same failures on the part of the countries and peoples one happens, as blindly as a pre-pubescent football fan, to support.

To seek to silence and boycott Israelis as Israelis is to violate human rights and acts, in the process, to undermine the cause of the Palestinians.

Fighting fire with fire is a tactic which, despite its dangers, often succeeds. Fighting racism with racism is a tactic which, despite its allure to the hothead, never does.

[Richard Witty]

"All this is well and good. What isn't so good is that the people who schedule public forums are terrified of holding such discussions and, on the rare occasions when they do, the mainstream media is terrified of covering them (or their editors don't want to cover anything where a disparaging word might be heard about Israel)."

Discussion is NOT helped by being covered in the media. If anything, the spotlight inhibits people from real inquiry.

If Phil is interested in real discussion, he would spend his time organizing real discussion in face to face meetings, gathering people with differing perspectives to respectfully present their views, with vibrant Q & A, without the "accountability" of youtube even, and without the "accountability" of his imaginations of what the presenters thought, or the political implications.

Mountains out of molehills do NOT encourage candor, learning, and sympathy.

RAGE is the wrong answer.

[Richard Witty]

"Most Americans don't know that simple fact."

Its not a "fact". Its a good thing that Americans don't ignorantly digest it as agitated "fact".

The reason its not a "fact" is that the US military spends hundreds of billions in Iraq (not in or for Israel), likely tens of billions in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Phillipines, Bosnia, and elsewhere, EACH.

Its just that those expenditures are not definitively disclosed.

[Richard Witty]

"Literally, criticizing Israel was bad for your career."

That is utter bullshit.

Criticism is respected. Demonizing isn't. There is a difference. Its discernible and real scholarship is respected in American academia.

You don't have a clue.

You conflate Finkelstein's experience to some general suppression of opinion, that just isn't there.

[Richard Witty]

"americangoy, you should read more of the historians that I read, like Philip Roth. "

This was funny. I can see how you could parody my comments in that way.

I however challenge you (whoever you anonymously are) to actually read Benny Morris, or Baruch Kimmerling, or Ilan Pappe even (cover to cover).

The "New Historians" are too "biased" for you?

[NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL]

Congressman Howard Berman on Israel and the pro-Israel lobby:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=85265

Finkelstein gives Israeli-American relations lecture:

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=85204

http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM

[NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL]

If you do a search for 'Mearsheimer' in the field at CBSNEWS.COM, the following article that Phil wrote for 'The Nation' about Mearsheimer/Walt appears as the only reference:

Ferment Over The 'Israel Lobby'

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/opinion/main1560594.shtml?source=search_story

[NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL]

Additional about Mearsheimer/Walt (see www.israellobbybook.com as well):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=49800

US Support for Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinian people PRIMARY MOTIVATION for tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11 (also look up 'Israel as a terrorist's motivation' in the index of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book which is shown on both pages of http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM as well):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=39590

[liberal white boy]

They should join the homo-sapien-underground. Israeli Telecommunication Companies...It's Time to Seize Their Property
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/

[Jim Haygood]

"This blog is the most important blog in America." -- peters

Not only that, but it's exceedingly well-written. This formulation of Phil's is brilliant: "Jimmy Carter and Walt and Mearsheimer and the Iraq debacle have been an IV-drip into the American bloodstream."

Unquestionably, sunshine is the best disinfectant to get the issue of $3 billion a year for zionism out in the open. The mere opportunity to debate the issue (a debate completely missing from the mainstream media and the Congressional Record) would defuse much of the rage. It's the heavy-handed suppression that provokes the anger.

Consider, for instance, the position paper on Israel posted by Congressman Eliot Engel (D-Israel), an ardent zionist who also represents the northern suburbs of NYC. After dispensing the standard cliches about Israel ("America's best friend," "the region's only real democracy," etc.), he concludes his essay with this astonishing non sequitur:

"Please be assured that I will remain steadfast in my support for a strong US-Israel relationship and continue my fight against anti-Semitism."

http://tinyurl.com/2o9ely

Huh? Why does 'anti-Semitism' suddenly appear out of nowhere, in a position paper about a country? Knowing Eliot Engel (I've spent some time chatting with him), I can tell you why: he thinks (just as Howard Berman and Richard Witty do) that questioning or opposing Israel's entitlement to U.S. aid is inherently, axiomatically, prima facie anti-Semitic.

There can be no open debate when the first and only response to those who raise factual questions is to call them names. No wonder there's rage out there.

[Todd]

If Phil is right about the influence of Jewish power in the United States, the support of Israel is only a part of the problem.

Would Jewish power and influence put Phil's Jews at the top of a financial/tax system that has money pouring upwards rather than trickling down? Would Jewish influence drive massive, uncontrolled immigration that is overwhelmingly unwanted, and coupled with doctrines such as multiculturalism and political correctness,is clearly tearing the fabric of the nation apart for the benefit of a few? Would they get credit for a foreign policy that is destroying U.S. credibility abroad, and threatening constant conflict for years to come, and for seemingly self-serving reasons? How about the decline of culture and education, do they get credit for the decline? Or do they only get credit for a meritocracy that seems to benefit a select group of people for reasons that aren't obvious?

If Phil is right, I don't think that the often touted three or four extra I.Q. points are enough to smooth this mess over, let alone clean it up.

[Observer]

Berman, Waxman, Engle...let them keep on announcing brazenly that they assume office and committee chairs in order to promote the interest of Israel.

It will catch up with them.

The next thing you know there will a petition to the FBI circulating asking for these double agents to be investigated. Good idea btw. What American in their right mind wants public officials who openly declare their first loyalty lies with a foreign country to be serving in congress or having access to information that they surely pass on to Israel for their benefit not Americans? No American that I know.

Israel is a foreign country, it's isn't America. And it certainly isn't a friend of the US. It's a client welfare state and that solely because of the domestic zionist cult residing in the US and in our congress.

Since we aren't at war with Israel the congessmen's actions don't fit the outdate treason definition but we all recognize it as such. Berman knows it too or he wouldn't have tried to backtrack.
It's time for America to tighten up it's own interest and start some house cleaning. Things have changed since the treason law was written and it needs to be expanded and updated to reflect current realities in this country now.