Wednesday, September 26, 2012

On Progressive Jewish Dhimmitude

Mike L.

{Cross-Posted at Geoffff's Joint, Bar and Grill.}

Let me start by affirming that not all Jewish progressives are dhimmis and that Jewish dhimmitude is, largely, a matter of degree.  It is, however, the case that Jewish dhimmitude is a phenomenon that is far more prevalent on the progressive-left than it is on the conservative right.  While dhimmitude was (and is) an historically racist social arrangement that kept non-Muslims as oppressed minorities within Muslim societies over the last 1,400 years, it is also a state of mind.  Sometimes we talk about Jewish Stockholm Syndrome, but Jewish dhimmitude is the same thing.

Psychologist Kenneth Levin, author of the groundbreaking work, The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege, put it like this:
Almost invariably there are parts of the population that accept the indictments of the besiegers in the hope that they can win relief and peace. This is a psychological response to being besieged, and Jews have been besieged for 2000 years. As Max Nordau wrote over a hundred years ago, the greatest success of the anti-Semites was that they had gotten the Jews to see themselves through anti-Semitic eyes.
The essence of Jewish dhimmitude is the acceptance of ferocious and unjust Muslim indictments against the Jewish people.  The behavior of the dhimmi, which is usually characterized by an overt hostility toward those of their fellow Jews who refuse to succumb to the condition of dhimmitude, flows from that premise.   In today's world it takes various forms including, most prominently, the tendency to blame one's fellow Jews for the failure of Arab and Muslim societies to make peace with their formerly oppressed Jewish subjects.

Instead of acknowledging the obvious, which is that the Palestinians do not want a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one, progressive-left Jewish dhimmis blame Arab intransigence on their fellow Jews in Israel.  Instead of acknowledging that the Palestinians have rejected offer after offer for statehood, going all the way back to the Peel Commission of 1937, they instead blame the Likud or the "settlers" or Avigdor Lieberman or Benjamin Netanyahu for Palestinian rejectionism.

In this way, Jewish dhimmis see the conflict through the eyes of Palestinians.  It is what I have referred to as The Palestinian Colonization of the Jewish Mind.  Instead of recognizing that there is no peace because the Palestinians do not want peace, but eventual victory over a previously subjugated Jewish minority, Jewish dhimmis accept Arab and Muslim and Palestinian racism against Jews as normative. Because they do so they thereby accept the Palestinian premise that it is the Jewish presence in Judea which represents the primary obstacle to peace.  Thus Jewish dhimmis affirm Arab racism against their fellow Jews and end up, unwittingly to be sure, justifying Arab violence against us.

One can only consider the presence of Jews in Judea as an obstacle to peace if one accepts the racist Palestinian notion that any future state of Palestine must be Judenrein.  Just as Barack Obama has accepted this violently anti-Semitic premise, so have Jewish dhimmis.

Another consequence of Jewish dhimmitude, however, is the chronic racism towards Muslims that is a direct consequence of the dhimmis' stance.  Because Jewish dhimmis tend to blame Arab and Muslim hostility toward the Jewish people on some subset of their fellow Jews, they also tend to attack and vilify and marginalize Jews who push back against Muslim Supremacism.  Islam, like all religions, has a supremacist side to it.  The difference is that, because Muslims outnumber Jews by a factor of 100 to 1, Muslim Supremacists represent a very significant number of people.  They are, in fact, the primary force behind the rise of radical Islam throughout the Middle East and even though they only represent some portion of Islam they still well outnumber the Jews whom they seek to oppress or kill.

When Jews who are not dhimmis speak out against radical Islam they are typically called "racists" or "Islamophobes" by Jewish dhimmis on the progressive-left.  In this way, Jewish dhimmis conflate regular Muslims with radical Jihadis.  When a Jewish person points toward Hamas or Islamic Jihad or the Muslim Brotherhood and claims that these movements are genocidal and seek the oppression of women and the slaughter of Gays, they are pointing to a wide ranging, diverse, and international political movement.  What they are not pointing toward are Muslims as a whole.  They may wonder aloud if the supremacist trend within Islam is inherent to Islam, but they certainly recognize that many, many millions of ordinary Muslims are not involved in the Muslim Supremacist movement, which is the movement of radical Islam and the basis of the Muslim Brotherhood.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest that Muslims, as a group, are Jihadis.

And that, my friends, truly is racist.

Furthermore, of course, objecting to Muslim Supremacism, like objecting to White Supremacism, should be sacrosanct among people who care about universal human rights and if the progressive-left wishes to maintain anything that resembles moral credibility they must stop making apologies for this widespread racist and misogynistic movement.

Why is it that in today's world it is the left as much as, if not more so, than the right that is standing in opposition to social justice?

76 comments:

  1. You have become exactly what you once claimed to despise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And a peaceful and meaningful Yom Kippur to you, as well, Stuart.

      Delete
    2. Your comments are very important to us. Thanks for stopping by.

      Delete
    3. No Randall. They're not. This essay is proof they are not.

      Delete
    4. Stuart, you are personalizing.

      This is not about you.

      But if you have a specific criticism, I wish that you would make it.

      Delete
    5. Within the boundaries of our shared world view, we do our best to accommodate all tastes, Stuart. Perhaps a less prosemitic site would be more to your liking.

      Delete
    6. Fuck you Randall.

      Is that really what you want on your site Michael?

      Delete
    7. Sir, I must ask you to leave. The library is now closing.

      Delete
    8. I'm quite sure Randall, that you're in no position to do that. So with all due respect, blow it out your ass.

      Delete
    9. Randall,

      Stuart is a friend of mine.

      We may sincerely disagree, but I honor the man's integrity.

      I also honor your participation, but what I really want is for Stuart to offer a fair criticism of the piece above.

      Delete
  2. Guys,

    let's keep this civil and recognize that, in truth, we are on the same side... or certainly should be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. We are on the same side. And I will respond. I don't have the time to get into more details right now, but I will. It starts with you calling me a dhimmi. With promoting and endorsing the idea that Jews that disagree with you are autistic. Or must suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

      Delete
    2. You should lay it out so that I can respond.

      That's all I ever ask.

      The last thing in this world that I want is ideological conformity, Stuart, and I think that you know that.

      Of course, write well, because you know my inclination to front page comments!

      :O)

      Delete
    3. Given what you've posted since last night, I think I'll pass. You might want to just review your own words about the demonization that pushed you away from the left, and then compare that what you've written and posted lately.

      Delete
    4. Stuart,

      I know that you are enamored of the moral equivalency canard, but what I have written concerning the progressive left (and progressive left Jews) is not the same as suggesting that Israel is a racist, colonialist, imperialist, apartheid state that should never have come into being to begin with.

      If I suggest that progressive left Jews often suffer from Jewish Stockholm Syndrome, or an attitude that can accurately be described as dhimmitude, this is not the same as demonizing, and thus justifying violence toward, the persecuted Jews of the Middle East.

      What I do is chide progressive-left Jewish enablers of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism to stand the fuck up for themselves.

      What progressive-left anti-Zionists do is advocate policies that are ultimately genocidal toward the Jewish people.

      If you are incapable of seeing the clear moral distinction then I do not know what to say.

      Nonetheless, you remain welcome to present your argument and I wish that you would do so.

      Make your case.

      Stand the fuck up and make your case.

      Delete
    5. You don't chide the progressive left. You demonize them. You demonize ME.

      Read what you just wrote. You just did it again.

      I'm immoral. I don't have moral clarity. Your view is the only one with moral clarity. There is no difference between what you claimed to have such disdain for and what you write.

      Beyond that, if you're truely interested in peace, and not revenge, forget about history. Pre-leftists of the 19th century are dead. The grand mufti is dead. Every single link between the founders of the muslim brotherhood and al queda are dead. Just as every link between me and the JDL is dead and every link between the republican party of Lincoln and today's republican party is dead.

      You're fighting imaginary enemies and in the process, turning allies into enemies by demonizing us. We are awake. Just as awake as you are. We quite simply, see the world through a different prism. Neither provide perfect clarity.

      Delete
    6. Interested to learn what prism you are using.

      If you could see how you disregard history, just because it is past, as if there was no effect on the present.

      Delete
    7. Not as if there was no effect on the present. But we live in the here and now. Are you exactly the same as your parents, your siblings if you have any? Your grandparents? Exactly the same as everyone you grew up with? If not, why not?

      My grandfather was a communist. My grandmother on the other side was an anarchist. My father was a human rights activist. I am none of them and I am all of them. As are (and were) my five siblings. And we are all different.

      History is important. But it doesn't define us, it doesn't define our enemies. If you do nothing but look to past, you can never see a different future.

      Delete
    8. Why do you maintain that those you criticize "do nothing but look to past" when they are actually looking at the present no less than you, not to mention the future.

      The issue is that you dismiss the history as meaningless. Did you not say, "forget about history?"

      Delete
    9. I didn't actually say that people that I criticize do nothing but look to the past. But you read this blog. You know how much focus Michael has on history. (I can't imagine why :P ) But there is such thing as balance. I have long maintained that arguing about the history of the I/P conflict gets us nowhere. Being reminded what Jabotinsky did is no more fruitful than reminding others (or informing for the first time for that matter) about al-Husayni. Both of them are long dead. This is not 1948. This is not 1967 or '73 or '87 or '93 or 2000. Save for 1948, I lived very intimately through each of them.

      I'm interested in peace. Not in blame. There are no solutions in blame. There is no future in blame.

      Delete
    10. This sounds to me as if you are in a vacuum.

      History is extremely important, and there is too little knowledge of it.

      The object is not to blame, but to understand the underlying intentions of the actors involved.

      How does one get peace with an adversary whose history is such that there is no equal place for those who refuse to believe?

      What balance do you propose? Drawing inaccurate equivalencies, such as you did between the Mufti and Jabotinsky, is an illusion of balance.



      Delete
    11. The underlying intentions of today's actors are somehow exactly the same of those of 40 years ago? Of 80 years ago? And you know this how?

      I know for a fact that my intentions are different now than they were almost 40 year ago when I stood with a gun in my hand. But you know that 80 year old history guides the intentions today?

      If you face an adversary who claims there is no equal place for those who refuse to believe similarly, then deal with that adversary. Hold him responsible for his actions and his actions alone, and not the actions of his father and grandfather.

      I drew no false equivilency. Neither the mufti nor Jabotinsky are the least bit relevant.

      Delete
    12. Yes, the line from the al Banna to Arafat to the PA and Hamas is unbroken. That you have such an inability to discern they are the same shows the vacuum perspective I mentioned. While your intentions may have changed, it takes little effort to see that theirs have not.

      I do not follow your logic at all. Of course we must hold actors responsible for their behavior. But why should we refuse to acknowledge the historical basis for their behavior, as if it is not interrelated? Especially when they tell us about the relation.

      Why should we remain silent when there is a large segment of people who are ignorant about the genesis of the present situation. Knowledge could, after all, change the way they see things.

      You draw false equivalencies repeatedly, as you did above with Jabotinsky and the Mufti, only to then say they are irrelevant. Your words:

      Being reminded what Jabotinsky did is no more fruitful than reminding others (or informing for the first time for that matter) about al-Husayni. Both of them are long dead.

      Do you not believe there is such a thing as a dhimmi, or that dhimmitude helps to explain the prejudice we see in how non-believers are treated today?

      Delete
    13. Historical basis for their behavior? Again I'll ask. You know that their behavior is based on what happened 80 years ago? Is yours? Are the actions of Israel based on what happened 80 years ago? Should it be?

      In the context in which I referenced them, I drew no equivilency between Jabotinsky and the mufti, except to their irrelevance. You want to make more of it, go ahead. It's a non-issue. I'm done with it.

      There was such a thing as dhimmi.

      Does it exist today? Maybe. Is it significant in the context of the I/P conflict? I don't think so.

      Delete
    14. Your questions are silly.

      I will turn it around. How do you know their behavior is not so based?

      My behavior is based on what is going on BOTH now and before, the combination of which provides the necessary context. Why do you believe there is a genocidal tone to Islamic rhetoric? Is that a new phenomenon, or is it connected to something before?

      Israel's actions should be based on what occurred 80 years ago, 60 years ago, and today. Or should it pretend that 1% of its total population died after the Arabs sought to annihilate the Jews in 1948? Or that Muhammad also called for genocide of the Jews, much like Qaradawi does today.

      In other words, your questions are silly.

      As for dhimmis, are you saying that Muslims, today, do not see Jews and Christians as such, based on their faith? Are Copts not treated as such? Would Jews still be if there were any left in Islamic states?

      Why do you have such a hard time to acknowledge that Israel and most Jews seek to coexist with Islamic states and Muslims, while large segments of the latter seek supremacy over non-believers? Or do you acknowledge that this is accurate?

      Delete
    15. You've made many presumptions about what I have a hard time acknowledging.

      Just because I disagree with you on some things, doesn't mean I disagree with you with everything.

      Just because something may be true today and was also true 400 years ago, does not mean that it was also true at every point in between. Which is why drawing lines between various points in history can be so problematic.

      Delete
    16. My presumptions are based on the substance of what you say.

      The way you approach matters, gleaned from your replies, is that a a particular matter may only be relied upon to make a determination if it is 100% beyond doubt. That is a higher standard than in a criminal case.

      In any event, I suggest that the line of Jew hatred is unbroken, which is why history has significance, rather than a view formulated in a vacuum.

      Delete
    17. Tell me something. Have you ever been to the West Bank? Were you there in mid-70's? Do you know how prevalant anti-semitism was there during that period? I would suggest that you don't actually know the answer to that question.

      Delete
    18. Aside from the fact that you are relying on history, I have not been there. Whether it was more or less, latent or patent, I presume it was there. What is your point?

      Delete
    19. Because in 1974 dhimmitude was the last thing on the minds of the Palestinians. I doubt it was an issue for a couple hundred years before then. I have my doubts it's really an issue today. The Palestinians are not the Egyptians and they're not the Syrians or the Lebanese.

      Delete
    20. It may have been the last thing on their minds, but that does not mean it was not in their minds.

      I look at these things not Palestinian-centric, but as Arab and Islamic, of which Palestinians are included.

      Are you saying that if Palestinians were in power in the 70s that they would not have seen the Jews as dhimmis?

      Delete
    21. Right, because you think all Arabs and all Muslims are the same. They're not.

      I don't know what would have happened if the Palestinians were in power. And neither do you. There is no history. It's never happened, they've never been in power. But no, I don't think they would have seen the Jews as dhimmis. Nor would the large Christian Palestinian population be dhimmis.

      Delete
    22. I did not say they were the same. Please refrain from telling me what I think or putting words in my mouth, particularly as you expressed concern over my presumptions.

      The truth is that this was called the Arab-Israeli conflict from the start. It was the Arabs that went to war against Israel.

      Once again, if I do not know, neither do you. It's a silly reply you offer.

      That said, I think your belief that Arab Palestinian Muslims, if in a superior position, would not have seen Jews as dhimmis is wishful thinking, based on how they have depicted Jews, up to the present, as descended from apes and pigs. Arafat was no peacemonger, and would have engaged in genocide if he could have. I have no doubt about that, even though it appears you require a standard is 100% certainty.

      Delete
  3. I can certainly understand where you are coming from Stuart BUT peace will only come when both sides are ready and the other side is not going to forget history; that much is obvious. This is the fatal flaw in the progressive paradigm concerning I/P. Only one side is playing. When one listens to other side, it is obvious how ingrained the historical hatred is and I for one cannot envision a day when it will not poison the whole enterprise no matter how pragmatic "we," can be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no idea what you mean by the progressive paradigm concerning I/P.

      Delete
    2. Bending over backwards; adopting the Palestinian narratives that Israel must do all the bending and when they've done enough, peace will ensue.

      Delete
    3. Oh.

      That sounds a lot like when Republicans say that Democrats want to turn the US into a European socialist country with cradle to grave welfare. It makes me laugh.

      Delete
    4. Well, laughter is good for the soul so I'm glad I could help out. :>

      Delete
  4. Hey,

    you guys are creating some very interesting conversation, for sure.

    When this place is at its best, this is kinda what it looks like.

    I've written up my own response to Stuart but I think that I may save it for either later this evening or sometime tomorrow.

    We cannot expect Stuart to respond to 3 people at once, after all.

    Terrific conversation, guys.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I like it when Stuart engages.

      Delete
    2. I do, too.

      But you have to watch out.

      The guy can get surly and mean.

      I have seen him reduce people to sobbing wrecks within minutes!

      :O)

      And whatever you do, do not ask him about "imhotep."

      Delete
    3. Well, I made him laugh so I think I have him on the ropes.

      Delete
  5. Heya folks,

    I am off-line until tomorrow afternoon PST.

    The conversation between Stuart and School should be interesting to anyone who cares about the never-ending Arab-Israel conflict and how we discuss it.

    I will put in my two cents tomorrow, but for the moment I am content to read what others have to say.

    ReplyDelete
  6. all hell will break loose. you leave your blog in dangerous hands. :P

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cool.

      I think that you should reek havoc!

      Wreak havoc?

      Laurie and I are taking the pooches in tomorrow.

      Fred is coming on 17 years old, now.

      I think that he may already be a zombie poooch.

      Delete
  7. Stuart,

    I've given considerable thought to your input and the first thing that I would like to say is that I am very sorry if you have taken offense at the thesis of the above piece.

    Such was not my intention and I certain did not hold in you mind as I writing the above.

    It seems to me, however, that there is one relevant question to be asked on this matter. That question is whether or not my thesis is true?

    If it is true and you are offended then I am truly sorry, but it cannot be helped. If my thesis is false, then it is a different matter.

    My thesis, as derived from the work of Kenneth Levin, is that a sizable portion of progressive-left Jewry suffers from what we might call Jewish Stockholm Syndrome or the dhimmi mind-set.

    Now that is either the case or it is not the case. In order to determine the answer to that question we must look at our definition of Jewish Stockholm Syndrome.

    Levin stresses that Jews who suffer from Jewish Stockholm Syndrome are the "parts of the population that accept the indictments of the besiegers..."

    In this case, Arab and Palestinian indictments suggest that it is the Jews of the Middle East who are primarily responsible for the conflict because it was they who set up an unjust occupation regime which oppresses and persecutes the Palestinian people.

    That is the indictment.

    My claim is that large numbers of progressive-left Jews accept, in whole or in large part, the alleged truth of this indictment. Progressive-left Jews generally tell themselves (and one another) that because Israel holds the Palestinians under occupation, and because Israel encourages the settlement of Palestinian land by Jewish-Israeli nationals, that it is incumbent upon the Jewish state of Israel to therefore end the occupation and to dismantle the settlements in order to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

    What I would submit to you is not only is it absolutely the case that large numbers of progressive-left Jews accept this paradigm of the conflict, but that it is the prevailing paradigm among them.

    Do you disagree that large numbers of progressive-left Jews, if not the great majority, view the conflict in this way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. wait wait wait....i was going to start by asking you to name a single person that actually suffer from the "Jewish Stockholm Syndrome or the dhimmi mindset"?

      But then you kind of blew me away with this:

      "My claim is that large numbers of progressive-left Jews accept, in whole or in large part, the alleged truth of this indictment. Progressive-left Jews generally tell themselves (and one another) that because Israel holds the Palestinians under occupation, and because Israel encourages the settlement of Palestinian land by Jewish-Israeli nationals, that it is incumbent upon the Jewish state of Israel to therefore end the occupation and to dismantle the settlements in order to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict."

      It is a classic case of begging the question. A conclusion based on a false premise.

      Is it not possible for a Jew to believe "that it is the Jews of the Middle East who are primarily responsible for the conflict because it was they who set up an unjust occupation regime which oppresses and persecutes the Palestinian people" without it being the result of guilt or mental defect? Yet a non-Jew can believe these things to be true without it being the result of guilt or mental defect? Of course it is possible, which makes the presumption in the quoted paragraph a null argument.

      I don't happen to fit into this group, though I do think Israel holds the Palestinians under occupation, and ending that occupation is an essential part of any peaceful resolution. But it is far from the only thing.

      It seems you go out of your way (as does the author of the piece you cite) to offend those that see the issues differently than you, particularly Jews and whoever the "progressive left" is, by framing arguments that result in an obviously false conclusion. You have done that here.

      You build argments in order to support your thesis. Because x and y are true, z must be true. Except x and y are not true. It's very imhotepian.

      Delete
    2. Now you're adding a whole new feature, which isn't even accurate. And you use that feature to do nothing more than dehumanize others.

      And it doesn't make your argument any stronger. You're still pushing a logical fallacy.

      Your argument may be valid, but your message can't succeed with logical fallacies, lies, and insults. (You know what a dhimmi is. An american jew, by definition, cannot be a dhimmi.)

      Delete
    3. Stuart,

      you write:

      Is it not possible for a Jew to believe "that it is the Jews of the Middle East who are primarily responsible for the conflict because it was they who set up an unjust occupation regime which oppresses and persecutes the Palestinian people" without it being the result of guilt or mental defect?

      I am actually uncomfortable with the notion of Jewish dhimmitude, or Jewish Stockholm Syndrone, as a "mental defect."

      It has more to do with the denial of history and the success of Arab and old Soviet propaganda which convinced millions of progressives the world over, Jewish and non-Jewish, that the reason that Arab-Palestinians seek to kill Jews in the Middle East is because we richly deserve it.

      It's is not about the word. The term doesn't matter.

      Of course "dhimmi" is insulting. It should be insulting. It was a terribly demeaning thing that our people endured for 13 centuries by the very religion which now objects to our sovereignty on Jewish land.

      Y'know, I get no joy from any of this, but we must stop blaming ourselves for their hatred toward us. Every time I read some "progressive Zionist" compare Likud to Hamas, I know that I am reading the words of a dhimmi.

      Every time some J-Street person or someone like Peter Beinart lambastes Israel in terms of "social justice" or "human rights" while virtually ignoring the rockets dropped into southern Israel, I know that I am reading the words of a dhimmi.

      It is the tendency among progressive-left Jews to blame the persecution of Middle Eastern Jews on the victims. This manifests itself, among other ways, in demands that Jewish people be ethnically cleansed from Judea and Samaria.

      Why should Jews erase Jewish history?

      In any case, my intention was never to insult you, but I also understand why you might feel so.

      Delete
    4. But that still doesn't answer the question. If a Jew thinks this way, it is guilt and Stockholm Syndrome. Yet not so if a non-jew thinks this same way? There is necessarily some force in place that is particular to Jews but somehow doesn't affect non-Jews? Genetic maybe? I hope you recognize the absolute absurdity of the charge. What is your motivation for pushing this argument other than to insult Jews?

      Delete
    5. Stuart,

      what are you talking about?

      My concern here is not with non-Jews, but with Jews who have accepted the so-called "Palestinian narrative" of Jewish guilt.

      Progressive-left Jews, as you are well aware, tend to blame the Likud or the "settlers" for the continuation of the conflict.

      And that, my friend, is pure dhimmitude.

      The truth is, of course, that you are seeking to deny and obscure yet another obvious fact. Just as you deny, or obscure, the fact that Barack Obama is not preventing Iran's advancement toward nuclear weaponry, you are here denying and obscuring the fact that progressive-left Jews tend to blame their fellow Jews in Israel for ongoing, theologically-based, Arab hostility.

      The problem here is not with the settlers, nor with the Likud.

      The problem is with the Arabs and their Jewish apologists.

      Delete
    6. Oh, and btw, your silly idea that we should "forget history" would, if taken to its logical conclusion, create people who are perpetual tabula rasas, incapable of making judgments or decisions upon anything because everything would always be brand-spanking new in their minds.

      It's a silly notion and you should reconsider it.

      Delete
    7. No Michael. If you are going to make the claim that all Jews that accept a particular narrative are doing so out of guilt or Stockholm Syndrome, then you are claiming that Jews can't possibly come to that conclusion for the same reason that non-Jews do. I'd like you to respond directly to this. Is it genetic? How about converts? What about people like my friend, who didn't find out she was Jewish until she was 25? Had she accepted the narrative, would it have been as a result of guilt? Or would she have been able to formulate her opinion solely based on the information, however skewed, that she'd accepted as fact?

      And as for Iran, I think it's Bibi whose not preventing it. And Saudi Arabia isn't doing a very good job either. Pakistan might want to lend a hand, as could Great Britain. Seems they're all failing. They all should shout a little louder. That would work. With graphics. Lots of graphics. Show Iran exactly where that red line should be. In fact, a public display of red lines would certainly make Iran change course. Talk louder. Draw red lines. That the ticket.

      Delete
    8. Stuart,

      You have misunderstood my argument and are thereby misrepresenting it.

      I do not claim that all Jews who accept a particular narrative are doing so out of psychological feelings of guilt.

      I am claiming that Jews who accept the "Palestinian narrative" are accepting a narrative of Jewish guilt. It is not that "dhimmis" feel guilty. It is that they believe that the Jews were guilty of great crimes against the local Arabs and that the local Arabs, the Palestinians, are largely the victims.

      And as for Iran, I think it's Bibi whose not preventing it.

      This is what they call "diffusion of responsibility."

      The fact of the matter, of course, is that Israel is a tiny country surrounded by enemies while the United States is the most powerful nation on the planet.

      That's one fact.

      Another fact is that Barack Obama told the world that he would prevent Iranian nukes and all the evidence suggests that he is failing to do so. He is not preventing Iranian nukes. According to the IAEA, the Iranian nuclear program is advancing.

      If Barack Obama were actually preventing Iranian nukes then their nuclear program would not be advancing, but it is. Thus Barack Obama is not preventing Iranian nukes.

      Whether or not he will do so in the future is anyone's guess, but the evidence that we currently have strongly suggests that he is not.

      In any case, it is important to recognize that for many decades Arab and Soviet propaganda painted the Jews in the Middle East as the aggressors and a newly created subset of Arabs, the Palestinians, as the victims in this conflict.

      You can either believe that or not.

      Or you can partially believe it, or not.

      The historical record is pretty clear, though, that it was the Arabs who started the conflict and who absolutely refuse to end it.

      What we need now is for Jewish people to stand up for Jewish people.

      During the Oslo years it made sense to offer concessions because we all thought that we could, possibly, come to a reasoned end to hostilities. The conclusion that many of us are drawing now is that Oslo is dead and that there will be no peace because the Arab governments, and the Arab peoples, do not want peace. They clearly do not want normalization with Israel.

      What they want is victory.

      And that is not the fault of the settlers or the "hilltop youth." Nor is it the fault of Likud.

      Delete
    9. The Evil Republicans are to blame....

      "I've gotten into fights with friends... (86+ / 0-)

      and with people at synagogue who think that Obama is bad for a whole litany of reasons. It really annoys me because the Republicans are bad news, especially for Jews. They stand against pretty much all our values. And the only reason they're "pro"-Israel is because they want us to help them fulfill their apocalyptic fantasies.

      They're not friends to the Jewish People. They're "pro"-Israel for antisemitic reasons because they want us to all gather there, that will help bring Jesus' second coming and then we'll all either convert or we'll be killed and burn in hell. Yeah, I'm not exactly cool with that.

      Enacting our agenda requires winning elections. Oh, and me on Facebook.

      by Mets102 on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 07:40:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]"

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/29/1138027/-Someone-said-they-feel-sorry-for-me-because-I-m-a-Jew-that-supports-Obama

      Delete
    10. Mets102 has a deep bigotry against conservative and Evangelical Christians.

      I find it very, very unusual. They always say that Evangelical Christians only support Israel out of some heinous End of Days mythology in which Jesus will return and show Hitler and the Catholic Church just how the Jews should have been dealt with.

      He is projecting his own malice onto those people.

      The truth of the matter is that conservative Christians in the US support Israel because they recognize Israel as the source of their scripture.

      They also hold in mind Genesis 12:3

      I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.

      In this way progressive Jews (pretending to be liberals) confuse friends with enemies.

      I find it sad.

      Delete
  8. Mike...

    I don't know Mets102 well, but bigoted is not a descriptor I'd ever attach to him. Nor is malicious.

    Conservative Christians (a group with which I have much more experience than I'd like to admit) really do support Israel because of their fascination with end-times theology. I realize this refutes your basic thesis, but read some of their writings...

    A few days ago you had the "I will Survive" Jesus video up with a comment about the reaction of Christians to this being very different than the reaction of Muslims to the current controversial internet video. It spurred me to google the reactions to "The Last Temptation of Christ"--I remember vividly the protests--the movie was banned in the city where I live because it was considered blasphemous. But in my googling I came across this: http://www.truthtellers.org/israel/lasttemp.html

    These are the people I knew, the people whose unwavering support for Israel was based on their desire to see their Jeebus return to earth. Your failure to see their motives as less than pure, while imputing malice and bigotry to well-meaning people like Mets102 is incomprehensible to me.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is what these Christians believe important in this matter? They are free to believe so long as they do not cause hurt to others. Where is their violence? Israel and Jews have no fear of these people from their beliefs.

      To say that even with the beliefs they do not support Israel for other reasons, just as many other Americans and even Obama, is just a simplistic, black and white view of the matter.

      These discussions are games between partisans that are most interested in winning. Even more than in truth. Mets is obsessed by such politics and everything he says seems tinged by the need to promote Obama. He is also prone to label, then demonize those with whom he does not agree. It's odd, to me, that many who advocate for tolerance are intolerant to others.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. puzzled,

      Yes, of course, many evangelical Christians have that motive as part of their motive in their "support of Israel". But, why is that important as to whether or not others believe lies that vilify the nation of the Jewish people, and why is that important as to whether or not others protect the nation of the Jewish people from genocide?

      During the holocaust -- which occurred just about seventy years ago -- it was mainly some few devout Christians who protected and saved the lives of Jewish people, and those few devout Christians did so largely out of their holding belief in certain theological tenets of the religion Christianity. Does that mean that it was not right to defend the Jewish people, and does that mean that the lies that the Nazis propagated against the Jewish people and which millions of people believed were true? No, it does not.

      And, I am completely aware of, and vexed by, the racist bigoted condescending attitude and agenda of Christians toward the Jewish people, and I am completely aware of the actions of the Christian church toward the Jewish people and Israel at the present time (and continously throughout the past two thousand years). I am Jewish.

      See what happened to me (and, previously, to another commenter) on the following post when I (and, previously, that other commenter) tried to point out certain current detrimental actions of the Christian clerical establishment: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/palestinians-enraged-that-romney-told-truth-about-their-lack-of-interest-in-peace-call-him-ignorant.html

      My second to final comment there (which sums it up): http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/palestinians-enraged-that-romney-told-truth-about-their-lack-of-interest-in-peace-call-him-ignorant.html#comment-907446

      Delete
    8. If you read what Mets said, he accused REPUBLICANS of " the only reason they're "pro"-Israel is because they want us to help them fulfill their apocalyptic fantasies."

      This is of course a ludicrous broad brush stereotype. If someone painted Jews that broadly we would all be outraged.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. ...And I hasten to add that most people who are Christian who are defending Israel are doing so mainly for right reasons, and, in many cases, entirely for right reasons.

      They are defending Israel in that they are standing up for truth and justice.

      They are defending Israel in that they are standing up for human rights.

      Because, for reasons pertaining to their prior non-aversion toward Israel, they know essential facts about the situation that Israel is in.

      And many of them are defending Israel -- and all liberal democratic civilization -- because, for reasons pertaining to their prior non-aversion toward Israel, they know essential facts about the Islamic attack on Israel and on the West as a whole; They know essential facts about Islam -- authoritative orthodox Islam; They know essential facts about the Islamic supremacist political movement (which is a revival of authoritative orthodox Islam, and which began in the 1920's).

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. ...But what most of them don't know, and, in some cases, have demonstrated an unwillingness to know, is about the Western establishment's racist war against the creation of, and, subsequently, against the existence of, the nation of the Jewish people, Israel, since several decades before the official refounding of Israel in 1948.

      I have listed and cited some information about this racist war being waged against Israel by the Western establishment in the following comment of mine that I listed previously.

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/palestinians-enraged-that-romney-told-truth-about-their-lack-of-interest-in-peace-call-him-ignorant.html#comment-907446

      Delete
    13. Heya Puzz,

      thanks for dropping in.

      The truth, of course, is that Evangelical Christians make up many millions of Americans and are, therefore, a very diverse group of people.

      They are also the most supportive people on the planet toward the Jewish state of Israel and for that I am greatly appreciative.

      Have you seen this, btw?

      Hava Nagila Texas Style!

      I love these guys!

      They crack me up, but they are unquestionably friends.

      Understand, of course, that I do not doubt that some Evangelicals hold malice toward Jews. The bottom line for me is that most are supportive of the Jewish state of Israel and hold friendship and respect toward the Jewish people... which is far, far more than I can say for progressives as a group, present company excepted.

      If you have any interest in Jewish-Evangelical outreach from the Jewish side of things (which I cannot imagine that you would) the go-to guy is Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.

      As Jews begin to recognize that the progressive movement is toxic toward us, my recommendation is outreach toward the conservative Christian right. I think that we can do so in a manner that could encourage the reforms that are already starting in that movement.

      The younger generation, from my understanding, is far less hostile toward Gay people and developing an environmental consciousness in keeping with their Christianity and the notion of stewardship.

      It is far better for diaspora Jews to encourage a friendly relationship with these people then a hostile one because such a friendship is mutually beneficial.

      They are, in fact, good people even if we do disagree with many of them on many things.

      Peace to you, please, dear lady.

      Delete
    14. "It is far better for diaspora Jews to encourage a friendly relationship with these people then a hostile one because such a friendship is mutually beneficial.

      "They are, in fact, good people even if we do disagree with many of them on many things."

      I agree. And I apologize for the harshness of my previous comments to any Christians who are supporting Israel for right reasons.

      But, to clarify:

      What I was referring to by: "current detrimental actions of the Christian clerical establishment" that I expressed that I was pointing out was mainly the current racist bigoted antipathetic agenda and actions of the (clerical organizational establishment of the) 'mainline' Protestant denominations of the Christian church (not the Evangelical Christian church), and of the (clerical organizational establishment of the) Roman Catholic Christian church, toward Israel and the Jewish people.

      And how Christian commenters responded to that was a manifestation of the anti-Jewish racism (ignorance, bigotry, dishonesty, sanctimony) that is had by Christians.

      And what I mainly was trying to communicate in the comments that I posted on that post on Jihad Watch was about the anti-Jewish bigotry that is a deeply engrained part of culturally Christian-European -- Christian and formerly Christian -- culture. Anti-Jewish bigotry which is manifested by the Western Left's current racist bigoted indoctrinated ignorant attack on Israel and which is manifested by the larger Western establishment's racist war on Israel.

      I listed and cited information describing and documenting the Western establishment's racist war on Israel and the Western Left's current racist bigoted indoctrinated ignorant attack on Israel.

      Again, see my second to last comment there.

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/palestinians-enraged-that-romney-told-truth-about-their-lack-of-interest-in-peace-call-him-ignorant.html#comment-907446

      ----

      And Jewish people have to stop groveling to others.

      Jewish people have to stand up for themselves.

      Jewish people simply have to tell the truth -- the true factual currently approximately 90-year history, and current reality, of the situation that Israel is in.

      Jewish people first have to acknowledge the true factual currently approximately 90-year history, and current reality, of the situation that Israel is in.

      Jewish people have to break out of their Stockholm syndrome and out of, as part of that, their egocentrism.

      Jewish people have to stand up for the human rights of their own people.

      Like normal human beings.

      Jewish people are normal human beings. Jewish people have to realize that.

      Jewish people have to realize that they -- their own people -- Jewish people -- are not the controllers of the behavior of genocidal anti-Jewish racists nor of any other people.

      Jewish people have to realize that they -- their own people -- Jewish people -- deserve to be treated with at least normal human decency by other people.

      Delete
    15. Dan,

      not all Christian denominations are friendly toward Israel, clearly.

      I respect the work that Geoffff and Daphne and Shirl and Millett and others are doing on the "High Church" front. The closer you get to the Church of England the uglier things seem to get... or so is my impression.

      Is that correct? It seems to be.

      But this is what we need to hear more of:

      Jewish people have to stand up for the human rights of their own people.

      There are any number of progressive-left Jews who, for example, compare Likud to Hamas.

      How's that for dhimmitudenous thinking?

      These are people who go before the rest of the world on prominent progressive websites and quite literally suggest that the Likud is, more or less, the moral equivalent of Hamas.

      I've seen this on dkos and throughout the progressive-left blogosphere.

      It's a disgrace.

      Delete
    16. "The closer you get to the Church of England the uglier things seem to get... or so is my impression."

      In regards to the Protestant denominations of the Christian church, it's not just the Church of England that is that way. It seems to be the entire 'mainline' Protestant Christian Church -- in the U.S. and in other Western countries. Again, PLEASE SEE THE ARTICLES THAT I CITED IN MY COMMENT: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/palestinians-enraged-that-romney-told-truth-about-their-lack-of-interest-in-peace-call-him-ignorant.html#comment-907446

      "There are any number of progressive-left Jews who, for example, compare Likud to Hamas.

      "How's that for dhimmitudenous thinking?

      "These are people who go before the rest of the world on prominent progressive websites and quite literally suggest that the Likud is, more or less, the moral equivalent of Hamas.

      "I've seen this on dkos and throughout the progressive-left blogosphere.

      "It's a disgrace."

      Yes, I know.

      One of things that needs to be done to counter that is to join with, and present, MIDDLE EASTERN NON-JEWISH people (ex-Muslim, and truly "moderate" Muslim (non-Sharia-proponent Muslim (non-orthodox Muslim)), Middle Eastern people), who tell the truth about the situation that Israel is in, and who, thereby refute the lies that Jewish propagators of lies that vilify Israel tell.

      The other thing that needs to be done to counter Jewish people telling lies that vilify Israel is for other Jewish people -- most importantly, the leaders of Israel -- most importantly, the Prime Minister of Israel -- TO TELL THE TRUE FACTUAL HISTORY AND CURRENT REALITY OF THE SITUATION THAT ISRAEL IS IN.

      And about the term "dhimmitudenous"/"dhimmi". I wouldn't use that term to refer to Jewish people who libel Israel. The term dhimmi has a specific meaning. It is a reference specifically to a phenomenon occurant in Islamic society. Jewish people who libel Israel are doing so not out of Stockholm-syndrome-deluded deferring acquiescing appeasement toward solely, nor mainly, Muslims. Jewish people who libel Israel are doing so mainly out of Stockholm-syndrome-deluded deferring acquiescing appeasement toward non-Jewish WESTERNERS (and are doing so, as part of that, out of a form of egocentrism (in which one holds the view that: "'We' (I) are (am) so 'moral' (superior to 'others' (non-Jewish people)). And 'We' (I) need to prove, to 'ourselves' (myself), and to 'others' (non-Jewish people), how 'moral' (superior to 'others' (non-Jewish people)) 'we' (I) are (am) -- by 'criticizing' (libeling) 'ourselves' (my own people)."). And, as part of Jewish people who libel Israel doing so mainly out of Stockholm-syndrome-deluded deferring acquiescing appeasement toward non-Jewish Westerners, most of the Jewish people who are doing that are ethnically and culturally WEST-EUROPEAN JEWISH AND EAST-EUROPEAN JEWISH. Therefore, if I were to use a metaphorical term such as "dhimmitudenous"/"dhimmis" to refer to such people, I'd use, rather than the term "dhimmitudenous"/"dhimmis", the term "court Jews" or the term "Theobald Jews" ("Theobald (of Cambridge) Jews"). But I think it may not be beneficial to use any such terms to refer to such people. I would refer to such people with accurate descriptions of such people.

      But what needs to be done is to not pay attention to, and to not give attention to, such people.

      What needs to be done is to refute the lies that such people tell.

      What needs to be done to refute the lies that such people tell is to tell the truth -- the true factual history and current reality of the situation that Israel is in.

      Delete
    17. * "...ignorance, bigotry, dishonesty, sanctimony..."

      ...and, moreover: malice, and scorn, and intransigence.

      See what I wrote in comments on that post on Jihad Watch (starting with my first comment there ( http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/palestinians-enraged-that-romney-told-truth-about-their-lack-of-interest-in-peace-call-him-ignorant.html#comment-905446 )) and see what Christian commenters (the Christian commenters who responded to what I wrote) wrote to me in response to what I wrote (starting with the first comment that a Christian commenter wrote to me there ( http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/palestinians-enraged-that-romney-told-truth-about-their-lack-of-interest-in-peace-call-him-ignorant.html#comment-905446 )).

      Jewish people need to stop groveling to Christian so-called "friends".

      Jewish leaders of Israel need to stop groveling to U.S. government officials.

      Jewish leaders of Israel need to stop groveling to the world.

      Jewish people THEMSELVES need to stand up for their own people -- *verbally* stand up for their own people.

      Like normal human beings.

      Then other people (including people who are Christian who are true friends to the Jewish people) will join with Jewish people in defending the Jewish people.

      Delete
    18. Correction:

      * "...the first comment that a Christian commenter wrote to me there ( http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/palestinians-enraged-that-romney-told-truth-about-their-lack-of-interest-in-peace-call-him-ignorant.html#comment-905446 )..."

      The correct link to that comment:

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/palestinians-enraged-that-romney-told-truth-about-their-lack-of-interest-in-peace-call-him-ignorant.html#comment-905528

      My response to that comment:

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/palestinians-enraged-that-romney-told-truth-about-their-lack-of-interest-in-peace-call-him-ignorant.html#comment-905664

      The response by that Christian commenter to that response by me to that comment by that Christian commenter:

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/palestinians-enraged-that-romney-told-truth-about-their-lack-of-interest-in-peace-call-him-ignorant.html#comment-905694

      A comment by another Christian commenter "admonishing" me and defending that Christian commenter:

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/palestinians-enraged-that-romney-told-truth-about-their-lack-of-interest-in-peace-call-him-ignorant.html#comment-905692

      Delete