[Peace-discuss] Helen Thomas Asks A Question That Exposes Obama's Obseqiousness

[David Green]

Mort,

I guess it comes down to whether it's important to distinguish ethnicity (as an essentially political construct) and nationalism from religious identity and practice, not that they are mutually exclusive.

My judgment about religion & extremism is just an impression from superficial reading about the various parties, secular and religious, anchored by the rising popularity of Liberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party. Again, I would make a distinction between religious orthodoxy that of course can be judged exclusionary, racist, sexist, etc., and "Greater Israel" extremism (which in fact might be less sexist, for example). In any event, it seems to me that if Kadima, Labor, Likud, and YB, all basically secular parties, form a majority of the Knesset in favor of "war for peace," that makes a pretty strong case that religion or religious belief per se are not the fundamental problem.

I'm not sure what more needs to be said about Zionism's origins as a secular manifestation of European nationalism/racialism/colonialism. The following referenced in a recent summary by Steven Lendeman:

In his book "Overcoming Zionism," Joel Kovel writes: 

Zionism seeks "the restoration of tribalism in the guise of a modern, highly militaralized and aggressive state. (It) cut Jews off from (their) history and led to a fateful identity of interests with antisemitism (becoming) the only thing that united them. (It) fell into the ways of imperialist expansion and militarism, and showed signs of the fascist malignancy." 

This historical development was contradictory to assimilationist Reform Judaism in Germany, socialist/Jewish movements in Eastern Europe, and religious orthodoxy. Relating to emmigration, among all those populations the pull when circumstances arose was toward America (as I don't have to tell you), resulting among other things in people on this list being subjected to reading this.

In Israel, again from a superficial reading, increased religious identity comes from Sephardic (Arab) immigrants and Orthodox Ashkenazi, including Hasidic of various sects, some of the latter having altered their opposition to a Jewish state, but others still opposing it in spite of living in Israel. The orthdox settler extremist element is a minority of all that.

Insofar as religion facilitates tribalism, your point is taken. But of course it's not the only thing that does, and it doesn't always. Personally, I think that nationalism, an outgrowth of capitalism, has given tribalism a bad name (thus I may disagree with Kovel's connotation of "tribalism" above). In any halfway decent tribe, everyone gets the same amount of food, and probably has a say in collective decisions.

DG


 



________________________________
From: Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
To: David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
Cc: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; C. Estabrook G. <galliher at uiuc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:25:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Helen Thomas Asks A Question That Exposes Obama's Obseqiousness

RE. You remark: 

I sense that the religious population in Israel is at the very least no more extremist in a political sense than the secular population. That includes the so-called "ultra-orthodox." 

Are there not polls probing this? 

Carl's remark re. the remark of Bob Palm that it "borders on anti-semitism" itself borders on a lax view of "anti-semitism". Palm was criticizing "Israel", its policies, and U.S. approval of them, not Jews per se. This is a familiar problem, that apologists for Israel in particular perpetuate. 

Finally, calling Israel a "religious state" may be technically wrong, but in some sense it is true, in that calling oneself Jewish means attachment, if vague, to the religion and those who practiced it in history, even if not observing it, indeed even if atheistic or agnostic.  Israel indeed calls itself a state of the Jewish people. Perhaps Palm in his disgust and anger at Israeli behavior  went overboard. I think it can be excused on that basis. 

The word "racist" is also problematical, in that it has no firm genetic basis for those described, but I accept the notion that it represents a separation from those who are in the club from those who aren't, i.e., the "other". 

--mkb
 

On Feb 11, 2009, at 9:12 AM, David Green wrote:


In fact, Avigdor Lieberman's ascendant and more openly racist party, with its threat to deprive citizenship from Palestinian Israelis, is not a party of the religious, radicalized or otherwise, but of primarily secular Russian immigrants, many not of Jewish background (not that that matters, except to them in terms of their right to be buried in Israel). It's a complicated situation, and while my understanding is superficial, I sense that the religious population in Israel is at the very least no more extremist in a political sense than the secular population. That includes the so-called "ultra-orthodox." The radical religious settlers, a small minority of both the overall religious and overall settler populations, may already be or become a Frankenstein, but up to this point they've been used to achieve expansionist goals, partly in their ability to distract from more routine and ongoing expansion. As in understanding our own country, we shouldn't let
religious fundamentalism distract us from the economic fundamentalism that drives the actions which we oppose.

DG



----- Original Message ----
From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
To: Morton K. Brussel <brussel at illinois.edu>
Cc: peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:19:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Helen Thomas Asks A Question That Exposes Obama's Obsequiousness

I agree with your comment, Mort, but Rosenberg is surely wrong not to "fault Obama," and it's outrageous to say, "Israel's nukes are its number one deterrent against attack by Iran"!  Worse, "Bob's" obtuseness borders on antisemitism (e.g., Israel is not a "religious state," it's a racist state; most Israelis aren't religious).  --CGE


Morton K. Brussel wrote:

This is from another list-serve. One doesn't have to agree with what is written below, but Obama's (non-)response stuck out like a sore thumb, and

shook his cool demeanor. The obvious answer for the non-answer is that he

wants to protect our pet Israel and its policies. --mkb


Begin forwarded message:


*From: *Robert Palm <rpalm32 at yahoo.com <mailto:rpalm32 at yahoo.com>> *Date:

*February 10, 2009 3:24:36 PM CST * * *Subject: **[WBPF] Helen Thomas Asks

A Question That Exposes Obama's Obsequiousness* *Reply-To:

*rpalm32 at yahoo.com <mailto:rpalm32 at yahoo.com>


Israel won't brag much about their nukes except to threaten to use them on

Iran who may be working on getting nukes.  So if our boss Israel doesn't

want the US government to acknowledge Israel's nukes the US won't.  But if

Israel wants the US to get all excited about Iran's maybe nukes then gosh

darn the US will.  Israel rules the US. The US has lost its sovereignty to

a money-leaching, Middle Eastern, religious state. Bob



The Huffington Post  February 10, 2009


MJ Rosenberg Director of Policy for the Israel Policy Forum Posted February

10, 2009 | 09:34 AM (EST) BIO Become a Fan


Why Did Obama Diss Helen Thomas?


I love Helen Thomas. During the past eight years she was the only reporter

who stood up to Bush, took on this rotten war, and, in general, acted like

a journalist. Last night, the great hall looked like it was populated by a

president, a reporter, and 11th graders from local high school newspapers.

I think I saw a cub reporter from the Dillon, Texas high school paper.

(sadly, not Lilah Garrity).


Ms. Thomas' moment came when she asked the president about nuclear proliferation. Her question ended with the query: does he know of any Middle Eastern state with nukes?


Why did she ask that? She asked it to see if Obama would refuse to respond

as previous presidents have. The answer is Israel, of course. And everyone

knows it. In fact, the State Department has published reams of material

about JFK's concern about the Israeli bomb. Israeli politicians talk about

it. Every Arab in the world knows about it. And Israel's nukes are its

number one deterrent against attack by Iran -- and everyone knows that too.



But Israel has a policy of not talking about its nukes in any official capacity because acknowledging them might lead to Israel having to sign the

NPT and opening itself up to nuclear inspection.


So Israeli Prime Ministers try (not always successfully) not to acknowledge

that Israel has a nuclear arsenal while ensuring that everyone knows it

does.


That may be a sensible policy...for Israel.


But why is it our policy? Why is the American president forbidden from being honest on such a critical subject. Answer: there is no reason, unless

we are to believe that Israeli policy guidelines, by definition, apply here

as well.


So why did Obama refuse to answer? Simple. Because if he did, the media

would have reported it as a gaffe. Reporters either know nothing about the

Middle East or, for the most part, have adopted Israel's perspective.


Had Obama spoken the truth, the media would have made his "blunder" the

story of the night. He cannot afford that because, frankly, we have more

important things to worry about, like rescuing the economy.


So I don't fault Obama. But I salute Helen Thomas. Next time she should ask

how he felt about those pictures that came out of Gaza. As the father of

those two precious girls, we all know how he felt. But it would help

America in the eyes of the world if he'd just say it.
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss




_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090211/fe9feb83/attachment.htm