Giving Yiddish Its Due

I’ve always been bothered by the Zionists movement’s traditional disdain for Yiddish—not least because Yiddish was pivotal in helping form Jewish national identity.

In a recent lecture on the impact of modernity on rise of Zionism, historian and Holocaust educator Shalmi Barmore had had this to say:

“By the end of the 19th century, there were 23 Jewish daily newspapers in Poland alone. The so-called Jewish nation, its boundaries are set by Jewish journalism. The development of Yiddish-language newspapers and literature provided the final ingredient needed for the propagation of Zionism. Once they’re presented with literature in a language that they can read it becomes immensely popular, and from literature you have theatre and pretty soon you have a whole culture…. When this situation was combined with anti-semitism, it very soon became Jewish nationalism.”

 

The next time you see a bunch of poseur schmucks waving “We are Hezbollah!” signs, please hand them a copy of this editorial posted at NOW Lebanon:

This weekend, while young Arabs were no doubt downloading music from iTunes and wondering how the job interview with the multinational went, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once again bored us by announcing that the 9/11 attacks were a “big lie,” while in Lebanon, on the eve of the national dialogue, his proxy army, Hezbollah, gave the middle finger to Lebanon’s shaky democratic principles by announcing that its weapons, which have apparently tripled in number since the 2006 war with Israel, were non-negotiable.

Tragically, the Arab world is built on suspicion and conspiracy, a paranoia fuelled by one very powerful drug: Israel. Ahmadinejad is a potent peddler of the line that Israeli and US ambitions are inextricably tied, and that a secret Jewish cabal controls Washington and concocts the most outrageous evil to achieve common goals.

The Arabs have learned to blame Israelis or Jews for the many problems facing the world. It is easy and shifts responsibility from our own shoulders onto a more powerful enemy, a giant bogeyman….In Lebanon, the plot takes a more cynical twist. Here, Hezbollah has succeeded in styling itself as the one entity in the last seven decades to successfully stand up to the Zionist enemy, one that it claims poses a permanent threat to Lebanon’s independence and sovereignty. And yet, in its pursuit of standing up to this perceived threat (we say perceived because we do not know what Israel’s military posture would be if Hezbollah did not exist) at the behest of Syria and Iran, Hezbollah tramples on the very sovereignty it claims to protect, while using fear to keep an obedient constituency in check.

No wonder our best and brightest seek jobs abroad. They have spoken. They ache for a bite at life’s cherry. They want respect; they want prosperity and they want security. They won’t find it in a region that still flounders in the swamp of conspiracy and conflict.

 

Saudi Doctor Prescribes Israeli Disaster Relief

A few weeks ago, I noted how Israel has, for decades, filled a unique niche in providing first-rate, medical assistance in the aftermath of “mass casualty” events.

Qanta Ahmed—author of the book, In the Land of Invisible Women: A Female Doctor’s Journey in the Saudi Kingdom—was impressed by what Israel accomplished in Haiti. She argues that Saudi Arabia also has much to contribute in this field, and that the Muslim world needs to move beyond checkbook charity:

In Makkah, every year, Saudi Authorities deploy some of the largest semi-permanent health infrastructures to serve 2.5 million Muslim worshipers who descend to make the religious pilgrimage of Hajj, the world’s largest mass gathering. Saudi experience attending complex mass operations is peerless. Recent experiences at managing pandemic influenza in this unique environment have been published in The Lancet and are informing many diverse mass-gathering experiences all over the world.

Clearly, we have the wherewithal, we have the means, we have the knowledge. What we lack, however, is merely the will. Through such action, we will do much more than help Haiti, we will be helping ourselves, moving our fellow Muslims from a contemptuous and unhealthy ‘cash can solve anything’ mentality to a sense of ownership and participation and above all a vital sense of ‘can-do’ engagement. While this is happening in small steps already and unfolding at the behest of the apical leadership of a number of Muslim nations including Saudi Arabia ….I am impatient for more. Kings and Princes aside, the remaining 1.56 Billion of us can call to engage so much more deeply than just reaching into our flush pockets. Some of us can act personally on Haitian soil, some of us can act to influence our leaderships at home.

Nothing makes more impact today in our divided world than the delivery of medicine, health and aid across the world in times of need….We are in an age when selfless acts of Global Health Diplomacy maybe one of the few currencies remaining which can help unite an increasingly fractured, inflamed global landscape….We need to step beyond the limits of entrenched politics, generational hatreds and, thus freed, lend our vibrant imaginations, our diverse experience, our own raw power and pitch in alongside others, “even” the IDF.

 

On March 3, 2010, author and journalist Christopher Hitchens delivered the 2010 Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture at UCLA. The topic was the various manifestations of anti-semitism. (See videos of the lecture and Q&A below.)

In particular, Hitchens expressed his outrage over anti-semitism on the Left:

I would have not expected to see the day when supposedly liberal websites…would [carry] stories about Israel stealing body parts…I didn’t expect to see, in my home country, leading Leftist members of parliament and activists making common cause with the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad and with the people who publish the Protocols. I would have thought it unthinkable, but it’s not. Given the immense contributions that the Jewish people have made to the liberal Left in every society, this seems to me almost the most painful aspect that this prejeudice is hurling at others. It needs to be fought without pity.

The Left believes that Islamic Jihadism is a movement of brown-skinned, disempowered people who’ve had a hard time. And if they’re against the United States Empire, they must be doing something right….Since the world proletariat turned out to be a bit of a disappointment, it never did what they asked of it, at least now there is an alternative source of power—a mass, disenfranchised movement of resentment.

Disappointingly—and, perhaps predictably, given Hitchens’ own criticisms of Israel—he was rather evasive on the the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-semitism. That’s regrettable, since much of the anti-semitism on the Left that he loathes is driven by—and expresses itself through—an anti-Zionist narrative.

And, of course, Hitchens being Hitchens, he had this to say about Mel Gibson’s drunken, anti-semitic tirade: “If whiskey made you anti-Jewish, the Pearl family would not have invited me here.”

 

A Curved Political Spectrum

At the Atlantic, Max Fisher writes about the tendency of pundits to politicize tragic shooting incidents. It’s a good and timely commentary, although it overlooks what I think is the larger, more significant point about contemporary U.S. politics.

More about that in a bit. First, here’s what Fisher has to say:

The cycle is becoming familiar. An act of violence by a crazed attacker is briefly mourned before commentators, hunting out any possible political motivation in the attack, use it a rhetorical bludgeon. Liberals claim the attacker is a radical conservative and conservative claim he is a radical liberal, as happened almost immediately following Joseph Stack’s suicide flight into an IRS office. Any political affiliations or loyalties that can be tied to the attacker are questioned as potential threats. This patten of violence followed by politicization has occurred many times.

The same story is playing out again today, after John Patrick Bedell opened fire on two security guards at the Pentagon. Officials quickly attempted to play down any indication of terrorism or political motivation. He “had issues” and “there is no indication at this point that there is any domestic or international terrorist nexus,” police said. But that hasn’t stopped pundits from using Bedell, who died following the firefight, as a tool to advance political aims:

Bedell Is Conservative

Think Progress’ Alex Seitz-Wald calls the shooter a “Right-Wing, Anti-Government Terrorist”, writing, “In podcasts, Bedell propagated his conspiracy theories, which eerily reflect fringe right-wing rhetoric.”

Bedell Is Libertarian or a Tea Partier

Gawker’s Adrian Chen writes, “Almost every trace Bedell left on the Internet from that point on displays an obsession with information—storing, retrieving, and revealing it—coupled with boilerplate Libertarian and 9/11 conspiracy theory bullshit.” However, “if any motivation is to be applied to his actions outside of pure insanity, simply writing him off as a brain-washed Glenn Beck zombie “teabagger” or an imbecile anti-government activist can’t capture the incomprehensible complexity of his ideas and the singular weirdness going on in his brain.”

Bedell Is Liberal

‘Anti-Bush’  Conservative blogger Patterico’s Pontifications insists, “Internet research shows that the guy was a 9/11 Truther and an anti-Bush nut case.”


I noticed the same bizarre kabuki dance play out in the aftermath James von Brunn’s shooting spree in the Holocaust Museum last June. The initial commentary portrayed him as a mentally unbalanced, neo-Nazi/white supremacist.

But the story couldn’t just end there. Instead, the pundit battle began: He was a 9/11 Truther who hated Bush, McCain and neocons—so he was a “liberal.”  He was a “Birther,” which means he was a “conservative.” He was an outgrowth of the right-wing militia movement. No, wait—he was a “Christian-hating socialist.” Wrong! He was a Tea Partier!

Of course, part of this reflects a political culture that seeks to exploit any opportunity to score rhetorical points. But, lost amidst the finger-pointing is the recognition of how much traditional ideological labels no longer apply.

We tend to think of the political spectrum as a straight line, extending from Left-to-Right. In practice, however that spectrum is a curve—the farther towards the extremes you move, the closer that Right and Left come together. It initially became apparent to me during the Balkan Wars in the 1990s, when anti-war and anti-imperialist progressives found common cause with isolationist conservatives. The same goes for the anti-globalization movement, which brought together the anti-capitalist Left and the populist, protect-American-sovereignty Right.

And, of course, the far-Left and the far-Right find themselves on common ground in their opposition to Israel. Hence, we find self-described progressives such as Glenn Greenwald and Philip Weiss publishing anti-Israel diatribes in American Conservative magazine, published by paleocon-in-chief, Patrick Buchanan.

And, at the farthest extremes of the political spectrum, paranoia reigns supreme, as both the far-far-Left and far-far-Right find solace in every conspiracy theory imaginable—Truthers, “Zionist Occupied America,” One World Government.

I don’t think mainstream political commentators have quite grasped this yet. But, those of us who monitor anti-semitism and anti-Zionism have long been accustomed to recognizing the emergence of the “Red-Brown Alliance,” and how hatred of Israel makes for strange bedfellows. As usual, we’re the canaries in the coalmine.

 

Feminist Refugees

Phylis Chesler, a prominent feminist author and co-founder of Women of the Wall—an organization the fights for the rights of women to pray as a group at the Kotel, read from a Torah scroll and wear tallit—discusses her ostracism from the feminist movement:

For years now, newly arrived refugees have been contacting me. They write to tell me that they’ve lost nearly everybody they once knew. Their whole world is gone now. Some whisper over the phone. Others write long letters. They ask me how I’ve managed.

I am talking about ideological refugees from feminism, leftism, gay liberation, socialism, and progressivism.

Yesterday, I received a letter from someone in Berkeley. She tells me that, earlier this week, she was “overjoyed to see the feisty Tikvah students on the steps of Sproul Plaza giving out Israeli flags and t-shirts and dancing in circles,” and how afterwards, some “went to confront the theatre of the absurd, enacting the checkpoints.” Referring to the feminist movement in Berkeley, she asks: “Could you ever have believed it? From anti-patriarchy to pro-Hamas in a few decades?” Her letter continues:

“That you exist and are doing this work means a great deal to me. So far, I have found ONE new friend who comes from the same Jewish lesbian feminist cultural lineage of the 1970s. Neither of us has many friends from the old days we can comfortably talk to anymore, although I still try. I thought I had the smartest bunch of women assembled for a lifetime but I was wrong.”

Please understand: I am a sentimental and sociable woman and for such reasons, I might have continued to talk to the useful idiots who routinely demonize Israel and America, romanticize jihad and the Islamic Veil, and slander freedom fighters as “fascist Islamophobes.” Luckily, they condemned me. After years of kissing up, they shunned me, attacked my work, sullied my reputation—or they simply “disappeared” that work from their collective memories. They did not invite me to speak at conferences or at memorial services for feminists whom I’d once loved and with whom I’d worked for years. These conferences and funerals were all being filmed for the archives — and my fine feminist comrades needed to create a “revisionist” history, one in which no Zionists, no American patriots, no defenders of Western civilization could appear.

It was an excellent education. I am grateful to them for it. But now, there is no going back. I understand that we were never “friends,” only “fellow travelers.” When I departed from and dared to criticize the Party Line, I no longer existed.

 

In the aftermath of the Dubai assassination, Barry Rubin offers this timely reminder:

As long as Western states do nothing to help bring Hamas or Hizballah terrorists to justice, and since Israel has no way of getting these people before a court, it has no option other than the extra-judicial one. Remember that an Israeli cabinet minister is more likely to face prosecution in the United Kingdom nowadays than a terrorist who has murdered Israeli civilians.

Some European countries—France and Italy have admitted as much regarding past deals—have secret agreements with terrorist groups to allow them to operate freely as long as they don’t do attacks within the country. Other terrorists—like the Palestinians who hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship and murdered an American citizen or one of the Libyan masterminds of the Lockerbie plane bombing that killed scores of passengers, mainly Americans—have been released from prison without completing their terms.

 

Fact-Checking Finkelstein’s New Book

Unemployed professor and Holocaust humorist Norman Finkelstein is publishing a new book this month, This Time We Went Too Far: Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion.

An excerpt has been published in Counterpunch—which is very generous of Finkelstein, since it gives us an early opportunity to scrutinize his “scholarship.”

Finkelstein claims:

Public outrage at the Gaza invasion did not come out of the blue but rather marked the nadir of a curve plotting a steady decline in support for Israel.

One poll registering the fallout from the Gaza attack in the United States found that American voters calling themselves supporters of Israel plummeted from 69 percent before the attack to 49 percent in June 2009, while voters believing that the U.S. should support Israel dropped from 69 per cent to 44 per cent. Consumed by hate, emboldened by self-righteousness, and confident that it could control or intimidate public opinion, Israel carried on in Gaza as if it could get away with mass murder in broad daylight.

The poll Finkelstein is referring to was conducted by the Israel Project. However, he neglected to mention a few relevant facts:

(1) Support for both Israel and the Palestinians declined in that poll. As reported by the Jerusalem Post:

The survey, which covered 800 registered voters, seemed to indicate that Americans are beginning to be discouraged from supporting either party in the conflict. Asked whom the United States should support, far fewer answered Israel than in January (from 58% down to 44%), while the figure for Palestinians was cut nearly in half (from 9% to 5%). The number of undecideds and those supporting “neither” side increased, rising from a total of 23% in January to 32% last week. Americans question the commitment of both parties to achieving peace, a skepticism that is nearly equally widespread regarding both the new Netanyahu government and the Palestinian Authority.

(2) Support for Israel has rebounded steadily since that one poll was conducted. Just three months later, the Israel Project noted that “a strong majority (59 percent) of Americans support Israel in the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, an increase of 10 points since June. Further, fully 63 percent of Americans believe the United States ‘should’ take Israel’s side in the conflict. This represents an increase of 19 points since earlier this year. Only 8 percent believe that the United States should take the Palestinians’ side.”

The newest poll, taken this March, shows that, by an 8 to 1 margin, Americans say the U.S. should side with Israel in conflict with the Palestinians.

(3) And, regarding Israeli actions in Gaza: “Most Americans (88 percent) are unaware of the [Goldstone] Report ….But those familiar with it disagree with it by a 50 to 29 percent margin. A plurality (30 to 19 percent) of those unfamiliar with it reaches the same conclusion when told that the report accuses Israel and Hamas of war crimes, with the more serious accusations leveled against Israel.”

 

I confess to a certain morbid fascination with James Petras. Sure, he’s an anti-semitic moonbat—but he’s a uniquely creative anti-semitic moonbat. I mean, a guy who implicates Jewish dentists in a Zionist plot against the United States deserves some sort of special recognition.

In the aftermath of the Dubai assassination, Petras issues this dire warning at The People’s Voice [sorry, I won’t link to that vile site]:

The Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (PMAJO) can pursue its defense of Mossad’s acts of international terrorism with impunity in the U.S. because of its power over the U.S. Congress, the Obama White House and the American mass media. This ensures that only its version of events, its definition of legality and its lies will be heard by legislators, echoed by Zionist activists and embellished by its solemn defenders in academic and journalistic circles.

It is time to speak out against their impunity, before another Israeli secret police murder takes place, possibly inside the USA itself and with the shameless complicity of Zionist accomplices….Will a time come when American Zionists, who are unconditional public defenders of Mossad killings, cross the line between propaganda for the deed to become accomplices of the deed? The robust American Zionist defense of Mossad’s overseas assassinations does not augur well for the security of Americans in the face of Israel’s willing U.S. accomplices.

Actually, I consider this a relatively “moderate” commentary from Petras, since he doesn’t suggest that Mossad agents have already conducted assassinations in the United States. (Of course, if he finds evidence that unusually large numbers of dentists were congregating in Dallas on November 22, 1963, that assessment might change.)

And, a brief note on Noam Chomsky, who was at Boston University delivering his standard Israel-is-an-evil-rogue-state speech. According to the student newspaper,BU Today: “Chomsky added that he doubts that Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, is the culprit in the recent assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud-al-Mabhouh in Dubai. ‘It was carried out so unprofessionally, I could’ve carried it out,’ he said to laughter.”

Whoa, that’s not going to go over well with the “Chomsky is a closet Zionist” crowd! Expect an avalanche of outraged blog posts, articles and “open letters” in the days ahead, chastising the professor for “exonerating” the Mossad.

 

What is it about logos? Are they Rorschach tests for conspiracy theorists?

Back in the 1980s, Evangelical Christian leaders proclaimed that the Proctor & Gamble logo (a crescent moon with 13 stars) was a “Satanic” symbol. Just recently, I blogged about the Internet rumor that the London Olympics logo reveals a hidden Zionist agenda.

And now, we have the newly unveiled logo for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA):

Enter Frank Gaffney, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan, the founder of the think tank, the Center for Security Policy—and a certified wingnut.

Here’s his take on the new logo:

The Obama administration’s determined effort to reduce America’s missile defense capabilities initially seemed to be just standard Leftist fare — of a piece with the Democratic base’s visceral hostility to the idea of protecting us against ballistic missile threats. A just-unveiled symbolic action suggests, however, that something even more nefarious is afoot.

Team Obama’s anti-anti-missile initiatives are not simply acts of unilateral disarmament….They seem to fit an increasingly obvious and worrying pattern of official U.S. submission to Islam and the theo-political-legal program the latter’s authorities call Shariah.

What could be code-breaking evidence of the latter explanation is to be found in the newly-disclosed redesign of the Missile Defense Agency logo….the new MDA shield appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star with the Obama campaign logo.

Even as the administration has lately made a show of rushing less capable sea- and land-based short-range (theater) missile defenses into the Persian Gulf in the face of rising panic there about Iran’s actual/incipient ballistic missile and nuclear capabilities, Team Obama is behaving in a way that — as the new MDA logo suggests — is all about accommodating that “Islamic Republic” and its ever-more aggressive stance.

Watch this space as we identify and consider various, ominous and far more clear-cut acts of submission to Shariah by President Obama and his team.


Meanwhile, here’s the logo for Frank Gafney’s Center for Security Policy:

According to the Center’s website: “Throughout history the flame has symbolized life and the rise from ignorance to knowledge. The Center keeps Freedom’s Flame burning by ensuring our Nation is strong and prepared.”

However, upon closer examination, I notice that this so-called flame bears an uncanny resemblance to former U.S. President Millard Fillmore. Coincidence?