Did Pres. Obama throw Israel under the bus?

[quadraphonics]

You said the Jews, as Jews, were morally obliged by their past to recognize the dangers in ethnocentrism and thus to renounce it

Which is maybe not such a crazy suggestion, in a vaccuum.

But I never seem to hear anyone demanding that any other nationality unilaterally give up on (ethnic) nationalism (indeed, Palestinian ethnic nationalism in particular gets near-universally endorsed). And given that the nation-state remains the fundamental unit of geopolitical organization, the demand that one small, vulnerable nation lead the charge in overturning such falls somewhere between facepalm inanity and calculated malice. Shouldn't we expect nations like, say, Germany to take the lead on recognizing and responding to such dangers, and addressing their specific ill effects in this case?

Meanwhile, it should hardly surprise anyone that Jews might learn the same lesson from history as anyone else - that nations need states of their own to ensure their safety and foster their advancement. This being a basic tenet of Westphalian sovereignty, and likewise a major plank in the foundation of world geopolitical organization. And while I realize that Westphalian sovereignty has indeed been taking on water for some time now, the pigeonhole expectation that Israel alone must transcend such remains stilted. Not that I've seen anyone actually present this as a general case in those terms - everyone seems blithely content to strongly endorse ethnic nationalism in every other country in the world, and then congratulate themselves on their upstanding moral principles singling Israel out. And if they can't recognize the massive double-standard apparent in that, well, suffice it to say that the interested parties have no such difficulties, and will continue to write said critics off as enemies/useful idiots.

But the important thing is that individuals here are able to pat themselves on the back for being special moral snowflakes with unimpeachable moral and political insight, natch.

[GeoffP]

Yep.

It smells as funny as a Pakistani White Passport. Right, T?

[Tiassa]

Well if you don't have a mancrush on Geoff, what's your excuse for smothering him with loving personal attacks virtually every time you reply to something he wrote?

I think the sexualization is yours, Bork. After all, it's your interpretation.

No, that's a complete mischaracterization, maybe you need to go read that thread again and refresh your memory instead of brooding over what you think you read.

Something about a mischaracterization goes here, CptBork:

You said the Jews, as Jews, were morally obliged by their past to recognize the dangers in ethnocentrism and thus to renounce it in favour of becoming a minority in someone else's ethnocentric society.

Now, just how did I say that the Jews were morally obliged by their past?

But here's the thing: Especially for a Jew.

Yes, the cutural allusion is clear, but it is also counterintuitive. That is, we cannot limit an American Jewish identity politic strictly to its Judaism. It is also American, and thus entitled to be as apparently counterintuitive, openly dysfunctional, stupidly anti-American, or otherwise bogglingly self-contradictory as any other identity politic.

It's not fair to the black guy to expect him to view the police department with an automatically cynical eye. It is not fair to the woman to oblige her to feminism. And it is not fair to the Jew to expect the Holocaust to have any logical place in the identity politic. We cannot bind all Jews to Hitler for all time.

We cannot insist that any given Jew always share the picture frame with Hitler and Sharon.

(Boldface accent added)

Yeah, something about mischaracterization.

Sorry, dude, there comes a point where it's just hard to take you seriously. Like your faux indignance.

Your obsession with homosexuality might actually unsettle or offend me if I was afraid of gay people. But, hey. You don't mind trying to use homosexuality as an insult, do you, Bork? Unless, of course, someone turns your own homoerotic flame against you, then it just "doesn't deserve a reply". Poor you.

[GeoffP]

I think the sexualization is yours, Bork. After all, it's your interpretation.

Yet you're the one carrying it on, Tiassa. Needless to say, I'm flattered, but my axe don't swing that way.

I'll leave Bork to discuss the, er, meaty details of your post, but "faux indignation"? But Tiassa, there's no need to misrepresent the man. His indignation seems quite real to me. Yet you seem to accuse people of lying all the time: falsification of outrage, falsification of fact, falsification of stated objective. It occurs in essentially every thread you enter into. Have you heard of projection? Or is it really that everyone, except for you, is dishonest? Everyone? All of us, seemingly.

Is there some traumatic event in your past that has lead you to place all your opponents into the category of "liars"? I recommend - neither maliciously nor fallaciously - that you seek help, Tiassa. Surely this strikes you as a little sociopathic?

[CptBork]

I think the sexualization is yours, Bork. After all, it's your interpretation.

You're missing out on one certain small detail: the alleged sexualization was completely sarcastic, and meant to imply the exact opposite. I'm surprised you took it directly at face value and chose to make an issue of it.

Now, just how did I say that the Jews were morally obliged by their past?

But here's the thing: Especially for a Jew.

Yes, the cutural allusion is clear, but it is also counterintuitive. That is, we cannot limit an American Jewish identity politic strictly to its Judaism. It is also American, and thus entitled to be as apparently counterintuitive, openly dysfunctional, stupidly anti-American, or otherwise bogglingly self-contradictory as any other identity politic.

It's not fair to the black guy to expect him to view the police department with an automatically cynical eye. It is not fair to the woman to oblige her to feminism. And it is not fair to the Jew to expect the Holocaust to have any logical place in the identity politic. We cannot bind all Jews to Hitler for all time.

We cannot insist that any given Jew always share the picture frame with Hitler and Sharon.

(Boldface accent added)

Yeah, something about mischaracterization.

What did I misunderstand about this post? Oh I see, you're not charging that Jews are morally obliged to support a one-state solution, you're merely asserting that any American Jew who doesn't support it is openly dysfunctional, stupidly anti-American and mindless of the lessons that should have been learned from Hitler. Or am I missing something you'd like to expand on, that we might see where my understanding went wrong?

Sorry, dude, there comes a point where it's just hard to take you seriously.

Say that when I'm defending someone who moans hysterically over Bin Laden's victimization at the hands of the CIA.

Like your faux indignance.

I don't see indignance there. I see surprise and disappointment at the way you represent the forum.

Your obsession with homosexuality might actually unsettle or offend me if I was afraid of gay people. But, hey. You don't mind trying to use homosexuality as an insult, do you, Bork? Unless, of course, someone turns your own homoerotic flame against you, then it just "doesn't deserve a reply". Poor you.

You sure manufacture a lot of hoopla over a sarcastic remark. Why would I actually believe you have a secret fondness for Geoff? Did you post a Valentine's note on his profile page or something? Oh and BTW, teasing someone about having a mancrush doesn't imply they're a homosexual, even when it's not sarcastic.

[CptBork]

Which is maybe not such a crazy suggestion, in a vaccuum.

But I never seem to hear anyone demanding that any other nationality unilaterally give up on (ethnic) nationalism (indeed, Palestinian ethnic nationalism in particular gets near-universally endorsed). And given that the nation-state remains the fundamental unit of geopolitical organization, the demand that one small, vulnerable nation lead the charge in overturning such falls somewhere between facepalm inanity and calculated malice. Shouldn't we expect nations like, say, Germany to take the lead on recognizing and responding to such dangers, and addressing their specific ill effects in this case?

Meanwhile, it should hardly surprise anyone that Jews might learn the same lesson from history as anyone else - that nations need states of their own to ensure their safety and foster their advancement. This being a basic tenet of Westphalian sovereignty, and likewise a major plank in the foundation of world geopolitical organization. And while I realize that Westphalian sovereignty has indeed been taking on water for some time now, the pigeonhole expectation that Israel alone must transcend such remains stilted. Not that I've seen anyone actually present this as a general case in those terms - everyone seems blithely content to strongly endorse ethnic nationalism in every other country in the world, and then congratulate themselves on their upstanding moral principles singling Israel out. And if they can't recognize the massive double-standard apparent in that, well, suffice it to say that the interested parties have no such difficulties, and will continue to write said critics off as enemies/useful idiots.

But the important thing is that individuals here are able to pat themselves on the back for being special moral snowflakes with unimpeachable moral and political insight, natch.

I've asserted as much on multiple occasions here since I first signed up. If Israel were the size of the Arab League, or one of the only remaining states on the planet with a unique self-identified ethnicity, it would be a whole different ball game. As it stands, the arguments being used against Israel's independence, even if nearly every single one of them were true, would have even deeper implications for the larger, more established nations out there, and collectively they would still owe huge tracts of sovereign land to ethnic minorities such as the Jews. Anyone can preach something if they themselves don't expect to bear the consequences of seeing it through.

That having been said, I don't see any obligation on America's part to treat Israel differently from other nations when it comes to military and diplomatic support, and I'd have no personal objection to the withdrawal of such support, if this support was the actual issue being discussed here.

[Tiassa]

I'm surprised you took it directly at face value and chose to make an issue of it.

Dude, I'm not the one who got all prissy and prudish when the sarcasm was thrown back at him.

See, one of the things that amuses the hell out of me in a community like this is when someone tries to be insulting, and then becomes a whining diva when the favor is returned.

What did I misunderstand about this post? Oh I see, you're not charging that Jews are morally obliged to support a one-state solution, you're merely asserting that any American Jew who doesn't support it is openly dysfunctional, stupidly anti-American and mindless of the lessons that should have been learned from Hitler. Or am I missing something you'd like to expand on, that we might see where my understanding went wrong?

Is it an inability to read or to be honest, Bork? Which one is your problem?

• "You said the Jews, as Jews, were morally obliged by their past to recognize the dangers in ethnocentrism and thus to renounce it in favour of becoming a minority in someone else's ethnocentric society"

• "What did I misunderstand about this post? Oh I see, you're not charging that Jews are morally obliged to support a one-state solution, you're merely asserting that any American Jew who doesn't support it is openly dysfunctional, stupidly anti-American and mindless of the lessons that should have been learned from Hitler. Or am I missing something you'd like to expand on, that we might see where my understanding went wrong?"

So let us get this straight: You are demonstrated to be exactly wrong, so your response is to alter the terms of your question and pretend you were right from the outset?

And you still blow it?

Get honest, dude.

Say that when I'm defending someone who moans hysterically over Bin Laden's victimization at the hands of the CIA.

I think that the interpretations offered by a liar such as yourself are simply unreliable.

Like I said, there comes a point when it's hard to take you seriously.

You're a liar, CptBork. You are apparently incapable of having an honest discussion. That pretty much disqualifies your interpretation. Indeed, as far as I'm concerned, that disqualifies your opinion.

I don't see indignance there. I see surprise and disappointment at the way you represent the forum.

Yes, keep trying to salvage your reputation. You were dishonest in that post, too.

You sure manufacture a lot of hoopla over a sarcastic remark.

You sure manufacture a lot of fake "surprise and disappointment" over a sarcastic remark.

Of course, you have demonstrated yourself a fundamentally dishonest character, so there's no surprise there.

Why would I actually believe you have a secret fondness for Geoff?

I think it's more a question of why you would try to use homosexuality as an insult.

Not only are you a liar, you're also a bigot.

Oh and BTW, teasing someone about having a mancrush doesn't imply they're a homosexual, even when it's not sarcastic.

Well, to the one, "mancrush" is just a word that homophobes use to convince people that an attraction isn't sexual.

To the other, you sure are manufacturing a lot of hoopla over your failed bigotry.

Get honest. Get decent. Until then, your opinion is completely worthless.

[CptBork]

Dude, I'm not the one who got all prissy and prudish when the sarcasm was thrown back at him.

See, one of the things that amuses the hell out of me in a community like this is when someone tries to be insulting, and then becomes a whining diva when the favor is returned.

All I said is that you must have some kind of mancrush on Geoff, which is why you show him so much love in the form of your vile personal attacks. You, on the other hand, simply used the opportunity to take even more personal shots at Geoff and myself, and I fail to see where the sarcasm came in. Thus I expressed my disappointment at your authoritative immaturity- if that's what it takes to be a whining diva in your eyes, then it's all the more evident you have trouble accepting criticism for your conduct, like I've said in the past.

Is it an inability to read or to be honest, Bork? Which one is your problem?

• "You said the Jews, as Jews, were morally obliged by their past to recognize the dangers in ethnocentrism and thus to renounce it in favour of becoming a minority in someone else's ethnocentric society"

• "What did I misunderstand about this post? Oh I see, you're not charging that Jews are morally obliged to support a one-state solution, you're merely asserting that any American Jew who doesn't support it is openly dysfunctional, stupidly anti-American and mindless of the lessons that should have been learned from Hitler. Or am I missing something you'd like to expand on, that we might see where my understanding went wrong?"

So let us get this straight: You are demonstrated to be exactly wrong, so your response is to alter the terms of your question and pretend you were right from the outset?

I fail to discern the major logical difference between these two assertions. As I see it, calling American Jews openly dysfunctional, stupidly anti-American, forgetful of Hitler, and a host of other nasty things because they might disagree with a certain position, is entirely equivalent to charging them with some kind of unique moral obligation towards said position. How about you elaborate on what you "really" meant, so I can understand why it doesn't constitute hypocritical pontification?

I think it's more a question of why you would try to use homosexuality as an insult.

Not only are you a liar, you're also a bigot.

All great charges to level against someone when it's actually true. Problem is, there was absolutely nothing homophobic in my remarks, and the only way an honest person could take it that way is if they really did have some kind of jealous love triangle relationship with Geoff behind the scenes. Geoff, is this in fact what's happening? Did I blindly stumble onto something between you and Tiassa that I wasn't supposed to know about?

Well, to the one, "mancrush" is just a word that homophobes use to convince people that an attraction isn't sexual.

I see. So my blatant sarcasm would have been more politically correct and less homophobic if I had called you and Geoff bum chums instead?

Get honest. Get decent. Until then, your opinion is completely worthless.

Still waiting for you to explain the honesty in your position about dysfunctional, stupidly anti-American Jews who don't support a one-state solution.

[Tiassa]

How about you elaborate on what you "really" meant, so I can understand why it doesn't constitute hypocritical pontification?

Well, let's see. I advise S.A.M. that we cannot oblige Jews to remember the dangers of bigotry simply because of the Holocaust, and you somehow construe that as morally obliging Jews to remember the dangers of bigotry simply because of the Holocaust?

That leaves me two options: Either you are incapable, or unwilling, to understand the point as written.

Still waiting for you to explain the honesty in your position about dysfunctional, stupidly anti-American Jews who don't support a one-state solution.

Whatever your dysfunction is—i.e., incapability or unwillingness—I sincerely doubt I can clarify the point for you until you evolve past the problem.

[Bells]

Aaaand...scene.

Wrong, Chucky, you're defending religious purity.

Honestly, Bells, do you get tired of putting your words/ideas/eccentricities in other people's mouths? Ever?

You deem any cricitism of the Israeli Government to be anti-semitic. This is what you are defending Geoff.

Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman said on Thursday that assimilation into non-Jewish society overseas is threatening to do for Judaism what Adolf Hitler tried and failed to do in World War II.

Speaking at a panel on conversion at the President's Conference in Jerusalem, the justice minister rejected recent criticism from American rabbis over Israel's conversion policy. "The problem in exile isn't conversion, it's assimilation," Neeman said. "How many [new] Jews join the Diaspora Jewry by converting, and how many [Jews] assimilate? Let's face the truth. What Hitler - may his name and memory be forgotten - didn't manage to do is happening in the Diaspora with its horrific assimilation."

(Source)

Horrific assimilation..

And he is not alone in the Israeli Government to hold such despicable views. Interior Minister Eli Yishai expressed similar horror at assimilation a couple of years ago. And at this conference, he made himself even clearer about the purity desired:

Yishai also said that ten years ago, a study was published in the United States showing "the Jewish gene" was passed along the maternal line, affirming the ancient halakhic line of Jewishness passing along the maternal line. This remark was met with sneers from the audience.

This is what you are defending Geoff.

Any State based solely on religious purity and they check to make sure that you are pure - ie... goes back several generations on the maternal line.. is bound to commit human rights violations and deny rights to those who do not belong to their religious beliefs.

You can get as angry with me as you want. But at the end of the day, this is what you are defending.

This is the defensible borders of Israel Geoff. The ability for Israel to ensure its religious purity.

[quadraphonics]

You deem any cricitism of the Israeli Government to be anti-semitic. This is what you are defending Geoff.

Rhetoric like that, plus a dollar, will buy you a cup of coffee.

[arfa brane]

Rhetoric like that, plus a dollar, will buy you a cup of coffee.

What do I need for a bagel with that?

[spidergoat]

You can get as angry with me as you want. But at the end of the day, this is what you are defending.

This is the defensible borders of Israel Geoff. The ability for Israel to ensure its religious purity.

What's wrong with that? It's intended to be a Jewish state.

[GeoffP]

You deem any cricitism of the Israeli Government to be anti-semitic.

Er, wrong.

This is what you are defending Geoff.

That's 0 for 3* so far.

Maybe we can get back on track here though. I'll reiterate some of my points for Tiassa.

Tiassa: As I recall, you fretted that a one-state solution would lead to a genocide of the Jews. It seems to me that in the Israel/Palestine situation, it is the Israeli Jews who are presently empowered.

Geoff: I enjoyed your [use of the word] "fret", as if the threat of religious supremacy only and always runs the one way, as it most assuredly has in your exclusive examples of Israel, Israel and Israel. Afghanistan? No no, don't look over there. Nothing to see, people. Saudi Arabia? Doesn't exist. Iran? What Iran? Malaysia? Why, that's miles away. The Sudan? C'mon, we're trying to keep our perspective sufficiently narrow here. And so on, ad nauseam. Why, nothing bad has ever happened to religious minorities in any of those countries under a dominant oligoarchy with fascist theocratic leanings. How could anything happen? Pay them no mind and instead order up Partition: Round Two. Maybe this time it will come out the way God intended.

Tiassa: Zionism claims all of Judaism [sic] dispute with Muslims, thus posturing all Jews as enemies of Muslims.

Geoff: Yet not all Jews are Zionist. So in whose eyes does Zionism claim all Jews, from Tel Aviv to embassies in Argentina? Yours? Whose? Explain the process of this claim, and how it is achieves such a widespread acceptance as you claim. At whose feet should we now lay the blame of misrepresentation?

But let's pause to examine your snorting beast anyway: a strange creature, existing only in reaction, never in action, never the protagonist. Does Zionism claim the hundreds of years of persecution of Jews in the ME prior to Israel? Has Zionism predicated the injection of Islamism into contemporary Islamist politics? Are we expected to believe that the Purity Police (something conceivable in an Atwood novel, if we're sitting on our collective naivete) are busily beating uncovered women to protect them from...roving Zionist eyes? Or that religious minorities from Morocco to Malaysia are being viciously repressed because Tel Aviv cut a bad collective fart last week? Qutb read the Oslo Accords in the fevered gyrations of a 1950's church basement sock hop? Oh, well sure then. I swear, it must be the sole religio-political construct in the world that acts only by action of no action. Like Chuck Norris, I guess, who waits but does not sleep.

************************************************** *************************************

* or possibly more, since I haven't been keeping too close a track.

[GeoffP]

What's wrong with that? It's intended to be a Jewish state.

Whether or not that's so, I notice that Tiassa and Bells never stop to criticize other states on basis of the same accusation.

[spidergoat]

Maybe WWII proved to some people that assimilation is impossible.

[Bells]

What's wrong with that? It's intended to be a Jewish state.

What? What is wrong with members of Government saying that Jews such as yourself are finishing off Hitler's work by assimilating?

Watering down the maternal bloodline by marrying outsiders..

You actually do not think there is anything wrong with that? You don't think a Government operating along those lines is wrong?

Dear God..

Whether or not that's so, I notice that Tiassa and Bells never stop to criticize other states on basis of the same accusation.

Oh, give me any Government that has its ministers dropping shit like that all over the place and I'll criticise it.

Can you name me some other Government that tells its religious followers to not assimilate and water down the purity of the maternal bloodline becaues to do so would be to commit a holocaust? Name it and I will criticise it just as much.

Do you agree with his assessment? Do you think Jews should not assimilate because to do so would water down their maternal bloodline and complete what Hitler started? Do you tell Jews in your acquaintance that you will not associate with them and definitely not let them assimilate into the community because you want to protect them? How about if your son's grow up and bring him a girl who happens to be Jewish? Will you demand he not become involved lest it water down her Jewish blood and help with the apparent ongoing Jewish holocaust? Or more simply, do you think a Jew marrying a non-Jew is just as bad as gassing 6 million Jews?

[Bells]

Maybe WWII proved to some people that assimilation is impossible.

Are you kidding me?

You are this willing to support a Government that operates on bigoted policies to this extent... to the point where you become a bigot yourself? As a person who is a product of "assimilation", I find your comments insulting as they are offensive in the extreme.

[quadraphonics]

Can you name me some other Government that tells its religious followers to not assimilate and water down the purity of the maternal bloodline becaues to do so would be to commit a holocaust? Name it and I will criticise it just as much.

There is no shortage of governments that openly promote ethnic/religious nationalism. Which I suppose is why you're working so hard to carve out an escape hatch wherein some kind of Holocaust rhetoric needs to figure into such promotions. But it isn't like it's difficult to find extremely nasty examples of ethnic nationalist practices outside Israel. Polities have been actually committing genocide in pursuit of such, not simply invoking such in overheated rhetoric.

[quadraphonics]

You are this willing to support a Government that operates on bigoted policies to this extent... to the point where you become a bigot yourself?

WTF are you talking about? Accurately describing the lessons that certain groups drew from a historical event is just that - it doesn't make anyone a "bigot."

As a person who is a product of "assimilation", I find your comments insulting as they are offensive in the extreme.

As a person who can read, I find your comments insulting as they are inane and melodramatic in the extreme.