Not content with advocating ‘One State’, yesterday Seth Freedman gave us ‘Fluffy Fatah’. The medium was Uri Davis, the (born Jewish) longtime anti-Zionist who has converted to Islam, married a Palestinian, lives in Ramallah and was recently elected to the Fatah Council.
So we get Davis’ ‘Chanumas’ version of the Israel he wants: Israel “basically should be a binational state with some Jewish decorations: the Sabbath on the seventh day, road signs [in Hebrew], that kind of thing”, with the Arab state alongside it sporting a “mirror constitution”. Bit like Christmas with a kosher turkey, then. But not Pesach, at least not the Pesach most Jews know: “All of the Hagada story is ugly, ethnocentric, and celebrates collective punishment.”
Freedman tells us that Davis is “adamant that more Jews should join Fatah” (But we thought Davis was Muslim?) “in the same way that whites joined the ANC during the darkest days of apartheid; to him, ideas of religious loyalty should come a distant second to pursuing justice and equality…. it is clear that he at least is living out his vision of breaking down ethnic divisions and working towards a future of coexistence and tolerance between the two sides.”
Sounds so fluffy and interfaith, doesn’t it? Fatah as an encounter group, a dialogue group, an interfaith movement with coffee and biscuits ? Let’s all hold hands and sing ‘kumbaya’ – well, why not?
Well, let’s look at the recent Sixth Fatah General Congress, the first such Congress in twenty years. The only clear message was that, as with Hamas, elimination of Jewish sovereignty in the region remains its ultimate objective. In the elections, at number one with two-thirds of the vote was Abd al-Mahir Ghuneim. According to Barry Rubin (GLORIA Center, Herzliya) he is increasingly being spoken of as Abbas’s successor. Ghuneim is an unrepentant hardliner, an open opponent of the Oslo agreement. “If he becomes the leader of Fatah–and hence of the PA and PLO–you can forget about peace. Violent conflict becomes far more likely. Watch this man: he is the future of the Palestinian movement.”
Better buy some more whitewash, Seth …….
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
77 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 2, 2009 at 12:27 am
exiledlondoner
“But we thought Davis was Muslim?”
He can be both – “Jewish” refers to both a faith and a tradition. One can be a Jewish Muslim just as one can be an Arab Jew. Having a different faith does not make him “not Jewish”.
But you knew that, didn’t you?
Or are you going to claim that non-religious Jews aren’t Jewish? It might come as something as a shock to the many non-religious Israeli Jews!
Maybe this only applies to Jewish Muslims?
There’s so much that can be said about the inherent problems of a one-state solution – not least that it could never be achieved – I find it rather sad that you prefer to indulge in playground taunts, even when there’s a plausable case to be made.
September 2, 2009 at 1:41 am
Gil
Seth Freedman should also become a Mulsim. He is certainly no Jew.
September 2, 2009 at 2:07 am
Benedict
exiled
A Jewish Muslim?
Boy, have you picked the wrong nit this time!
September 2, 2009 at 2:08 am
Nostradamus
If Davis had stayed Jewish, it would have been better for his PR Agent in Fatah.
Seth should have advised him to unconvert.
September 2, 2009 at 2:13 am
Annekl
No Exiled, you can’t be both Jewish and a Muslim. “Jewish” is both a religion and a nationality, but it is first and foremost a religion. “Muslim” is a religion. Therefore one cannot be a Jewish Muslim or a Muslim Jew. One can be a Jewish Arab or an Arab Jew, Arab being a nationality, just like one can be an Israeli Jew or Israeli Muslim or Christian.
Being a non-religious Jew does not disqualify a person from being Jewish – not only nationally but also religiously, rather like being a lapsed Christian.
In Davis’ case, he actively converted to Islam, thereby making him not Jewish at all. Halachically (according to Jewish law) he would have to convert back to Judaism to be considered a Jew again.
September 2, 2009 at 2:34 am
peterthehungarian
exiledlondoner
“He can be both – “Jewish” refers to both a faith and a tradition. One can be a Jewish Muslim just as one can be an Arab Jew. Having a different faith does not make him “not Jewish”.”
Seeing yor hairsplitting on other threads you should be a bit more accurate. Jewish Muslim and Arab Jew? If you want to compare these two opposing ideas then maybe Jewish Muslim and a Muslim Jew? You know Arab and Muslim are two different things…
Anyway now and again you start discussing the totally irrelevant points. As you yourself know and said the so called one state solution is nothing else that some kind of delusion. Maybe you should ask Freedman instead why is he advertising totally irrelevant (and mischievous) ideas and helping other halfwits to do the same? (Paraphrasing some members of your CIF fanclub – is he a paid agent?) Many others asked him on the thread without even the slightest attempt from his part to answer.
I understand your frustration after your poor performance in defense of LaRit on this site and seeking new territories to try your luck, but please work harder. Instead of you I would experiment with the thought that understanding and discussing complex problems require more than endless legalizing. Maybe you didn’t hear of these ideas but apart from legal points and hairsplitting there are moral aspects, human sensitivity and other minor factors influencing human behavior, perceptions, emotions and naturally politics. With your debating tactic you can wear out your opponents and have the last word and then what? Apart from hailing your heroic performance by some assholes on CIF what did you win?Certainly not the debate.
September 2, 2009 at 2:35 am
exiledlondoner
Annekl,
“No Exiled, you can’t be both Jewish and a Muslim. “Jewish” is both a religion and a nationality, but it is first and foremost a religion.”
Do you understand the implications of what you’re saying – that the prime factor in definining Jewishness is religion?
“Being a non-religious Jew does not disqualify a person from being Jewish – not only nationally but also religiously, rather like being a lapsed Christian.”
So a Jewish atheist is still Jewish, I’m still a Catholic (despite having no faith whatsover), but Disraeli wasn’t a Jew, having converted?
“Halachically (according to Jewish law) he would have to convert back to Judaism to be considered a Jew again.”
You define Jews according to Jewish law, which in some interpretations would exclude a lot of Israeli Jews.
The problem with your essentially religious viewpoint is that the very reason for Israel’s existance, and for Zionism’s desire for a Jewish state, is based on Jews being a “people” or a “nation” – a recognition that Jews are as intrinsically Jewish as Irish are Irish or Greeks are Greek.
If you turn Jewishness into an issue primarily of faith – a matter of choice, both for the individual and the community, then Jews are essentially no different to Buddhists, Prebyterians, Mormons or Jehova’s Witnesses.
Would a diaspora Jewish convert be refused the right to make Aliyah? Could an Israeli Jewish convert be stripped of his nationality?
September 2, 2009 at 2:54 am
exiledlondoner
Peter,
“If you want to compare these two opposing ideas then maybe Jewish Muslim and a Muslim Jew? You know Arab and Muslim are two different things…”
No. Jewish (people) and Jewish (religion) are two different things too.
“Anyway now and again you start discussing the totally irrelevant points.”
You think accusing a Jew of not being a real Jew is irrelevant?
“As you yourself know and said the so called one state solution is nothing else that some kind of delusion. Maybe you should ask Freedman instead why is he advertising totally irrelevant (and mischievous) ideas and helping other halfwits to do the same?”
My views on the blind-alley that is a one-state solution are hardly secret – either to Seth, or to many others on CIF. As to why he believes it represents a sensible way forward? That’s for him to explain – I’ve already explained many times why I think he’s wrong.
“I understand your frustration after your poor performance in defense of LaRit on this site and seeking new territories to try your luck, but please work harder.”
Well if you are happy to accept Louise’s formula for identifying anti-semitism – that something is anti-semitic because she, or indeed any Jew, says it is, and that to deny that is Jew-baiting – I’ll bear it in mind.
“With your debating tactic you can wear out your opponents and have the last word and then what?”
The problem is Peter, you don’t really like debate – you think that everyone should say what they think, but you don’t think that people you agree with should be challenged on what they say. We had the same issue with Petra. What you call “wearing out your opponents” is nothing more than challenging them to justify their views – the fact that Louise cannot do so, is her problem, not mine.
“Apart from hailing your heroic performance by some assholes on CIF what did you win?”
I’m not trying to “win” if winning means persuading the owners and readers of CIF Watch of my case – I’m not that ambitious. I’m just making sure that any visitor here has the opportunity to judge whether CIF Watch is an honest, respectable website, or whether it is nothing but a vehicle for smears, innuendo and downright fabrications.
September 2, 2009 at 2:54 am
zamalek
Anneki: “One can be a Jewish Arab or an Arab Jew”
Actually one can’t – this is not how Jews from Arab countries ever describe themselves, in fact they would be quite offended to be so defined. One can be an Arabic-speaking Jew of Arabic culture but this is not the same thing as an ‘Arab Jew’.
There is no such thing as an Arab nation – it’s an artificial construct. It’s a bit like saying that Quebecois belong to a francophone nation or Peruvians belong to a Hispanic nation. Only those who wish to deny a separate Jewish identity (anti-Zionists and communists) and want to imply that Jews from Arab countries, as Arabs of the Jewish religion, therefore not entitled to self-determination – use the expression ‘Arab Jew’.
A further point is that not many people know that Jews were in Arab lands 1,000 years before the Arab conquest and Islam. This makes them pre-Arab, if anything.
September 2, 2009 at 3:55 am
John
Zamalek is correct re. the term ‘Arab Jew’. It is a contradiction in terms. For examply, those members of my family (who were originally from Aleppo) do not and have never described themselves as ‘Arab Jews’ primarily because the Arabs amongst whom they lived always referred to them as Jews, treated them as Jews rather than Arabs (members of the Arab nation) and did not accept that they could have the same rights and status as Arabs. It has become important to anti-Zionists and communists, as zamalek states, to try and invert historical reality for the reason h/she briefly describes above.
Uri Davis has converted to Islam ergo he is now a Muslim and no longer a Jew. Had he converted to Christianity, he would now be a Christian and hence no longer a Jew. Many Jews over the millenia have converted to either Islam or Christianity and they and their descendants are no longer Jews (see Marx, Disraeli etc). To convert is to leave the Jewish nation – it is an active, radical expression of a particular choice. Many Jews are agnostics/atheists (I am one) but as I have not converted to any other religion, I remain a part of the Jewish nation.
As for Seth Freedman’s article? Lightweight as usual. As for Uri Davis – he will spend the rest of his days rewriting the Koran.
September 2, 2009 at 3:55 am
peterthehungarian
exiledlondoner
“The problem is Peter, you don’t really like debate – you think that everyone should say what they think, but you don’t think that people you agree with should be challenged on what they say.”
The problem is that your challenges at this point are nothing else but some kind of legalizing and nitpicking, a tactic well known from courtroom novels.
“Well if you are happy to accept Louise’s formula for identifying anti-semitism – that something is anti-semitic because she, or indeed any Jew, says it is, and that to deny that is Jew-baiting – I’ll bear it in mind.”
Exactly what I said above. Jew-baiting is some manifestation of friendly love of Jews in your book? Baiting and offending someone based on his/her race is not racism?
Even if visitors of the site disagree with Louise’s definition, your challenge of it only makes it more true and convincing.
Louise’s formula is far better and sensible than yours.
September 2, 2009 at 3:58 am
armaros
Fluffy Fatah and the bi-national state would not last longer than Feta in a lactose intolerant stomach. That is also how it will end.
Starting from the slight fermented odor to……oh well…..
sums up my thoughts…..
September 2, 2009 at 4:12 am
Fairplay
Whatever next : Hamas likes Humus?
September 2, 2009 at 4:19 am
John
See here for example:
http://www.jimena.org/faq/memmi.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Jews
September 2, 2009 at 4:34 am
CIFDisgustsMe
See here for example:
http://www.jimena.org/faq/memmi.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Jews
Yes. The sick extreme lefty denizens of CI(F) conveniently simply don’t register Muslim slaughtering Jew or even Muslim slaughtering Muslim.
The only act that does register on their sadly disfunctional ‘radar’ is when something ‘Western’ is involved in a situation where non whites are injured or die. That gets their juices flowing in ever expanding huffs of selectively expressed ‘rightiousness’.
September 2, 2009 at 5:19 am
zamalek
It is telling that throughout history non-Muslims have only ever been accepted fully by Arab-Muslim society if they converted to Islam. This signifies that a Jew or Christian can never be accepted for what he is, on his own terms. That’s why Michel Aflak, Chrstian founder of pan-Arabism, converted to Islam. Many, many Jews have been lost to Islam in this way.
September 2, 2009 at 5:36 am
exiledlondoner
Peter,
“Jew-baiting is some manifestation of friendly love of Jews in your book?”
If you can show me where I said, intimated, or even hinted such a thing, I might grace your question with a reply.
“Baiting and offending someone based on his/her race is not racism?”
If it is based on the person’s race, of course it is.
Haven’t I said enough that you disagree with? You seem to be inventing positions for me….
“Even if visitors of the site disagree with Louise’s definition, your challenge of it only makes it more true and convincing.”
Anyone who changes their view about one person’s position, because of the position of someone else, clearly is lacking something. Whatever happened to weighing up the evidence? You’re advocating that people should suspend their own judgement and choose sides (which may explain a lot).
“Louise’s formula is far better and sensible than yours.”
If that’s your honestly held opinion, that’s fine – though you may find yourself being questioned when you accuse someone of anti-semitism. If there’s a possibilty that your accusation is based on Louise’s “Jews can decide what’s anti-semitic” formula, it makes it rather too easy to dismiss.
I don’t think that you make accusations of anti-semitism lightly, or for political advantage, but if you accept the criteria of those who do, then you’re liable to be associated with them.
September 2, 2009 at 5:52 am
1peter
exiledlondoner
He can be both – “Jewish” refers to both a faith and a tradition. One can be a Jewish Muslim just as one can be an Arab Jew. Having a different faith does not make him “not Jewish”.
—————————————————————————————
More pilpul (bilbul)
One doesn’t debate a bilbulist, one follows the Talmudic model and banishes it.
September 2, 2009 at 5:57 am
Adloyada
Yes, you can be a Jewish Muslim, like you can be a kosher pork butcher or be a vegetarian roast chicken eater. Nobody ever called Disraeli a Jewish Christian.
Uri Davis is no longer a Fatah Jewish parrot. He is a Fatah ex Jewish parrot. He has gone to the great Muslim Fatah Umma in Ramallah. He has ceased to be a Fatah Jewish parrot.
However, both he and Fatah (the shop that wholesales and helps the Guardian distribute the Fatah AsAJew Jewish parrots) will insist on continuing to have his recorded voice parroting. “I am still a Fatah Jewish parrot.”
Because really he is a Fatah AsAJew ex Jewish parrot. And the AsAJew label can be claimed even if your great grandfather was the only Jew amongst your forbears.
Or the nearest you ever got to Jewish culture and the Jewish tradition was your AsAJew-Yevsektsia Communist parrots playing a record of AsAJew Soviet parrots singing the praises of Djankoye, one of the Soviet Jewish collectives founded which was eventually wiped out. (The song was recorded and made famous by non-Jewish Communist parrot Pete Seeger. Of course it never mentioned the fact that it had been set up cynically by Stalin using starry-eyed Jewish Communist parrots to create a collective farm on land from which the original Tatar occupants had been “removed”. The latter are likely to have been labelled “Kulaks” for which the penalty was labour camps and/or execution.)
Or maybe if your totally secular atheist AsAJew parrots took you round to your grandmother on Friday nights to hear her Barbara Streisand and Barry Manilow records.
Yes, you don’t have to be Jewish to be an AsAJew.
Having said that, I do know of Sephardi-Mizrachi Jews who call themselves Arab Jews. Jewlicious on Twitter does that. But he’s fortunate enough to live in Jerusalem. I rather wonder if his forbears living in Morocco would have done that? I rather suspect it’s become a PC choice for Sephardi-Mizrachi Jews of a Peace Now and/or Meretz outlook.
September 2, 2009 at 6:10 am
zamalek
Judy: “I rather wonder if his forbears living in Morocco would have done that? I rather suspect it’s become a PC choice for Sephardi-Mizrachi Jews of a Peace Now and/or Meretz outlook.”
I rather suspect his forebears would have not. They would have been too busy tryng to survive the daily humiliations of being a dhimmi. It’s a choice which far-left radicals make to identlfy themselves as part of the so-called ‘Arab nation.’ Of course the irony of throwing in their lot with cultural imperialists is lost on them.
September 2, 2009 at 6:38 am
Annekl
Apologies if I offended anyone by calling Middle Eastern Jews “Arab”. I was trying to define Mizrachi Jews by nationality (Arab) as oppose to religion for the purpose of arguing against Exiled’s post. Peter1 and Zamalek have phrased it all better than me, and Adloyada has clarified it further.
I don’t know why I bothered arguing with Exiled. It’s a waste of breath/keyboard.
September 2, 2009 at 6:43 am
Mita
The question of who is a Jew has been debated often with no conclusion and when we have peace and time to get down to the really important details of life we will find the Knesset up in arms about this too. When they make their decision you will find Jews in NYC and Canada who disagree indignantly with the definition — quite justifiably.
As things stand today if someone definitely chooses not to be a Jew any more and adopts an alternative religion he is generally no longer known as a Jew (if he is honest) but rather a Christian or a Wiccan of Jewish parentage, birth or background, according to his choice. If he is dishonest and wishes to exploit the fact that he was born a Jew then he will behave as someone known to me does, making claims on behalf of all Jews saying “Since I am a Jew and I think …therefore…”
It is ridiculous to assume that people who change their religion will no longer be Israelis – this is their citizenship, not their religion. Those who have converted before receiving citizenship will not, however, be accepted (generally) as immigrants according to the Law of Return, though there have been cases to the contrary: the Dept of the Interior is not always consistent about this.
September 2, 2009 at 6:54 am
peterthehungarian
exiledlondoner
“Well if you are happy to accept Louise’s formula for identifying anti-semitism – that something is anti-semitic because she, or indeed any Jew, says it is, and that to deny that is Jew-baiting – I’ll bear it in mind.””
Maybe I misunderstood this sentence of yours?
If yes then I remind you your statement about the qualification of La Rit’s question to L. Grant, (or in my example to a black person) “why don’t you call yourself by your real name?” .
In according to you it was offensive (baiting?) but not necessarily racist.
“Anyone who changes their view about one person’s position, because of the position of someone else, clearly is lacking something.”
Not exactly. If you are to choose a side in a discussion you will compare the opposing views and join the party whose position is closer to your own.
Regarding your very liberal and tolerant views about the definition of racism, my guess that you luckily never were on the receiving end of it and never experienced real and serious manifestations of racial hate against others.
September 2, 2009 at 7:56 am
Adloyada
I don’t think it’s true to characterize Jewlicious as a far left radical who is throwing in his lot with the “Arab nation”– which is of itself an ideological construct going back to Azouri, actually a Christian Arab who wrote the first major published book arguing for a unified politics of whole-region Arab nationalism in 1905, some decades after Herzl wrote “Altneuland/Tel-Aviv/The Jewish State). Azouri’s book embedded the zero-sum, us or them “the Jews are out to rob us” anti-semitism which became embedded in Arab anti-semitic anti-zionism from its inception.
In as far as I understand <a href="http://www.jewlicious.com/"Jewlicious' stance, he is a very proud and state-supporting zionist Israeli Jew. He tweets for Gilad Shalit and has “blued up” his Twitter avatar including a “Gilad Shalit” slogan which no anti-zionist or really far left radical would dream of doing. Ironically, that alone would probably be enough for some AsAJew anti-zionists to slur him as a right-wing ultra-nationalist Avigdor-Lieberman clone ultra-zionist. His web site is an aimed-at-the-cool-proud-Jew happens-to-be zionist celebration of today’s young generation Jewish culture.
He is proud of his Jewish observance and strongly supports Israel maintaining his Jewish status. And he sees that all as part of his self-defined Arab Jewish zionist Israeli identity.
My apologies to Jewlicious if I’ve got him wrong. I’m sure he’ll be down on my comments like a ton of bricks if I have.
September 2, 2009 at 8:12 am
exiledlondoner
Peter,
Most posters have declared their objection to engaging with me (in one case on Talmudic grounds????) – I hope that you’re not going to join them.
“Maybe I misunderstood this sentence of yours?”
In what way?
“If yes then I remind you your statement about the qualification of La Rit’s question to L. Grant, (or in my example to a black person) “why don’t you call yourself by your real name?” . In according to you it was offensive (baiting?) but not necessarily racist.”
Yes – I can’t see that the question “why don’t you call yourself by your real name?” has racist overtones. If she had said “why don’t you piss off and make some chicken soup”, I can see why that would be a dig at both Linda Grant’s race and sex, but this seemed to be a dig at Linda Grant.
I’ve laughed before at the broadcaster Linda Donant changing her name to Sarah Donant – apparently she thought it sounded more erudite….
“Not exactly. If you are to choose a side in a discussion you will compare the opposing views and join the party whose position is closer to your own.”
You might, but I don’t. Joining has a nasty habit of turning into defending, irrespective of the rights or wrongs. Diplomats need to tow a party line, but I don’t.
“Regarding your very liberal and tolerant views about the definition of racism, my guess that you luckily never were on the receiving end of it and never experienced real and serious manifestations of racial hate against others.”
I think you misjudge me. While I’m only about 25% English “by blood” it’s true I don’t look different – only my name would confirm my origins. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of racism (including anti-semitism – I grew up a few miles from Seth), fought it (including physically), and now live in a country where racism against gypsies and immigrants is widespread.
My experience has bred in me a fear of racism – I doubt the BNP would consider me British – and a dislike of racially-based nationalism. Some would say that racism and racially-based nationalism are first cousins.
September 2, 2009 at 9:22 am
ck at Jewlicious
Heh. OK, allow me to try and explain. The first language of my parents and most of my aunts, uncles etc. is Arabic. The music I grew up listening to was Arabic. The tunes we sing our prayers in are Arabic. Our engagement parties, Hennas, are Arabic affairs with Judeo-Arabic music, the wearing of djellabas etc. The food we eat, is Arabic in origin. I could go on and on of course, but I cannot diminish the extent to which Arabic cultural touchstones are part of our daily lives. So yeah, when people claim that my family and I, as Zionists, are some kind of foreign implant into the region, well… they’re wrong. We are as indigenous as anyone else.
That having been said, our collective history of having been maligned elements of the Arab countries we lived in still remains. My family does not trust non-Jewish Arabs. They are right-wing hardliners politically. They generally view non-Jewish Arab culture with contempt. It’s a whacky coexistence of course, kind of schizophrenic given that in terms of external cultural manifestations, we have way more in common with Arabs than we do with most Ashkenazic Jews. I mean seriously, give me Cheb Khaled or Sawt Al Atlas over Lipa Shmeltzer any friggin day. ANY. FRIGGIN. DAY.
Hope that explained stuff. And no. I’ve never voted for a right wing party in my life but I’m no Meretz dude either. Too many Ashkenazim. Heh…
September 2, 2009 at 9:37 am
peterthehungarian
exiledlondoner
“Yes – I can’t see that the question “why don’t you call yourself by your real name?” has racist overtones.”
So doubting your belonging to the given community because of your race(you are just trying to hide your real belonging using a WASP name) is not racist? Not good enough.
“You might, but I don’t. Joining has a nasty habit of turning into defending, irrespective of the rights or wrongs. Diplomats need to tow a party line, but I don’t.”
What joining and what party line? In my sentence “If you are to choose a side in a discussion you will compare the opposing views and join the party whose position is closer to your own.” I used the words “join the party” as choosing a side.
September 2, 2009 at 9:44 am
CIFDisgustsMe
What I really like about you Exiled is that the deeper that you get in a hole, the more furiously you dig and dig and dig.
September 2, 2009 at 10:20 am
Mita
Exile: Some would say that racism and racially-based nationalism are first cousins
———————————————————–
No, not first cousins: All men are brothers. Some of these brothers were Jews whose blood relatives were annihilated for that identity by other brothers who were practising racists. The surviving Jewish brothers banded together for mutual protection on the racial basis on which they were attacked, since none of their other brothers protected them (Niemoller refers) and on the grounds of their banding together on the racial basis to protect themselves you see them as first cousins to the racists – who are actually their brothers — who attacked them.
You have either not considered the implications of your statement or despite the experience you claim, you are still naive about racism.
September 2, 2009 at 10:44 am
exiledlondoner
Peter,
“So doubting your belonging to the given community because of your race(you are just trying to hide your real belonging using a WASP name) is not racist? Not good enough.”
Is that what was intended? Why is Linda Grant a “WASP name”? I actually know a Jewish “Grant”, and I don’t think “Linda” is unknown amongst European Jews.
“What joining and what party line? In my sentence “If you are to choose a side in a discussion you will compare the opposing views and join the party whose position is closer to your own.” I used the words “join the party” as choosing a side.”
Sides have party lines too – you’ve only got the look on CIF, or on here. Person after person lines up to say the same thing, agreeing 100% with statements that are at very least questionable, seemingly unwilling to utter anything that might break the spell of unity.
I agree with what I agree with, disagree with what I disagree with, and make common cause with nobody. I don’t agree any more often with La Rit or with Berchmans, than I do with some of the pro-Israel posters, but I don’t believe that they are anti-semites.
I can’t quite see what’s the problem with that?
CIFDisgustsMe – sometimes you have to dig to find something precious.
September 2, 2009 at 11:48 am
Alois Brunner
Hey, great site!
September 2, 2009 at 11:51 am
exiledlondoner
Mita,
Israel can be a Jewish state without racially-based nationalism. It can be a Jewish state purely by dint of the vast majority of its citizens being Jewish – just as Finland doesn’t have to be racially-based to remain Finnish.
What are the possible threats to Israel remaining Jewish?
Invasion. Not a likely scenario nowadays, but Israel can defend itself without race entering the equation.
Right of Return. A full right of return would threaten Israel’s Jewish status, and I don’t regard Israel’s refusal to counternance it as racist.
A one-state solution. Quite simply not going to happen. Israel will not agree, and nobody with any influence will press it to do so.
Expansion. This is the problem. The wider Israel is drawn, the smaller is its natural Jewish majority, and the less likely is it that a Palestinian state will be created – a state that should remove invasion, right of return and a one-state solution from the scene.
Israel’s expansion, both through annexation and settlement, has inevitably entailed racial discrimination, and that discrimination in the occupied territories inevitably feeds back into Israel itself.
I have never accused Israel of being an Apartheid state – sure there is discrimination, but there is in Britain or the US as well – but Israel does operate something very similar to Apartheid in parts of the occupied territories. Just as Britain in the days of empire, lauded its democracy and freedoms, while subjugating other peoples elsewhere, Israel lauds its own liberal society, while imposing a racially-based colonial system in the West Bank.
I believe that Israel should remain a Jewish state if Israelis want that, I believe Israel has the right to be secure, and I don’t believe the occupation is illegal – you might see me as some lefty anti-Israel agitator, but I’m pretty sure I’m not.
I also believe that the settlement program is not only illegal, it is immoral, racist, and as damaging to Israeli society as it is to the Palestinians.
September 2, 2009 at 12:07 pm
peterthehungarian
exiledlondoner
“Why is Linda Grant a “WASP name?”
Linda Grant obviously an English sounding Christan name. In the world of La Rit style Jew haters a Jew musn’t hide behind it , she should use the original Rivka Cohen. (my imagination – I have no idea about the original name of Ms. Grant’s ancestors).
“Sides have party lines too – you’ve only got the look on CIF, or on here. Person after person lines up to say the same thing, agreeing 100% with statements that are at very least questionable, seemingly unwilling to utter anything that might break the spell of unity.”
I agree, the easiest thing is sitting on the fence. Choosing side doesn’t mean following some kind of “party line”. Do you think (together with many others on CIF tin-foil hat brigade and especially B. Whittaker) that every Zionist poster reads the daily Giyus dispatch and start to post? But you are correct in one thing. If I have a problem with the behavior of other Israelis I won’t complain about it in the Guardian, neither in the Journal of the Maldivian Beekeepers but in an Israeli forum when my complaints could make any change for the better. The Israeli but anti-Israel contributors and posters on CIF help no one apart from their inflated ego, cause huge damage to the Palestinians without the slightest influence on Israeli society.
“I can’t quite see what’s the problem with that?”
I have no problem with your inability to recognize racism. The problem is yours in its entirety.
September 2, 2009 at 12:10 pm
CIFDisgustsMe
Exiled – I believe that Israel should remain a Jewish state if Israelis want that, I believe Israel has the right to be secure, and I don’t believe the occupation is illegal – you might see me as some lefty anti-Israel agitator, but I’m pretty sure I’m not.
You’ve expressed your opinions so many times that I am bored with you.
You also have no real understanding of different points of view.
If you have decided something, then no argument is of any value. You have decided and therefore, that is how things should be.
OK
No please go away.
September 2, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Sergio Bramsole
“September 2, 2009 at 12:27 am exiledlondonerJewish” refers to both a faith and a tradition. One can be a Jewish Muslim just as one can be an Arab Jew. Having a different faith does not make him “not Jewish”.But you knew that, didn’t you”
You and your ditzy questions. Apparently you know nothing about Jewish Halachic Law. He is no longer a Jew but he can always come back.
September 2, 2009 at 12:32 pm
exiledlondoner
Peter,
I have no idea what Linda Grant’s “original” name was – many UK Jews anglicised their names generations ago, as did my father. My guess would be that CIF contributors Alderman, Freedman and Lerman all have anglisized surnames.
All I’m saying is that knowing my background, I wouldn’t accuse someone of asking why I’m not called Stavros, Giovanni, Pedro, or Knut, of racist abuse.
“I agree, the easiest thing is sitting on the fence.”
You think that I sit on the fence?
“If I have a problem with the behavior of other Israelis I won’t complain about it in the Guardian, neither in the Journal of the Maldivian Beekeepers but in an Israeli forum when my complaints could make any change for the better.”
But you don’t go to Al-Jazeera to lambast the other side, do you?
Doesn’t that make your posting on CIF fundementally dishonest? – rather than comment according to the evidence, you start with a policy of not criticising Israel no matter what. My country right or wrong.
CIFDisgustsMe,
“No please go away.”
That could mean anything…..
September 2, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Demeter
Freedman is up to his usual tricks again. He’s giving us only half a story and slanting the half he gives us because it echoes his bias against his adopted country. Freedman, are you going to convert to Islam and join Fatah? I think you should lead by example since you seem to be so enamoured of the somewhat conflicted Uri Davis.
But before you do, allow me to enlighten you about the organisation to which Davis has affiliated himself so eagerly that he has converted to Islam in order to (over)identify with it. You seem not to have researched it well, or even at all which is also par for the course:
According to Fatah activist Kifa Radayeh in an interview of PA TV on 7 July 2009, the PA will resume violence and terror against Israel when Fatah is “capable,” and “according to what seems right.”
She states openly that peace is not a goal for Fatah:
“It has been said that we are negotiating for peace, but our goal has never been peace. Peace is a means; the goal is Palestine.”
Radaydeh says that “armed struggle” has not been ruled out and will continue, depending on how “capable” the PA forces are.
see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc-7GK6F4RI
The Fatah flag still shows the map of Israel under rifles. The same symbol (see right) appears on the Fatah website (http://www.fateh.ps) and other official Fatah publications.
Fatah MP Najat Abu-Bakr said in a PA TV interview last year that Fatah’s goal remains the destruction of Israel, but that their political plan is to focus on the West Bank and Gaza Strip:
“It doesn’t mean that we don’t want the 1948 borders [all of Israel]…but our current political program is to say that we want the 1967 borders.” [PA TV, Aug. 25 2008].
see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw-JZ5u0Oi4
A PA TV educational documentary broadcast monthly since 2007 includes the following words denying the existence of Israel:
“Another section in Palestine which is the Palestinian coast that spreads along the [Mediterranean] sea, from… Ashkelon in the south, until Haifa, in the Carmel Mountains. Haifa is a well-known Palestinian port. [Haifa] enjoyed a high status among Arabs and Palestinians especially before it fell to the ‘occupation’ [Israel] in 1948.
“To its north, we find Acre. East of Acre, we reach a city with history and importance, the city of Tiberias, near a famous lake, the lake of Tiberias [Kinneret- Sea of Galilee]. Jaffa, an ancient coastal city, is the bride of the sea, and Palestine’s gateway to the world.”
[PA TV, August 2007-June 7, 2009, dozens of times]
Muhammad Dahlan, senior PA official, recently stressed that Fatah adamantly refuses to recognize Israel, and that even Palestinian Authority recognition is to have better standing internationally in order to receive foreign aid:
“I want to say for the thousandth time, in my own name and in the name of all of my fellow members of the Fatah movement: We do not demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. On the contrary, we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel, because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel, even today… It’s required of the government but not of Hamas; it’s required of the government but not of the Fatah, so that this government will be able to offer the necessary assistance, to carry out the necessary reconstruction, to offer assistance to the sick, to bring relief to needy families… This can be dealt with [only] by a government that has relations with the international community, one that is acceptable to the international community, in order that we can work together and benefit from the international community.” [PA TV March 17, 2009]
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9WA1XI-HIY
Given all this, is Uri Davis’ betrayal of his heritage an act of supreme faith (perhaps Fatah will erect a momument to him if they should ever get the power they want) or a sign of something more sinister? It does seem as if you have had a critical thinking bypass because you drank in every word he said.
How does it feel, Seth Freedman, to rush into print to aid and abet this useful idiocy as if it is something to be proud of?
September 2, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Demeter
A propos “Jewish Muslims”, I thought you might like to see an excerpt from an excellent article by Yossi Klein Halevi, written before the intifadas, which illustrates how Muslims see Jews in Israel:
“…“But I learned too, during numerous candid conversations with Palestinians at all levels of society, that, in practice, few within your nation are willing to concede that I have a legitimate claim to any part of this land. I will cite one telling example.
“During my journey into Islam in Gaza, I met General Nasser Youssef (who at the time of our meeting was head of one of the Palestinian security forces and is now the PA Interior Minister). At one point during our conversation, I asked the general to describe his vision of the relations between a Jewish state and a Palestinian state after we signed a peace agreement.
“Let us assume, I said, that Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, uproots the settlements and redivides Jerusalem: What then? He replied that, once the refugees begin returning to the area, so many would gravitate to those areas in Israel where their families once lived, that eventually we would realize there was no need for an artificial border between Israel and Palestine.
“The next step, continued the general, was that the two states would merge. “And then we’ll invite Jordan to join our federation. And Iraq and Syria. Why not? We’ll show the whole world what a beautiful country Jews and Arabs can create together.”
“But, I asked the general, aren’t we negotiating today over a two-state solution? Yes, he replied, as an interim step. And then he added, “You aren’t separate from us; you are part of us. Just as there are Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs, you are Jewish Arabs.”
“This story is particularly relevant because General Youssef is widely known as a moderate, deeply opposed to terror as counter-productive to the Palestinian cause. And so what I learned in my journeys into your society is that moderation means one thing on the Israeli side and quite another on the Palestinian side.”
[From "Letters to a Palestinian Neighbour", Jerusalem Post, September 28 2005]
September 2, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Adloyada
Be fair to Uri Davis! Yes, fair. He did not convert to Islam in order to ingratiate himself with or identify with Fatah. Fatah is nominally not an Islamist group– originally it was secular marxist (hence all the training of Mahmoud Abbas et al in Moscow in the days of Brezhnev).
According to a fan of his on the Daily KosUri Davis converted to Muslim solely in order to be able to marry his Israeli (but identifying as Palestinian) Muslim Fatah activist girl friend. He had to convert to Islam in order to be able to take part in the Muslim marriage that was insisted on. Don’t know whether it was her, her family or Fatah that insisted, but a Muslim woman who marries a non-Muslim becomes liable for death as an apostate.
Maybe that’s why he’s so uncharacteristically unforthcoming about his actions and his reasons for them in the Graun presentation of his account of the conversion:
The Islamists would have been at the very least have been able to discredit Fatah and/or her–and at worst she could have been executed. Can’t remember whether the required execution method is stoning or head from shoulders removal. Think it’s the latter–the former is for adultery as far as I know.
Was that a good reason for Davis to convert to Islam? Well, would you in those circumstances? I wouldn’t. There could have been other options. And by the way I think the same Guardian interview has him slent about where they live. although he was previously reputed to have iived in an Arab village in the north of Israel
The really revealing thing is that Davis has not himself talked about exactly why and how he did the conversion, which involves avowing belief in Allah, and that Mohammed is his prophet, in order to be able to marry. Hardly surprising because he’s spent his entire adult life as a militant atheist. So he’s an insincere convert. Serious stuff in Islamist eyes. Merits removal of head from shoulders.
Here’s an explanation from one of his enthusiastic fans on the “Daily Kos:
For the rest of us, it might shed light on Davis’ narcissism, cynicism and general reliability as to the veracity of anything he swears to.
And if you look at the adoring Guardian artlcle celebrating him on 28th August, you’ll see that he avows that he always tries to give both sides of the question. That his mum told him that it’s never right to say “all”.
That’s rich, given that the titles of his books include:
Israel the Apartheid State
Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle within
and here’s one of his “Ten Theses” in support of that
Lastly, his entirely open-minded and both sides of the question required oath to avoid being the subject of the economic and cultural boycotts on all Israelis and things Israeli he calls for:
It’s worth pointing out that the very both-sides-of-the-question Uri Davis, who I am sure outspokenly objects to Israel recognising only Jewish religious marriage for Jews who wish to marry, does not campaign or protest about the insistence of the Palestinian Authority that all marriages within its jurisdiction be conducted under Muslim auspices. Why, he even converts insincerely to Islam in order to support it. Because the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is ruled by Fatah, of whose legislative council which he’s just become a Muslim member (whilst still content to allow others to parade him about AsAJew.
September 2, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Yvonne
Adloyada thanks for all your hard work. As Demeter says Davis is certainly conflicted ans is probably filled with oedipal rage against the “bad parent.” Israel. Many of her more poisonous critics are. Narcissism is usually a defence against feelings of inferiority – a narcissist “bigs himself up” to defend against the fear and perhaps the unconscious knowledge that he is merely ordinary.
And yes, he’s a hypocrite, which probably explains why Seth Freedman was so taken with him.
Like attracts like.
September 2, 2009 at 6:06 pm
1peter
Instead of the pilpul (bilbul) that exiled continues to try and bother with I would point out an aspect of Seth’s article that he was asked about and hasn’t bothered to respond to.
Since he does come here to read, he may respond here.
Seth Freedman
“Jerusalem is not the capital under UN resolutions,” he points out, explaining that it should be enshrined as an international city in line with the original partition plan. “We should oppose the political Zionist interpretation of the Jewish state”.
As a recently elected member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council is he suggesting that the claim of “East Jerusalem” is fallacious?
Is he saying that a negotiated settlement can be arrived at without claiming “East Jerusalem” as the capital of this new country expected to form alongside Israel?
Is this a demand that the Arabs no longer have?
Dear Seth, didn’t you think to even ask him such an obvious question?
September 2, 2009 at 6:08 pm
shelemiel
Laila tov
September 2, 2009 at 6:53 pm
berchmansLiver
Can alcohol be purchased in the bi-national state or need I ferment my own belch?
September 2, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Gil
exiledlondoner
“Do you understand the implications of what you’re saying – that the prime factor in definining Jewishness is religion?”
Londoner, you are exiled from common sense.
Judaism is both a religion and a culture.
If you change either your religion or your culture, you stop being a Jew.
Of course it’s a little more complicated with culture, but the principle is still the same.
You can’t be “muslim Jew.”
“Arab Jews” are Mizrahi Jews which is to say Jews who lived in an Arabic speaking country and culture. They were (most have been exiled from the country of their birth) first and last Jews. They were also discriminated in the Arab world for centuries.
If you don’t know that you shouldn’t be posting on issues of which you are ignorant.
September 3, 2009 at 12:49 am
Arnon
You guys will have to start moderating posters comments.
Some of the posts here are as bad as the ones on CIF.
September 3, 2009 at 1:49 am
peterthehungarian
exiledlondoner
“Doesn’t that make your posting on CIF fundementally dishonest? – rather than comment according to the evidence, you start with a policy of not criticising Israel no matter what. My country right or wrong.”
It seems to me I wasn’t clear enough. I criticise Israel on every possible forums and at every possible occasions where my criticism could make things better. Certainly the Guardian CIF is not one of these places.
The permanent defamation, the hate spilled out towards Israel, the falsification of history, ignorant and/or decontextualised bullshitting on CIF simply neutralizes any reasonable criticism. What I’m trying to do (unsuccesfully) to criticise this kind of criticism.
“But you don’t go to Al-Jazeera to lambast the other side, do you?”
Why should I? My interest is not lambasting the other side but making my own side better by criticising it on relevant forums.
“All I’m saying is that knowing my background, I wouldn’t accuse someone of asking why I’m not called Stavros, Giovanni, Pedro, or Knut, of racist abuse.”
First of all I definitely would.
Secondly, maybe you don’t know but in religious/traditional Jewish families living in the diaspora people used to have two sets of names, the normally used and legally registered one matching to the language and culture of the country (like Linda Grant) and a so called Jewish name, used only at religious ceremonies like marriage etc. Demanding from Ms. Grant to use her Jewish name (if she has one at all) is far inside the category of racist slurs.
September 3, 2009 at 2:49 am
exiledlondoner
Gil,
“If you change either your religion or your culture, you stop being a Jew.”
How does one “change your culture”?
Having being born Jewish in the Palestinian mandate, and grown up in Israel, I would suspect that Davis has considerably more Jewish culture than many diaspora Jews, whose Jewishness is not questioned.
The way you put it Jews have no more right to choose their religion than Saudis – the only difference is (thankfully) the penalty for doing so.
If the Jews are a nation – which is the very essence of Zionism – then you’re going to have to take the decision about who’s Jewish away from the Jewish religion. If the decision about who is allowed to make Aliyah is a religious one, rather than one based on tradition and nationhood, then Israel is little more than a self-governing religious sect.
Can you think of another state in which someone who has a legal right to citizenship, loses it if they change their faith? I can think of several, but they’re all medievel theocracies.
September 3, 2009 at 2:59 am
Jubilation
Apologies for being way off topic, but since there is no general thread here, I would like to point out an apparent change in the banning policy of CiF.
As you have doubtless noticed Talknic is back as Interested1. Both AKUS and I have pointed it out several times and yesterday i had an entry deleted for doing so. Just before his previous incarnation was banned Talknic complained about being banned unfairly though to me it was evident he was trolling, if that is what you being insistently long-winded repetitive and boring and mistaken on CiF.
Perhaps they are now prepared to actually discuss their reasons for banning and reconsider. Okay: I saw that pig just nearly miss the דוד שמש (solar energy boiler).
September 3, 2009 at 3:50 am
John
Exiledlondoner
Who (other than you) is arguing that Uri Davis is no longer an Israeli?
Again. He converted to Islam. He is therefore a Muslim. If you are a Muslim, you are not a Jew. If you are a Jew, you are not a Muslim. There is no such thing as a Muslim Jew or a Jewish Muslim.
September 3, 2009 at 4:15 am
Mita
Exile: then you’re going to have to take the decision about who’s Jewish away from the Jewish religion.
———————————————–
It seems you didn’t read or understand my comment about the discussions about who is a Jew in the Knesset
We are always given laws and limits that don’t apply to others.
——————————————————
Exile: Can you think of another state in which someone who has a legal right to citizenship, loses it if they change their faith?
———————————————————
People are free to change their faith and if they do so they can live in Israel as residents for five years and apply for citizenship as for any other country. The Law of Return stipulates that you are a Jew at the time of application and helps you to jump the queue.
Remaining Jewish has a unique value. I would ask you who else has been killed, persecuted, banished, prevented from trading, learning, wearing certain colours, working in most professions, living in countries and all for their religion throughout history. We are Jews today because of acts of courage of our ancestors: because it took guts and determination to remain Jewish. It was much easier to give in, join the others and be assimilated. Jews in Arab countries still live in fear today. You have the obvious example of Yemen. These people remain Jews despite all that.
Join the world – you are free to do so from our point of view we won’t do a thing to you – but then you are no longer a Jew and no longer have automatic entry to citizenship. It seems simple enough to me.