Adorno, Butler, and the Death of Irony
Irony cannot exist in isolation; something is ironic only in relation to a larger pattern of events or behavior. Every three years, on the birthday of the German Jewish philosopher Theodore Adorno, September 11, the city of Frankfurt awards its Adorno Prize to honor scholarly achievement in philosophy, music, film, and theater, all areas in which Adorno worked. This year, Frankfurt gave the prize to Judith Butler. Adorno famously stated that “to write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric.” Giving the prize to Butler, a Jewish American feminist philosopher and Israel boycott advocate, raises the question of whether irony, like poetry, still exists.
Butler, a leading figure in “Queer Studies,” is better known as an “engaged academic.” The Adorno Prize, supposedly given for scholarship, has gone to an academic who has erased the line between intellectual endeavor and political advocacy. Her views on Israel are well known. She supports the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. She has described Hezbollah and Hamas as “social movements that are progressive” and “part of a global Left.” She refuses to lecture in Israel, preferring universities in the West Bank.
Butler has called for a Judaism that is “not associated with state violence.” She complains that “precisely because . . . as a Jew, one is under obligation to criticize excessive state violence and state racism, . . . one is told that one is either self-hating as a Jew or engaging anti-Semitism.” Her recent book Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism is an elaborate anti-Zionist statement, explicitly animated by the spirits of Hannah Arendt and Edward Said, a kind of secular diasporic Jewish theology that calls Palestinian “dispossession” an affront which can be rectified only by the “dismantling of the structure of Jewish sovereignty and demographic advantage”—i.e., a binational Israel.
Adorno is vastly more interesting than Butler. Born into a mixed German family (his mother was Catholic, his father an assimilated Jew), he was a musical prodigy who discovered that music, philosophy, and aesthetics were one. With a doctorate in philosophy, he performed and wrote widely about music and befriended, among others, Max Horkheimer and Walter Benjamin. Adorno left Germany in 1934, first for Britain, then America.
Adorno became one of the founders of the Frankfurt School of critical theory, founded on the idea of understanding the historical settings of ideas and the goal of shaping change and emancipation. He was adamant against theoretical dogmatism. His famous 1944 book with Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, put it that “explanations of the world as all or nothing are mythologies”; it also exposed Enlightenment theory as masking dogmatic and totalitarian values. Both views indict Butler’s absolutism regarding the Good of the Diaspora and the Evil of Israel.
Having escaped Nazism, Adorno was also utterly realistic about anti-Semitism and anti-Semites. He recalled the German woman who, after seeing a dramatization of the Diary of Anne Frank, commented, “That girl at least should have been allowed to live.” Perhaps Butler, unconsciously to be sure, aspires to the role of the unusual Jew who, all would admit, deserves being saved.
Butler’s construction of a Jewish argument for anti-Zionism and binationalism is another iteration of Jewish powerlessness. In contrast, Adorno and Horkheimer, in a 1956 letter on the subject, were blunt: “These Arab robber states have been on the lookout for years for an opportunity to fall upon Israel and to slaughter the Jews who have found refuge there.”
Why would a German city give its leading cultural prize, named after a Jewish philosopher, to an obscurantist American? Perhaps because this was an irresistible opportunity to use two Jews in order to indict Israel. As Colin Shindler points out in his important new book Israel and the European Left, Germany’s efforts to contend with the Holocaust have been troubled. The quote attributed to Israeli psychoanalyst Zvi Rex, “The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz,” could have come from Adorno’s lips. How fitting—ironic—that Adorno has been co-opted into the cause of portraying Israel as akin to Nazi Germany.
Israel as the collective Jew has longstanding resonance in Germany. As Shindler notes, Europe’s current anti-Israeli boycotts, protests, and violence go back at least four decades. The European left, in its many manifestations, has regarded Zionism as a unique evil, as a betrayal of the revolution or as actual treason against the workers’ state. Especially in Germany, Europe’s left inherited from the Soviet Union the trope of anathematizing Zionists as fascists—and added, beginning in the late 1960s, an outright identification with the Palestinians and romanticism about violence inherent in their program. Butler’s thrall to progressivism and the global left (extending, in her case, to the religious fascism of Hamas and Hezbollah) has a long lineage.
Adorno, writing to his friend Herbert Marcuse, worried that the students they had encouraged were becoming left-wing totalitarians. He was more correct than he knew. Though left-wing violence ultimately caused a wave of revulsion in Germany, the children and grandchildren of 1968 now dominate the country. Their passions have dimmed but not substantially changed, except that they now find it possible to enlist figures like Adorno in their quietly determined efforts to vilify Israel. Manichean as only true believers can be, they display what Shindler calls a “Mandela syndrome,” a “polarizing belief of good and bad, or right and wrong,” a “retreat from complexity into celebrity.” The same description applies to Butler, who finds her wider celebrity by pronouncing on one particular issue, albeit in suitably convoluted terms.
At a certain point, the ironic becomes the merely predictable, part of the pattern and not a contrast with it. Many Europeans cannot forgive Jews for Auschwitz and the end of poetry any more than their ancestors could forgive the crucifixion. Jews like Adorno, who cannot defend themselves, are unwillingly co-opted into the anti-Zionist cause; Jews like Butler, in thrall to values they believe will exempt them, willingly lend their Jewishness to the same cause. The contradictions heighten, the denouement creeps closer on the horizon, and the lights continue to go out across Europe.
Tags: Academe, Adorno Prize, Anne Frank, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Arts & Culture, BDS, Edward Said, German Jews, Germany, Hannah Arendt, Herbert Marcuse, Holocaust, irony, Judith Butler, Leading Figures, Max Horkheimer, Modern Thinkers, Music, Nazism, Philosophy, Political Thought, Theodor Adorno, Women
COMMENTS
Avery on September 28, 2012 at 8:33 am ()
Butler is a safe choice to give legitimacy to anti-Zionist rhetoric, but undeservedly so. Her writing is famous only for being obscure, and is easily boiled down to an unprincipled relativism, while Adorno's writing, for all its difficulties, conveyed real principles.
Bill Pearl on September 28, 2012 at 9:59 am ()
Like Butler, in his work, Alex Jaffe also "has erased the line between intellectual endeavor and political advocacy."
Stalwart Zionists - and co-founders of the Hebrew Univerasity of Jerusalem -Judah Magnes and Albert Einstein, like Butler, favored one, binational state in Palestine/Israel.
Stalwart Zionists - and co-founders of the Hebrew Univerasity of Jerusalem -Judah Magnes and Albert Einstein, like Butler, favored one, binational state in Palestine/Israel.
jacob arnon on September 28, 2012 at 7:31 pm ()
Bill Pearl is plying critic by resorting to 'Tu quoque' arguments when he says that "Like Butler, in his work, Alex Jaffe also "has erased the line between intellectual endeavor and political advocacy.""
No Bill Mr. Jaffe isn't doing anything of the kind. When he says that
"Butler has called for a Judaism that is “not associated with state violence.” She complains that “precisely because . . . as a Jew, one is under obligation to criticize excessive state violence and state racism, . . . one is told that one is either self-hating as a Jew or engaging anti-Semitism.” Her recent book Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism is an elaborate anti-Zionist statement, explicitly animated by the spirits of Hannah Arendt and Edward Said, a kind of secular diasporic Jewish theology that calls Palestinian “dispossession” an affront which can be rectified only by the “dismantling of the structure of Jewish sovereignty and demographic advantage”—i.e., a binational Israel."
He is describing Butler stance towards Israel. He does pretend to offer a dispassionate intellectual argument as Butler does.
Moreover, Butler just repeats vies on Israel which antedate not just the establishment of the Jewish State but the Holocaust. Magnes and Buber had tried to negotiate with Arab leaders the kind of State they envisoned but were rejected.
The reasons their views were rejected was because the Arabs didn't want anything to do with a "bi-National" State. Even Said wasn't exactly in favor of a bi-National State. He gave lip service to a single democratic State but asked what would happen to Jews in such a State he said that he didn't know and that he worried over that very issue.
Judith Butler doesn't even worry over that issue. She doesn't care what would happen to Jews in the Israel. All she cared about is instituting a non Jewish State.
She is offended by the trappings of Nationalism and she very bravely is willing to risk the lives of people who live in a country she rejects to prove her point.
As an American nothing would happen to her if the Jews of Israel would be expelled or massacred in an Arab majority State.
She is a hypocrite advocating a solution whose consequences she will never suffer.
No one, btw, elected her to speak in the name of Judaism or the Jewish people. The days when intellectuals can set themselves up as the conscious of humanity is long gone. It dies with Marx, and Lenin, it was murdered by Heidegger and Hannah Arendt, hsi disciple, it was burried by Sartre when he endorsed murder of Europeans by non-White people and by Foucault when he endorsed the rule of the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Intellectuals are the last people who should be listened to when it comers to implementing political doctrines. Political solutions should only be implemented after agreements have been reached through negotiations by parties who would be affected by these agreements. Butler has no dog in this hunt.
Butler has degrees in English literature, feminism, and in obscure writing. Other than that, she pretty much a non entity.
No Bill Mr. Jaffe isn't doing anything of the kind. When he says that
"Butler has called for a Judaism that is “not associated with state violence.” She complains that “precisely because . . . as a Jew, one is under obligation to criticize excessive state violence and state racism, . . . one is told that one is either self-hating as a Jew or engaging anti-Semitism.” Her recent book Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism is an elaborate anti-Zionist statement, explicitly animated by the spirits of Hannah Arendt and Edward Said, a kind of secular diasporic Jewish theology that calls Palestinian “dispossession” an affront which can be rectified only by the “dismantling of the structure of Jewish sovereignty and demographic advantage”—i.e., a binational Israel."
He is describing Butler stance towards Israel. He does pretend to offer a dispassionate intellectual argument as Butler does.
Moreover, Butler just repeats vies on Israel which antedate not just the establishment of the Jewish State but the Holocaust. Magnes and Buber had tried to negotiate with Arab leaders the kind of State they envisoned but were rejected.
The reasons their views were rejected was because the Arabs didn't want anything to do with a "bi-National" State. Even Said wasn't exactly in favor of a bi-National State. He gave lip service to a single democratic State but asked what would happen to Jews in such a State he said that he didn't know and that he worried over that very issue.
Judith Butler doesn't even worry over that issue. She doesn't care what would happen to Jews in the Israel. All she cared about is instituting a non Jewish State.
She is offended by the trappings of Nationalism and she very bravely is willing to risk the lives of people who live in a country she rejects to prove her point.
As an American nothing would happen to her if the Jews of Israel would be expelled or massacred in an Arab majority State.
She is a hypocrite advocating a solution whose consequences she will never suffer.
No one, btw, elected her to speak in the name of Judaism or the Jewish people. The days when intellectuals can set themselves up as the conscious of humanity is long gone. It dies with Marx, and Lenin, it was murdered by Heidegger and Hannah Arendt, hsi disciple, it was burried by Sartre when he endorsed murder of Europeans by non-White people and by Foucault when he endorsed the rule of the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Intellectuals are the last people who should be listened to when it comers to implementing political doctrines. Political solutions should only be implemented after agreements have been reached through negotiations by parties who would be affected by these agreements. Butler has no dog in this hunt.
Butler has degrees in English literature, feminism, and in obscure writing. Other than that, she pretty much a non entity.
Golda on September 28, 2012 at 11:11 am ()
There has been a lot of water under the bridge and historical change since Magnes
and Einstein were around. Neither, I am sure, would have considered Hizbollah or
Hamas a "Progressive" movement. Butler's writing is full of jargon to the point
where is almost a parody.
In any case, it is utterly clear today that a binational sate is a utopian fantasy.
and Einstein were around. Neither, I am sure, would have considered Hizbollah or
Hamas a "Progressive" movement. Butler's writing is full of jargon to the point
where is almost a parody.
In any case, it is utterly clear today that a binational sate is a utopian fantasy.
Empress Trudy on September 28, 2012 at 11:58 am ()
What is interesting I suppose is that the gay liberal elite academic left has become a cartoon of itself. "Post Ironic" as you say because you can't make more fun of them than they do. It's like picking on gangster rap for sounding inane. I think sometimes the Butler-Jewish-Left wakes up every morning and reviews their checklist of things to think in order to maintain their membership in good standing. It's more than the death of irony, it's the death of thought itself.
Michael on September 28, 2012 at 2:13 pm ()
Einstein may or may not have favored a binational state, but he *never* advocated boycott, divestment, sanctions or any other punitive measure against the Jewish state. Not on behalf of Arabs, not for any reason.
S W on September 28, 2012 at 2:22 pm ()
Pearl notes that "Stalwart Zionists - and co-founders of the Hebrew Univerasity of Jerusalem -Judah Magnes and Albert Einstein, like Butler, favored one, binational state in Palestine/Israel."
As contrast to this early view by Magner and Einstein and in contrast to Butler's view today, one reads from the Hamas Covenant of 1988, "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).""
Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
Sounds as if the high-sounding "binational state of Palestine/Israel" is in jeopardy from plain facts, amplified by Iran's statements at the UN only this week. For this, Butler is indeed late to the reality party. Very late.
As contrast to this early view by Magner and Einstein and in contrast to Butler's view today, one reads from the Hamas Covenant of 1988, "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).""
Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
Sounds as if the high-sounding "binational state of Palestine/Israel" is in jeopardy from plain facts, amplified by Iran's statements at the UN only this week. For this, Butler is indeed late to the reality party. Very late.
chaim on September 28, 2012 at 6:31 pm ()
Judith Butler is a sick, protracted adolescent, full of homicidal rage toward her Jewish father.
Jerry Blaz on September 29, 2012 at 9:07 pm ()
An award to this individual can only be indicative of a blunting of pro-Israelism in the face of Palestinian propaganda backed by what appears to much of the world as expansionism as expressed in the settler movement. Today, it is impossible to uproot another person's olive trees or vandalize his mosques without the entire world being aware of it. What happened during the holocaust can no longer provide an explanation to many people who were not around to experience it; Israelis are, for them, just one of the nations of the world, and, like all nations, are expected to act responsibly to people under its control, especially when the Israelis emphatically state that they do not want to have to control these people, and "these people" emphatically state that they do not want to be controled by the Israelis.
In the final analysis, who is Butler?
In the final analysis, who is Butler?
RonL on September 30, 2012 at 3:56 am ()
Adorno may have been born Jewish, but he was an apostate. He became a communist, joining an antisemitic death cult. Butler is a perfect choice for a prize named after someone who worked to destroy Judaism.
jacob arnon on September 30, 2012 at 12:18 pm ()
Ron: "Adorno may have been born Jewish, but he was an apostate..."
Adorno's mother was not Jewish hence he wasn't a Jew according to Halakha law and hence no apostate.
Still Adorno did identify himself with the fate of the Jews of Europe and worked all his life to counter antisemitism wherever he found. Late in life he was very critical of the left in Germany for their mindless embrace of anti-Zionism which he considered to be another form of antisemitism.
These are the facts that make the awarding of the Adorno prize to an antisemite like Butler so grotesque.
Adorno's mother was not Jewish hence he wasn't a Jew according to Halakha law and hence no apostate.
Still Adorno did identify himself with the fate of the Jews of Europe and worked all his life to counter antisemitism wherever he found. Late in life he was very critical of the left in Germany for their mindless embrace of anti-Zionism which he considered to be another form of antisemitism.
These are the facts that make the awarding of the Adorno prize to an antisemite like Butler so grotesque.
H. Senesh on September 30, 2012 at 1:41 pm ()
Electing to "speak in the name of Judaism and the Jewish people," pro-censorship Jacob Arnon (see his postings on the Treyvon Martin TABLET article) is at it once more, iterating (again, see the Martin article) rhetoric which none other than the distinguished Israeli Orthodox thinker has categorized as "Judaeo-Nazi."
In addition to Magnes and Einstein, Martin Buber also called for a bi-national state- were they, as Arnon would have it, "hypocrites advocating a solution whose consequences they will never suffer"?
If all three were alive, they would be aghast at the income inequality and other desecrations of the classic Zionist vision prevalent in Israel today as a consequence of Likud/Netanyahu (Adelson) GOYISHE** "privitization" policies, which Arnon endorses. And the trio would denounce Bibi's coddling of the (racist, misogynist) haredim as a form of religious prejudice. **GOYISHE: as all you JID fans of Ayn Rand conveniently overlook, the seminal analysis of the roots of capitalism is Max Weber's "PROTESTANT Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism."
Also: in Arnon's Sept. 28 posting, the phrase "the conscious of humanity" should read CONSCIENCE vice CONSCIOUS. Sloppy thinking yields sloppy spelling.
In addition to Magnes and Einstein, Martin Buber also called for a bi-national state- were they, as Arnon would have it, "hypocrites advocating a solution whose consequences they will never suffer"?
If all three were alive, they would be aghast at the income inequality and other desecrations of the classic Zionist vision prevalent in Israel today as a consequence of Likud/Netanyahu (Adelson) GOYISHE** "privitization" policies, which Arnon endorses. And the trio would denounce Bibi's coddling of the (racist, misogynist) haredim as a form of religious prejudice. **GOYISHE: as all you JID fans of Ayn Rand conveniently overlook, the seminal analysis of the roots of capitalism is Max Weber's "PROTESTANT Ethic & the Spirit of Capitalism."
Also: in Arnon's Sept. 28 posting, the phrase "the conscious of humanity" should read CONSCIENCE vice CONSCIOUS. Sloppy thinking yields sloppy spelling.
jacob arnon on September 30, 2012 at 5:40 pm ()
H. Senesh on September 30, 2012 at 1:41 pm (Reply)
“Electing to "speak in the name of Judaism and the Jewish people," pro-censorship Jacob Arnon (see his postings on the Treyvon Martin TABLET article) is at it once more, iterating (again, see the Martin article) rhetoric which none other than the distinguished Israeli Orthodox thinker has categorized as "Judaeo-Nazi."”
This poster (is it Judith Butler?) chooses to call herself Hannah Senesh after the brave Jewish paratrooper who during WW2 gave up her safe life on a Mandate Palestine kibbutz to join in the fight against the Nazis. She died on a mission trying to save Jews in Europe.
That this poster would use the cover of a Zionist hero in order to offer a badly conceived and poorly argued thesis about the de-establishing of the Jewish State ion favor of a “bi-national” state is a grotesque joke.
Moreover she has to introduce arguments against me from another website because she has no idea how to counter my views rationally.
She then uses epithets like “Judeo-Nazi” as her argument when it’s obvious that it Judith Butler and this poster who imitates her who is trying to do the work of the Nazis (no quotes) by eliminating the sovereign Jewish State. The destruction of Israel would amount to genocide and this is what Butler and her minions argue for without explicitly saying so.
End of Part 1
“Electing to "speak in the name of Judaism and the Jewish people," pro-censorship Jacob Arnon (see his postings on the Treyvon Martin TABLET article) is at it once more, iterating (again, see the Martin article) rhetoric which none other than the distinguished Israeli Orthodox thinker has categorized as "Judaeo-Nazi."”
This poster (is it Judith Butler?) chooses to call herself Hannah Senesh after the brave Jewish paratrooper who during WW2 gave up her safe life on a Mandate Palestine kibbutz to join in the fight against the Nazis. She died on a mission trying to save Jews in Europe.
That this poster would use the cover of a Zionist hero in order to offer a badly conceived and poorly argued thesis about the de-establishing of the Jewish State ion favor of a “bi-national” state is a grotesque joke.
Moreover she has to introduce arguments against me from another website because she has no idea how to counter my views rationally.
She then uses epithets like “Judeo-Nazi” as her argument when it’s obvious that it Judith Butler and this poster who imitates her who is trying to do the work of the Nazis (no quotes) by eliminating the sovereign Jewish State. The destruction of Israel would amount to genocide and this is what Butler and her minions argue for without explicitly saying so.
End of Part 1
jacob arnon on September 30, 2012 at 6:12 pm ()
“In addition to Magnes and Einstein, Martin Buber also called for a bi-national state- were they, as Arnon would have it, "hypocrites advocating a solution whose consequences they will never suffer"?”
Buber was an Israeli citizen, Judah Leon Magnes died in 1948 in New York while on a visit there. Both were ardent Zionist and not anti-Zionist as is Butler. (From the point of view of Butler’s supposed “orthodox Jew—they too like would be considered “Judeo-Nazis” what a grotesque appellation which since has been embraced by people like David Duke and other Nazis. That Butler and her minions bring it up says more to discredit her point of view than anything I can say.)
No Buber and Magnes were not Hypocrites like Butler. They were Zionist and sincerely believed in coexistence. Too bad that Palestinian Arabs didn’t believe in coexistence between Arabs and Jews. When their efforts failed (true of Buber who lived to see the creation of an independent Jewish State).
“If all three were alive, they would be aghast at the income inequality and other desecrations of the classic Zionist vision prevalent in Israel today as a consequence of Likud/Netanyahu (Adelson) GOYISHE** "privitization" policies, which Arnon endorses.”
Now this make believe Senesh is changing the argument. There is more, btw, incomve inequality in most Arab States as well as in the US.
Besides how does this ‘Senesh” know that I endorse Netanyahu? She doesn’t just as she doesn’t know what Buber and Magnes would make of the world today.
She is wrong about me, I am a supporter of labor and the Kibbutz movement and most of those people would laugh at Butler’s malicious naivete.
The rest of this poster’s argument is too ridiculous (and malicious) to need answering.
Butler/Senesh doesn’t care about whether Israel is capitalist or socialist; she cares that Israel exists as a Jewish state and would like to abolish it. It’s another sign of her hypocrisy that she would pretend to care if a country she hates is an “ideal community or a chaotic unfair community.” She hates the fact it exists at all.
Buber was an Israeli citizen, Judah Leon Magnes died in 1948 in New York while on a visit there. Both were ardent Zionist and not anti-Zionist as is Butler. (From the point of view of Butler’s supposed “orthodox Jew—they too like would be considered “Judeo-Nazis” what a grotesque appellation which since has been embraced by people like David Duke and other Nazis. That Butler and her minions bring it up says more to discredit her point of view than anything I can say.)
No Buber and Magnes were not Hypocrites like Butler. They were Zionist and sincerely believed in coexistence. Too bad that Palestinian Arabs didn’t believe in coexistence between Arabs and Jews. When their efforts failed (true of Buber who lived to see the creation of an independent Jewish State).
“If all three were alive, they would be aghast at the income inequality and other desecrations of the classic Zionist vision prevalent in Israel today as a consequence of Likud/Netanyahu (Adelson) GOYISHE** "privitization" policies, which Arnon endorses.”
Now this make believe Senesh is changing the argument. There is more, btw, incomve inequality in most Arab States as well as in the US.
Besides how does this ‘Senesh” know that I endorse Netanyahu? She doesn’t just as she doesn’t know what Buber and Magnes would make of the world today.
She is wrong about me, I am a supporter of labor and the Kibbutz movement and most of those people would laugh at Butler’s malicious naivete.
The rest of this poster’s argument is too ridiculous (and malicious) to need answering.
Butler/Senesh doesn’t care about whether Israel is capitalist or socialist; she cares that Israel exists as a Jewish state and would like to abolish it. It’s another sign of her hypocrisy that she would pretend to care if a country she hates is an “ideal community or a chaotic unfair community.” She hates the fact it exists at all.
Golda on October 1, 2012 at 6:28 am ()
I am no fan of Ayn Rand, and as an Israeli and liberal Jew I am aghast at many things happening here - including - treatment of Palestinians, racism, neo-liberal economic policies, Bibi and his alliance with right-wing settlers and medieval Haredim. I go to a lot of demonstrations.
But lets be clear - Israel is also still a liberal democracy with freedom of speech,an excellent court system, a free press and rights for women and minorities. An open lesbian like Judith Butler might be killed in some Arab countries,- in Israel, she could live openly with a partner,work and raise children.
And as a realist, I have to say - the 2 state-solution (let alone a binational state) is not a realistic possibility any time soon. The PA is weak and corrupt, Hamas is in power in Gaza and the Muslim Brotherhood is in power in Egypt. Not to mention Iran. A boycott will only hurt Israel, not lead to a Palestinian state and will strengthen our enemies, who clearly state their intentions regularly in Arabic and Farsi (hint: it isnt a binational state)
But lets be clear - Israel is also still a liberal democracy with freedom of speech,an excellent court system, a free press and rights for women and minorities. An open lesbian like Judith Butler might be killed in some Arab countries,- in Israel, she could live openly with a partner,work and raise children.
And as a realist, I have to say - the 2 state-solution (let alone a binational state) is not a realistic possibility any time soon. The PA is weak and corrupt, Hamas is in power in Gaza and the Muslim Brotherhood is in power in Egypt. Not to mention Iran. A boycott will only hurt Israel, not lead to a Palestinian state and will strengthen our enemies, who clearly state their intentions regularly in Arabic and Farsi (hint: it isnt a binational state)
S W on September 30, 2012 at 2:47 pm ()
Our beloved Martin Buber passed away in 1965. The cite his opinion on things political of today from more than 47 seven years ago and without the ensuing years' informing on such opinions is a specious argument.
In addition to quoting Hamas as above I cite now the Palestinian "PA" view: One reads from WIKI: "Israel has always strongly objected to the Charter, which describes the establishment of the state of Israel as "entirely illegal" (Art. 19), considers Palestine, with its original Mandate borders, as the indivisible homeland of the Arab Palestinian people (1-2), urges the elimination of Zionism in Palestine and worldwide (Art. 15), and strongly urges the "liberation" of Palestine throughout."
Senesh's argument is a polemical statement which ignores these views of Hamas and the PA, all the while calling on views from long deceased individuals to argue his view.
The "bi-national state" is a view which is not supported by Hamas nor by the PA's written charter. Would that in dicussion about this imaginary "bi-national state," we would address the other side which "bi-" represents, rather than attack some Jews with whom we disagree politically. I'd say the "bi-national state" is a fiction on the road to a Palestine which would erase Israel from the map, as one sees in local television broadcast from the "neighbors" of Eretz Yisrael.
Rather than attack another Jew in this comment stream, might one comment on the statements of Hamas and the PA as per the above? It would further the discussion.
In addition to quoting Hamas as above I cite now the Palestinian "PA" view: One reads from WIKI: "Israel has always strongly objected to the Charter, which describes the establishment of the state of Israel as "entirely illegal" (Art. 19), considers Palestine, with its original Mandate borders, as the indivisible homeland of the Arab Palestinian people (1-2), urges the elimination of Zionism in Palestine and worldwide (Art. 15), and strongly urges the "liberation" of Palestine throughout."
Senesh's argument is a polemical statement which ignores these views of Hamas and the PA, all the while calling on views from long deceased individuals to argue his view.
The "bi-national state" is a view which is not supported by Hamas nor by the PA's written charter. Would that in dicussion about this imaginary "bi-national state," we would address the other side which "bi-" represents, rather than attack some Jews with whom we disagree politically. I'd say the "bi-national state" is a fiction on the road to a Palestine which would erase Israel from the map, as one sees in local television broadcast from the "neighbors" of Eretz Yisrael.
Rather than attack another Jew in this comment stream, might one comment on the statements of Hamas and the PA as per the above? It would further the discussion.
Beatrix on September 30, 2012 at 3:52 pm ()
Who in his right mind would believe in a bi-national state today after seeing the Arab, Persian and Turkish treatment of Israel? Who would the Jews in this nightmare landscape turn to for help? The UN?
Orthodoxy is not synonymous with prejudice and ill treatment. It's merely a conservative religious belief.
The settlements came about because Israel won the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians were exiled there by Jordan after Arafat tried to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy. Neither the Jordanians nor the Egyptians ever considered offering the Palestinians a homeland there, nor did the Palestinians consider establishing one. Only the Israelis have offered the Pals a home on this land. And they've been consistently turned down.
At first, Israel didn't think about this as a possible homeland for the Pals, either, which is why they started the settlements. Now they are the only nation in the Mideast offering land to the Palestinians for a home. They've even offered to give the Pals Israeli land to replace the two largest settlements that Israel would like to keep.
I read Tablet and Jacob Arnon is a consistently intelligent and thoughtful poster. We don't always agree, but he always makes interesting points. And I've never seen the need to attack him just because he doesn't agree with me. I've even looked up the Trayvon Martin discussion. Arnon made many comments, but I saw none with your name. In one comment, he suggested that Tablet, a Jewish magazine, cease publishing antisemitic remarks. I don't agree. Some of the most interesting discussions are in response to these idiots.
Orthodoxy is not synonymous with prejudice and ill treatment. It's merely a conservative religious belief.
The settlements came about because Israel won the West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians were exiled there by Jordan after Arafat tried to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy. Neither the Jordanians nor the Egyptians ever considered offering the Palestinians a homeland there, nor did the Palestinians consider establishing one. Only the Israelis have offered the Pals a home on this land. And they've been consistently turned down.
At first, Israel didn't think about this as a possible homeland for the Pals, either, which is why they started the settlements. Now they are the only nation in the Mideast offering land to the Palestinians for a home. They've even offered to give the Pals Israeli land to replace the two largest settlements that Israel would like to keep.
I read Tablet and Jacob Arnon is a consistently intelligent and thoughtful poster. We don't always agree, but he always makes interesting points. And I've never seen the need to attack him just because he doesn't agree with me. I've even looked up the Trayvon Martin discussion. Arnon made many comments, but I saw none with your name. In one comment, he suggested that Tablet, a Jewish magazine, cease publishing antisemitic remarks. I don't agree. Some of the most interesting discussions are in response to these idiots.
moishe on September 30, 2012 at 4:19 pm ()
The quickest way to fame and fortune in academia today is the perverted route of postmodern exterminationist antisemitism. Between the lines of Judith Butler's fatuous, award-winning gobbledegook pulses an atavistic flow of sadism and bloodlust. She is a monster, full of murderous hate, admired and much loved by like-minded colleagues far and wide.
Michael on September 30, 2012 at 6:11 pm ()
The question of Israel/Palestine binationalism is a red herring used by people to advocate otherwise anti-Israel arguments under the guise of seeming reasonable. One look at the history of Arab treatment of minorities in Arab majority nations over the past 75 years should disabuse anyone of the viability of binationalism should the arab population come to constitute the majority in a binational Israel/Palestine. I suppose the best case that could be expected under those circumstances would be Turkey or some of the North African states where larger non-Arab minorities and cultures are ruthlessly suppressed by the central government, while tiny non-threatening minorities are tolerated in a kind of petting zoo for intellectuals, journalists etc. The worst case, well, can anyone say Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Egypt?
jacob arnon on September 30, 2012 at 8:09 pm ()
Beatrix, I don’t advocate censorship, per se.
However, these Jewish websites (Tablet, JID, etc.) are private and can set whatever policy they wish for allowing posters to use their private space. It seems to me ridiculous for a Jewish website to allow anti-Jewish posters to publish there. Would it be censorship for an African American website to disallow anti-Black posts?
Still, Judith Butler is again being hypocritical when under the name H. Senesh she complaints of censorship. Butler had complained that she was being censored when the former President of Harvard stood his ground and spoke out against academics arguing for a boycott of Israel. This is one of Butler’s chief defense mechanisms. It’s no accident that “H. Senesh” comes up with a similar charge.
Now, isn’t Butler/Senesh again being hypocritical when she objects to being censored when she calls for a boycott of Israel which would include Israeli writers, performing artists, filmmakers, etc.?
What is a boycott if not censorship writ large, and censorship on the basis of nationality?
In any case, thanks for the attempt at defending my posts.
However, these Jewish websites (Tablet, JID, etc.) are private and can set whatever policy they wish for allowing posters to use their private space. It seems to me ridiculous for a Jewish website to allow anti-Jewish posters to publish there. Would it be censorship for an African American website to disallow anti-Black posts?
Still, Judith Butler is again being hypocritical when under the name H. Senesh she complaints of censorship. Butler had complained that she was being censored when the former President of Harvard stood his ground and spoke out against academics arguing for a boycott of Israel. This is one of Butler’s chief defense mechanisms. It’s no accident that “H. Senesh” comes up with a similar charge.
Now, isn’t Butler/Senesh again being hypocritical when she objects to being censored when she calls for a boycott of Israel which would include Israeli writers, performing artists, filmmakers, etc.?
What is a boycott if not censorship writ large, and censorship on the basis of nationality?
In any case, thanks for the attempt at defending my posts.
H. Senesh on October 2, 2012 at 2:03 pm ()
Ex cathedra assertions do not constitute arguments, jingoist or otherwise.
My name is Henri. I am male (bar-mitzvahed even!).
Note how blithely Mr. Arnon assumes any poster who uses an initial instead of a first name is female! And, in this instance, then jumps to the conclusion that it must be the same (female) individual who is the subject of this blog thread, now hiding behind a pseudonym culled from Jewish history.
Isn't this what psychologists refer to as 'projection' ?
Again, sloppy thinking all around on Mr. Arnon's part.
My name is Henri. I am male (bar-mitzvahed even!).
Note how blithely Mr. Arnon assumes any poster who uses an initial instead of a first name is female! And, in this instance, then jumps to the conclusion that it must be the same (female) individual who is the subject of this blog thread, now hiding behind a pseudonym culled from Jewish history.
Isn't this what psychologists refer to as 'projection' ?
Again, sloppy thinking all around on Mr. Arnon's part.
jacob arnon on October 2, 2012 at 8:40 pm ()
Excellent post, Golda.
However, I must take issue with the following:
"An open lesbian like Judith Butler might be killed in some Arab countries,- in Israel, she could live openly with a partner,work and raise children."
Butler would not be killed (anymore than Chomsky and other supporters of human right because Hamas and Hezbollah, who are not stupid when to comes to propaganda, will gain more by letting Butler come and go freely than by stoning her to death.
Of course the local gay people have been and are continued to be killed without Butler uttering a single complaint (well she might have written a letter here and there but she also thinks these regimes are preferable to a democratic Jewish State)) much less calling for such regimes to be overthrown.
This is another example of Butler's hypocrisy.
I very much agree with the rest of you post, Golda.
However, I must take issue with the following:
"An open lesbian like Judith Butler might be killed in some Arab countries,- in Israel, she could live openly with a partner,work and raise children."
Butler would not be killed (anymore than Chomsky and other supporters of human right because Hamas and Hezbollah, who are not stupid when to comes to propaganda, will gain more by letting Butler come and go freely than by stoning her to death.
Of course the local gay people have been and are continued to be killed without Butler uttering a single complaint (well she might have written a letter here and there but she also thinks these regimes are preferable to a democratic Jewish State)) much less calling for such regimes to be overthrown.
This is another example of Butler's hypocrisy.
I very much agree with the rest of you post, Golda.
jacob arnon on October 2, 2012 at 8:46 pm ()
H. Senesh on October 2, 2012 at 2:03 pm (Reply)
“Ex cathedra assertions do not constitute arguments, jingoist or otherwise.”
No they don’t and that applies to you too.
“My name is Henri. I am male (bar-mitzvahed even!). “
So you say, Senesh.”
“Note how blithely Mr. Arnon assumes any poster who uses an initial instead of a first name is female! And, in this instance, then jumps to the conclusion that it must be the same (female) individual who is the subject of this blog thread, now hiding behind a pseudonym culled from Jewish history.”
Nothing you said disproves the fact that you female.
I doubt it’s an accident that you refer to yourself as “H. Senesh.”
“Isn't this what psychologists refer to as ‘projection’?”
This is what critical readers call psycho-babble, Ms. Butler.
“Ex cathedra assertions do not constitute arguments, jingoist or otherwise.”
No they don’t and that applies to you too.
“My name is Henri. I am male (bar-mitzvahed even!). “
So you say, Senesh.”
“Note how blithely Mr. Arnon assumes any poster who uses an initial instead of a first name is female! And, in this instance, then jumps to the conclusion that it must be the same (female) individual who is the subject of this blog thread, now hiding behind a pseudonym culled from Jewish history.”
Nothing you said disproves the fact that you female.
I doubt it’s an accident that you refer to yourself as “H. Senesh.”
“Isn't this what psychologists refer to as ‘projection’?”
This is what critical readers call psycho-babble, Ms. Butler.
S W on October 2, 2012 at 10:43 pm ()
The somewhat amusing interchange between Senesh and critic also does not further the argument which is Ms. Butler's and Europe's vapidity. Sloppy thinking is in evidence when Senesh ignores two sourced quotes from the PA and Hamas, saying clearly that the two-state or "bi-national" state are figments of the West's imagination and a flim-flam being run by the Palestinian politicians. Let's have a discussion about award-winning Butler's and Senesh's stance on the "bi-national" hope as set against the quotes from Palestinian Muslims that Israel be destroyed.
Beatrix on October 3, 2012 at 10:06 am ()
It was much more interesting to assume H. Senesh was Judith Butler. Of course, it wasn't projection, it was the emotional intensity that Senesh brought to bare on Butler's behalf. Would you mind if we continued calling you Judith?
George on October 3, 2012 at 1:26 pm ()
1. Might Ms. Beatrix actually be Mr. Arnon, interacting with his feminine self?
2. In a prior JID blog thread, "S W" revealed him/herself to be a Jew currently living in Germany, a.k.a. Naziland. And (s)he speaks ex cathedra (to use the word of the day) about what the contours of a Jewish state- bi-national or not-
should look like? LOL!!
2. In a prior JID blog thread, "S W" revealed him/herself to be a Jew currently living in Germany, a.k.a. Naziland. And (s)he speaks ex cathedra (to use the word of the day) about what the contours of a Jewish state- bi-national or not-
should look like? LOL!!
S W on October 3, 2012 at 3:54 pm ()
For George: 1) Indeed I comment from Germany, which has a vibrant and growing Jewish population. Perhaps rather than simply slur Germany as "Naziland," you would like to review at least one German Jewish site: http://jewish-voice-from-germany.de/cms/ 2) I have not spoken in this series of comments about "the contours of a Jewish state, bi-naional or not," but rather called attention to the above sourced statements of Hamas and the PA. There is no "ex cathedra" statement herein, but rather a simple challenge for those who would comment about bi-national "contours" to explain them in terms of the referenced Palestinian statements. Should you care to offer a reasoned, sourced statement thereto, please do so in a respectful manner. A nar darf keyn muser nit.
Beatrix on October 3, 2012 at 5:13 pm ()
You're not a Nazi, and I'm not Mr. Anon in disguise. I think George was trying to be lighthearted.
H. Senesh on October 4, 2012 at 2:35 pm ()
Just as Beatrix is not Arnon, I am not Judith Butler.
And in disparaging George's observation, S W ignores the fact that his/her choice to cite Palestinian rhetoric as authortitative is an implicit affirmation of his/her opposition to a bi-national view.
And he/she declaims about commenting in a respectful manner while invoking an insulting Yiddish phrase?
And in disparaging George's observation, S W ignores the fact that his/her choice to cite Palestinian rhetoric as authortitative is an implicit affirmation of his/her opposition to a bi-national view.
And he/she declaims about commenting in a respectful manner while invoking an insulting Yiddish phrase?
jacob arnon on October 4, 2012 at 9:38 pm ()
Neither side wants a bi-National Sate. Hence it's waste of energy writing about a proposal that has been out there for a hundred years or more and which was rejected.
We need to concentrate our efforts in establishing two States who can live in peace side by side for at least a couple of generations. After that has been accomplished we can talk about a "bi-National" State.
In any case Butler is not right person to push for any State since she has already demonstrated her sheer hatred for Israel.
We need to concentrate our efforts in establishing two States who can live in peace side by side for at least a couple of generations. After that has been accomplished we can talk about a "bi-National" State.
In any case Butler is not right person to push for any State since she has already demonstrated her sheer hatred for Israel.
Eli on October 5, 2012 at 9:59 am ()
S W's Oct. 4 riposte was a nice illustration of the old Latin adage "cover thine tochus."
A Jew who chooses to live in Deutschland is like a chicken living on Colonel Sanders' farm.
As to the validity of "foundational documents": has S W read the GOP 2012 platform- and compared it to what Predential candidate Romney has claimed to support? Or compared it to the campaign platforms of previous years (from which it deviates markedly)? Nothing but blustering rhetoric designed to appease the constituencies of the moment.
A Jew who chooses to live in Deutschland is like a chicken living on Colonel Sanders' farm.
As to the validity of "foundational documents": has S W read the GOP 2012 platform- and compared it to what Predential candidate Romney has claimed to support? Or compared it to the campaign platforms of previous years (from which it deviates markedly)? Nothing but blustering rhetoric designed to appease the constituencies of the moment.
S W on October 5, 2012 at 11:02 am ()
The seemingly clever little attack by someone who ridicules Jews living in Germany shows how little factual argument can be made with the two citations from Hamas and the PA which I cited. Therefore, the other argument from a political stance is dull-edged ridicule. The insult by Eli to approximately 200,000 Jews living in Germany is sadly noted. Perhaps learning something of Jews in Germany today is in order. http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/en/topic/2.html
The asinine diversion to the American election ignores willfully any discussion of the Hamas and PA statements, and informs that there is no debate which some "opposite" side can muster as regards the bi-national stance of Butler and others. It is instructive to note that some commenters try deperately to change the subject of this article and related comments, divert attention and ignore much. Why is that? Perhaps because the two statements speak loudly, clearly and without clutter, while the postmodern silliness which has managed to attack the Jewish community in Germany ignores it all because it has no reasoned and pertinent response. Just ad hominem.
The asinine diversion to the American election ignores willfully any discussion of the Hamas and PA statements, and informs that there is no debate which some "opposite" side can muster as regards the bi-national stance of Butler and others. It is instructive to note that some commenters try deperately to change the subject of this article and related comments, divert attention and ignore much. Why is that? Perhaps because the two statements speak loudly, clearly and without clutter, while the postmodern silliness which has managed to attack the Jewish community in Germany ignores it all because it has no reasoned and pertinent response. Just ad hominem.
Shmuel Katz on October 5, 2012 at 11:30 am ()
Thank you, SW, for the German-Jewish web site reference.
Can you say "Birobijan" ?
Can you say "Birobijan" ?
Beatrix on October 5, 2012 at 1:36 pm ()
SW, I definitely saw your quote of the Palestinians as a statement of their position---not an acceptance. But I agree with them, I don't think that a bi-national state ever will or ever should come into existence, unless you're saying the Israelis can't make it on their own without Arab help. Please.
I can sort of understand your position as a Jew living in Germany because I'm a Jew voting Republican. You're probably safer where you are than you would be in Israel right now. Eventually, I see Israel as the tiny, technologically advanced “go-to” nation. When oil stops being important, instead of turning on her, Arabs will also be turning to her.
We had dismissed the insipid Butler and were talking about peace in the Mideast, when we wound up fighting with each other. Do you supposed that's why the Israelis can't make peace?
I can sort of understand your position as a Jew living in Germany because I'm a Jew voting Republican. You're probably safer where you are than you would be in Israel right now. Eventually, I see Israel as the tiny, technologically advanced “go-to” nation. When oil stops being important, instead of turning on her, Arabs will also be turning to her.
We had dismissed the insipid Butler and were talking about peace in the Mideast, when we wound up fighting with each other. Do you supposed that's why the Israelis can't make peace?
Eli fan on October 6, 2012 at 9:36 am ()
"The insult by Eli to approximately 200,000 Jews living in Germany..."
Well, obviously 200,00 German(Jew)s can't possibly be wrong!!
What was that saying around the time of the rise of Hitler and the Nazis-
"A million Germans can't be wrong."
Well, obviously 200,00 German(Jew)s can't possibly be wrong!!
What was that saying around the time of the rise of Hitler and the Nazis-
"A million Germans can't be wrong."
J.B.S. on October 6, 2012 at 9:50 am ()
Beatrix: as a Jew voting Republican, I presume you put your money where your mouth is, and support the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC).
JID readers should know: the RJC is not a Jewish advocacy/defense group that happens to vote Republican; it’s a GOP organization that targets Jews for outreach. In other words, the objective of the RJC is not to raise Republican awareness of a Jewish community consensus on a given issue, but to persuade Jews to accept the Republican consensus. And these days, that “Republican consensus” is Tea Party-centric and beholden to the Christian Right, especially Protestant fundamentalist evangelicals.
For example, if there is one issue that unites American Jewry across the board—from ultra-Orthodox to Secular Humanist Jews—it is embryonic stem-cell research; yet, as loyal Republicans, the RJC defended President Bush’s veto of this legislation, undertaken at the behest of the Christian Right. Strike 1.
Traditionally, U.S. support for Israel has been bipartisan; however, during the Bush and Obama presidencies, the RJC has deliberately sought to turn it into a wedge issue. Strike 2.
The RJC has never taken issue with GOP and conservative icon Ann Coulter’s pronouncement that Jews, in order to be “perfected,” should all convert to Christianity.
This alone raises the question of the integrity of the group, and demonstrates its lack of independence from the Republican Party. Strike 3.
The RJC is a “Jewish” organization the way that Jews for Jesus is a Jewish organization. Namely, while its membership is ethnically Jewish, its agenda does not have the best intrinsic interests of Judaism and Jewry at heart. As reported by Pro Politico, the RJC even admits that its function is to “educate the Jewish community” about (the GOP line on) domestic and foreign policy issues,” not to- in addition- educate the GOP about Jewish communal interests and social values. (The National Jewish Democratic Council, by contrast, operates in both directions, in both arenas. )
J4J and the RJC both answer to the same authority: the Christian right, which funds messianic Judaism, and controls the agenda of the current GOP.
And so, Beatrix: given the GOP's fetish for transvaginal ultrasounds -from the political party, no less, who otherwise defines "freedom" and "liberty" as oppositon to govt. intrusion into individuals' personal lives!- as a woman, how can you vote Republican? And given the GOP's anti-halachic view of the status of the fetus, as a Jew, how can you be a Republican?
Or, are you, in reality, a Jew for Jesus?
JID readers should know: the RJC is not a Jewish advocacy/defense group that happens to vote Republican; it’s a GOP organization that targets Jews for outreach. In other words, the objective of the RJC is not to raise Republican awareness of a Jewish community consensus on a given issue, but to persuade Jews to accept the Republican consensus. And these days, that “Republican consensus” is Tea Party-centric and beholden to the Christian Right, especially Protestant fundamentalist evangelicals.
For example, if there is one issue that unites American Jewry across the board—from ultra-Orthodox to Secular Humanist Jews—it is embryonic stem-cell research; yet, as loyal Republicans, the RJC defended President Bush’s veto of this legislation, undertaken at the behest of the Christian Right. Strike 1.
Traditionally, U.S. support for Israel has been bipartisan; however, during the Bush and Obama presidencies, the RJC has deliberately sought to turn it into a wedge issue. Strike 2.
The RJC has never taken issue with GOP and conservative icon Ann Coulter’s pronouncement that Jews, in order to be “perfected,” should all convert to Christianity.
This alone raises the question of the integrity of the group, and demonstrates its lack of independence from the Republican Party. Strike 3.
The RJC is a “Jewish” organization the way that Jews for Jesus is a Jewish organization. Namely, while its membership is ethnically Jewish, its agenda does not have the best intrinsic interests of Judaism and Jewry at heart. As reported by Pro Politico, the RJC even admits that its function is to “educate the Jewish community” about (the GOP line on) domestic and foreign policy issues,” not to- in addition- educate the GOP about Jewish communal interests and social values. (The National Jewish Democratic Council, by contrast, operates in both directions, in both arenas. )
J4J and the RJC both answer to the same authority: the Christian right, which funds messianic Judaism, and controls the agenda of the current GOP.
And so, Beatrix: given the GOP's fetish for transvaginal ultrasounds -from the political party, no less, who otherwise defines "freedom" and "liberty" as oppositon to govt. intrusion into individuals' personal lives!- as a woman, how can you vote Republican? And given the GOP's anti-halachic view of the status of the fetus, as a Jew, how can you be a Republican?
Or, are you, in reality, a Jew for Jesus?
jacob arnon on October 6, 2012 at 11:36 pm ()
S W on October 5, 2012 at 11:02 am (Reply)
“The seemingly clever little attack by someone who ridicules Jews living in Germany shows how little factual argument can be made with the two citations from Hamas and the PA which I cited. Therefore, the other argument from a political stance is dull-edged ridicule. The insult by Eli to approximately 200,000 Jews living in Germany is sadly noted. Perhaps learning something of Jews in Germany today is in order. http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/en/topic/2.html”
SW is right that one should inform oneself about a subject before going on the offensive.
It’s no insult to contemporary Germans if I say that I would never live in Germany much less ever become a German citizen.
I don’t think that contemporary Germany is any more antisemitic than Spain, or Great Britain or any other European country. Nor am I afraid that another Holocaust would take place there.
Still for a Jew to live in Germany he must have historical amnesia. What kind of relationship can a Jew have with Germans that wouldn't somehow reference the Shoah? Even in the best of circumstances that event will always be in the background and sane Jews who know their history would always be on the defensive and sane non antisemitic Germans too.
Jews are treated with kid gloves in German society, in art and in public discourse. What kind of normal person can a Jewish child become in such an atmosphere.
If you want to live as an “historical” spectacle then by all means live in Germany; but why would you subject your children to such a life?
Btw: the German website spoke of a “… total of 108 jewish communities representing ca. 105,000 individual members are organized in 23 regional associations under the umbrella of the Central Council of Jews,” and not 200 thousand as someone said.
That number doesn't tell me what the projected number will be say twenty years from now. How many children does the average Jewish family have in Germany? How many of them will remain Jews and not assimilate into the non-Jewish society?
The fact that Jews have to defend their practice of male circumcision even though it seems that it will remain legal is not a good indication of future good relations between the communities.
“The seemingly clever little attack by someone who ridicules Jews living in Germany shows how little factual argument can be made with the two citations from Hamas and the PA which I cited. Therefore, the other argument from a political stance is dull-edged ridicule. The insult by Eli to approximately 200,000 Jews living in Germany is sadly noted. Perhaps learning something of Jews in Germany today is in order. http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/en/topic/2.html”
SW is right that one should inform oneself about a subject before going on the offensive.
It’s no insult to contemporary Germans if I say that I would never live in Germany much less ever become a German citizen.
I don’t think that contemporary Germany is any more antisemitic than Spain, or Great Britain or any other European country. Nor am I afraid that another Holocaust would take place there.
Still for a Jew to live in Germany he must have historical amnesia. What kind of relationship can a Jew have with Germans that wouldn't somehow reference the Shoah? Even in the best of circumstances that event will always be in the background and sane Jews who know their history would always be on the defensive and sane non antisemitic Germans too.
Jews are treated with kid gloves in German society, in art and in public discourse. What kind of normal person can a Jewish child become in such an atmosphere.
If you want to live as an “historical” spectacle then by all means live in Germany; but why would you subject your children to such a life?
Btw: the German website spoke of a “… total of 108 jewish communities representing ca. 105,000 individual members are organized in 23 regional associations under the umbrella of the Central Council of Jews,” and not 200 thousand as someone said.
That number doesn't tell me what the projected number will be say twenty years from now. How many children does the average Jewish family have in Germany? How many of them will remain Jews and not assimilate into the non-Jewish society?
The fact that Jews have to defend their practice of male circumcision even though it seems that it will remain legal is not a good indication of future good relations between the communities.
S W on October 7, 2012 at 4:41 am ()
An interesting set of comments has been made over the last days. Jews live in Germany, a fact. The demographic number is in flux, and here are counted non-Jewish spouses of Jews in many situations because of tax laws which require affiliation linked to additional and collected "religious" taxes. For this reason, many Christians also are officially non-affiliated with churches, causing official population numbers to be very much in flux. In other JID articles, one has read often of the American problem of assimilation and intermarriage especially among the Reform sector and other smaller groups. Making demogrpahic statements are for such reasons approximate. I offered a high estimate among many estimates. But an accurate count in every almost other land is also approximate.
As to defending circumcision in Germany, the latest court rulings here have allowed this under medical auspices. One notes in comparison that a segment of America politics targets ritual circumcision as well hoping to ban it there. This is evidence of what exactly? In New York City a law is now passed to regulate circumcision as one read in the New York Times in September. Should one therefore not make complaint against the United States? This same tension is ongoing over the preparation of kosher meats, as one sees in Denmark and in some areas of the United States.
As to the future, I have read of "bible-belt" areas of the US from which a remnant of Jews move away to be in urban centers. This is happening in other countries as well, including the UK as my first hand knowledge shows. Demographics are always in flux, it seems.
As to "historical amnesia," one can play this game many times over. The United States fought a war over slavery, as one example, and no one today would suggest that slavery is making a comeback there. Was there not a famous though small Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois? Another form of historical amnesia relates directly to this article and the myth of the bi-national solution to the "Jewish problem" and Palestine. It seems that foundational statements by Hamas and the PA have been so well forgotten or willfully ignored by the likes of Butler and some who have commented herein that "historical amnesia" is a fine metaphor for the discussion above. Lastly, it should be noted that the Palestinian brigade associated with the National Socialists of seventy years ago was supported by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, making Palestinian Muslims historically the allies of Nazis. One might also note that Abbas wrote a paper denying the Holocaust, and at one time even Gandhi called Hitler "not as bad as he is depicted." (Of course, he amended this later.) So as to historical amnesia, many have shown this. Among them is Butler who demands a Judaism so non-violent as to never be able to defend itself, separated from her view of Zionism. This is surely "historical amnesia." But how many people seek such an amnesia to make themselves feel good while distant from threats they would blithely impose on others?
I would answer some questions with a question: "How many children does the average Jewish family have in Germany? How many of them will remain Jews and not assimilate into the non-Jewish society?" How many Reform Jews in the United States and the rest of Europe fit this same concern about numbers of children, assimilation and intermarriage? My answer is a great many. The more distant from Orthodoxy, the more likely the assimilation and eventual withering, it seems. Some previous JID articles have discussed this.
As to "Birobijan" and its tiny community of today, it is spelled differently depending on which language one names this city where Jews also hope to prosper. May we all prosper where we are and can live free. Am Yisrael chai.
As to defending circumcision in Germany, the latest court rulings here have allowed this under medical auspices. One notes in comparison that a segment of America politics targets ritual circumcision as well hoping to ban it there. This is evidence of what exactly? In New York City a law is now passed to regulate circumcision as one read in the New York Times in September. Should one therefore not make complaint against the United States? This same tension is ongoing over the preparation of kosher meats, as one sees in Denmark and in some areas of the United States.
As to the future, I have read of "bible-belt" areas of the US from which a remnant of Jews move away to be in urban centers. This is happening in other countries as well, including the UK as my first hand knowledge shows. Demographics are always in flux, it seems.
As to "historical amnesia," one can play this game many times over. The United States fought a war over slavery, as one example, and no one today would suggest that slavery is making a comeback there. Was there not a famous though small Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois? Another form of historical amnesia relates directly to this article and the myth of the bi-national solution to the "Jewish problem" and Palestine. It seems that foundational statements by Hamas and the PA have been so well forgotten or willfully ignored by the likes of Butler and some who have commented herein that "historical amnesia" is a fine metaphor for the discussion above. Lastly, it should be noted that the Palestinian brigade associated with the National Socialists of seventy years ago was supported by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, making Palestinian Muslims historically the allies of Nazis. One might also note that Abbas wrote a paper denying the Holocaust, and at one time even Gandhi called Hitler "not as bad as he is depicted." (Of course, he amended this later.) So as to historical amnesia, many have shown this. Among them is Butler who demands a Judaism so non-violent as to never be able to defend itself, separated from her view of Zionism. This is surely "historical amnesia." But how many people seek such an amnesia to make themselves feel good while distant from threats they would blithely impose on others?
I would answer some questions with a question: "How many children does the average Jewish family have in Germany? How many of them will remain Jews and not assimilate into the non-Jewish society?" How many Reform Jews in the United States and the rest of Europe fit this same concern about numbers of children, assimilation and intermarriage? My answer is a great many. The more distant from Orthodoxy, the more likely the assimilation and eventual withering, it seems. Some previous JID articles have discussed this.
As to "Birobijan" and its tiny community of today, it is spelled differently depending on which language one names this city where Jews also hope to prosper. May we all prosper where we are and can live free. Am Yisrael chai.
jacob arnon on October 7, 2012 at 11:49 am ()
“As to "historical amnesia," one can play this game many times over. The United States fought a war over slavery, as one example, and no one today would suggest that slavery is making a comeback there.“
I knew someone would bring up this analogy. There are so many differences between the slavery period in the US and the Holocaust perpetrated by German Nazis and their accomplices that make this comparison seem useless:
First time: Slavery was abolished in the US close to a hundred and fifty years ago. The Shoah took place in the lifetime of some people still alive.
Second, demographics, African Americans are a very large minority in the US. Jews in Germany are a very tiny minority.
Then most Americans alive today come from families that were either against slavery or came to the US after the civil war. In Germany most Germans alive today are related to people who perpetrated in one way or another in the Shoah.
Third, the US went to war against itself in part to free the slaves. Slavery was a crucial issue in the civil war. Nothing comparable happened in Germany.
Fourth, the essence of slavery itself while evil made sure that slaves were not killed off. The contrary is true slave-masters wanted slaves to reproduce in order to raise the value of their “property.”
The opposite was the case in Germany were perpetrators were rewarded for killing Jews.
There are some other differences between the extermination culture in the Third Reich and slavery in the US. This shows that any direct comparison between these two historical events has to take into consideration the very many differences between the systems.
The only thing the two cultures had in common was a view that their victims slaves and Jews were “inferior.” History has proven that this view was spectacularly wrong.
I knew someone would bring up this analogy. There are so many differences between the slavery period in the US and the Holocaust perpetrated by German Nazis and their accomplices that make this comparison seem useless:
First time: Slavery was abolished in the US close to a hundred and fifty years ago. The Shoah took place in the lifetime of some people still alive.
Second, demographics, African Americans are a very large minority in the US. Jews in Germany are a very tiny minority.
Then most Americans alive today come from families that were either against slavery or came to the US after the civil war. In Germany most Germans alive today are related to people who perpetrated in one way or another in the Shoah.
Third, the US went to war against itself in part to free the slaves. Slavery was a crucial issue in the civil war. Nothing comparable happened in Germany.
Fourth, the essence of slavery itself while evil made sure that slaves were not killed off. The contrary is true slave-masters wanted slaves to reproduce in order to raise the value of their “property.”
The opposite was the case in Germany were perpetrators were rewarded for killing Jews.
There are some other differences between the extermination culture in the Third Reich and slavery in the US. This shows that any direct comparison between these two historical events has to take into consideration the very many differences between the systems.
The only thing the two cultures had in common was a view that their victims slaves and Jews were “inferior.” History has proven that this view was spectacularly wrong.
J.B.S. on October 7, 2012 at 2:09 pm ()
"How many children does the average Jewish family have in Germany? How many of them will remain Jews and not assimilate into the non-Jewish society?"
A similar question: how many children of RJC affiliates-and especially leadership- will be Jewish? The 'big name' leadership- Norm Coleman, Ari Fleischer- is intermarried.
A similar question: how many children of RJC affiliates-and especially leadership- will be Jewish? The 'big name' leadership- Norm Coleman, Ari Fleischer- is intermarried.
Beatrix on October 7, 2012 at 5:04 pm ()
JBS, if I wrote that I was converting from Judaism to being a Jehovah's Witness,, I could see your trying to change my mind, but getting upset because I'm voting for one of the American political parties is almost funny.
As for Ann Coulter, I admire the courage she shows in defending her ideas, but I couldn't care less about her religious views. All I care is that we both continue to have the freedom to maintain our beliefs.
I don't belong to any coalitions and I am fervently against abortions, except to save the life of the mother. Bush was not against stem cell research. He objected to using aborted fetuses for research, and I agree with him.
Jews for Jesus is a Christian group. I'm voting Republican, not changing my religion. As for RJC (which I don't belong to) why wouldn't they want to educate people about their organization? Wouldn't any group?
Judaism gives you a moral basis for living your life. It doesn't tell you where to live or what to think. Though I wouldn't want to live in Germany, I'm glad SW does. Jews should be free to live and be Jewish anywhere in the world, whether in Germany, Iran or the Republican Party.
As for Ann Coulter, I admire the courage she shows in defending her ideas, but I couldn't care less about her religious views. All I care is that we both continue to have the freedom to maintain our beliefs.
I don't belong to any coalitions and I am fervently against abortions, except to save the life of the mother. Bush was not against stem cell research. He objected to using aborted fetuses for research, and I agree with him.
Jews for Jesus is a Christian group. I'm voting Republican, not changing my religion. As for RJC (which I don't belong to) why wouldn't they want to educate people about their organization? Wouldn't any group?
Judaism gives you a moral basis for living your life. It doesn't tell you where to live or what to think. Though I wouldn't want to live in Germany, I'm glad SW does. Jews should be free to live and be Jewish anywhere in the world, whether in Germany, Iran or the Republican Party.
S W on October 8, 2012 at 3:05 am ()
A parallel complaint is offered as is the clever little "Godwin's law" which I see from time to time in comments on other sites is in play as regards comparisons between National Socialism and all other politico-historical comparisons. Because the bookshelves in history sections here correctly call the Nazis "National Socialists," many dislike the comparison for a variety of reasons, among them political comparisons. Of course details vary in many ways. But the fact is that there are Jews in Germany today, even if other Jews would never wish to live here. To disparge us for being here is unkind, at best. It is clear from his statements that Mr. Arnon would not live in Germany today; it is also clear many of us do. Why be offended that Israel as a people lives in part here as well as in nations around the world? All nations have experienced great evil at times, and in all there is the possiblity of t'shuvah.
Another comparison could have been to the Weimar Republik and its coining of massive amounts of money and the United States Fed coining massive amounts of money. Different and yet allike in the long run. The war over slavery in the United States was brutal, cost more American lives than any other in history as best I have researched the topic, and overturned a system of exploitation of some men by others. As fair a comparison as this is, it pales when compared to the slavery and genocide of Islam historically over other non-Muslim groups. For this reason Butler's stance of a non-violent Judaism which rejects the nation-state of Israel defending itself against its aggressive neighbors is foolish.
Another comparison could have been to the Weimar Republik and its coining of massive amounts of money and the United States Fed coining massive amounts of money. Different and yet allike in the long run. The war over slavery in the United States was brutal, cost more American lives than any other in history as best I have researched the topic, and overturned a system of exploitation of some men by others. As fair a comparison as this is, it pales when compared to the slavery and genocide of Islam historically over other non-Muslim groups. For this reason Butler's stance of a non-violent Judaism which rejects the nation-state of Israel defending itself against its aggressive neighbors is foolish.
jacob arnon on October 9, 2012 at 11:09 pm ()
SW, all I said was that one can't compare the slavery period in the US to the Nazi German war against the Jews. I gave my reasons above.
I also plainly stated that I would never live in Germany and become a citizen, though I could visit it and even spend a year or so in that country. (Again I gave my reasons in an earlier post above.)
I don't know why you are repeating what I said as if I intended to offend you.
I don't care where you live and I am not judging you.
I also plainly stated that I would never live in Germany and become a citizen, though I could visit it and even spend a year or so in that country. (Again I gave my reasons in an earlier post above.)
I don't know why you are repeating what I said as if I intended to offend you.
I don't care where you live and I am not judging you.
Jerry Blaz on October 8, 2012 at 9:15 pm ()
I want to correct a detail in SW's post about the "Nazi march in Skokie." It never happened. What happened was the neo-Nazis were refused a permit to march and were refused. So the neo-Nazis took it to court, and the court approved a permit for them to march through Skokie. This was highly publicized and gave the neo-Nazis a platform to reach out way beyond Skokie. That was what they wanted, and then they dropped their plans to march in Skokie. The administration in Skokie, which included a number of Jewish politicians and functionaries, played into the hands of the neo-Nazis. If rationality had played a bigger role in this miserable effort to prevent the neo-Nazis from marching, it could have turned the neo-Nazis into laughing stocks.
S W on October 10, 2012 at 3:02 am ()
A personal vignette for Mr. Blaz: Many years ago in Frankfurt I saw three young men spraying swastikas in an underpass at the Strassenbahn station. Overhearing some of their conversation as in English, I waited a listened further. It became evident that they were American servicemen. Later in the afternoon, coming back through the station each Hakenkreuz had been obliterated by locals. "Nazis raus" here is a common graffitti today, while one reads of the occasional defacement in the US by spraypainting swastikas. My point is not to condemn the United States, but to say that such evils exist everywhere.
And as you have said, "The administration in Skokie, which included a number of Jewish politicians and functionaries, played into the hands of the neo-Nazis." Such is the reality to a life which pretends that synthesis between good and evil is possible.
And as you have said, "The administration in Skokie, which included a number of Jewish politicians and functionaries, played into the hands of the neo-Nazis." Such is the reality to a life which pretends that synthesis between good and evil is possible.
Shimsohn on October 9, 2012 at 2:55 pm ()
a. Beatrix - not an authentic Jewish name! btw, even with its pretentious spelling -is fully entitled, living in America, to her DIY religious practices. But not to invoke the mantle of Judaism in doing so. Note how she evaded JBS's telling query: "given the GOP's anti-halachic view of the status of the fetus, as a Jew, how can she vote Republican?" In this respect, she is no different than Jews for Jesus, except that some of the latter probably observe more commandments than she does. And how is it better to 'throw away' aborted fetuses - for that is their fate- than to use them for life-enhancing medical research? Especially since, in the Bible and Jewish law, the fetus has the status of property. Must I cite the rabbinic dictum against waste, bal tashchit ?
b. Two reader postings - not by me!- from the FORWARD's recent piece on the circumcision controversy in Germany:
1. Why any Jew would ever even consider living in Germany is just plain unbelievable. Anti-Semitism is genetically imprinted in the German mind.
2. This is an example of how Islamaphobia comes around to bite Jews in the tush. There are so many e-mails from people saying "The Muslims are taking over Europe. Don't let that happen here in America! Support Gert Wilders." Well, ladies and gentlemen, the support Jews in America have given to right wing parties in Europe that hate Muslims has helped them
b. Two reader postings - not by me!- from the FORWARD's recent piece on the circumcision controversy in Germany:
1. Why any Jew would ever even consider living in Germany is just plain unbelievable. Anti-Semitism is genetically imprinted in the German mind.
2. This is an example of how Islamaphobia comes around to bite Jews in the tush. There are so many e-mails from people saying "The Muslims are taking over Europe. Don't let that happen here in America! Support Gert Wilders." Well, ladies and gentlemen, the support Jews in America have given to right wing parties in Europe that hate Muslims has helped them
jacob arnon on October 9, 2012 at 11:16 pm ()
"This is an example of how Islamaphobia comes around to bite Jews in the tush. There are so many e-mails from people saying "The Muslims are taking over Europe. Don't let that happen here in America! Support Gert Wilders." Well, ladies and gentlemen, the support Jews in America have given to right wing parties in Europe that hate Muslims has helped them"
Shimsohn, stop saying that Jews are responsible for "Islamophobia." They are not. They play a minor role in the confrontation between Muslims and Christians.
Besides, Jews are being attacked by both the right wing fascistic Europeans all over Europe and they are being attacked and killed by radical Muslims and France and elsewhere. In Germany Jews are as much the victims of Muslims as they are of German antisemites.
I also don't agree with you that "Anti-Semitism is genetically imprinted in the German mind." This is too simplistic to take seriously.
You were also being unfair to Beatrix. Her name is as good a name for a Jews to have as Norman, or Frank, or any other European derived name.
Shimsohn, stop saying that Jews are responsible for "Islamophobia." They are not. They play a minor role in the confrontation between Muslims and Christians.
Besides, Jews are being attacked by both the right wing fascistic Europeans all over Europe and they are being attacked and killed by radical Muslims and France and elsewhere. In Germany Jews are as much the victims of Muslims as they are of German antisemites.
I also don't agree with you that "Anti-Semitism is genetically imprinted in the German mind." This is too simplistic to take seriously.
You were also being unfair to Beatrix. Her name is as good a name for a Jews to have as Norman, or Frank, or any other European derived name.
S W on October 10, 2012 at 3:13 am ()
The article about the Adorno prize and Butler ends, "Jews like Adorno, who cannot defend themselves, are unwillingly co-opted into the anti-Zionist cause; Jews like Butler, in thrall to values they believe will exempt them, willingly lend their Jewishness to the same cause."
Personal attacks unrelated to this theme seem quite passionate. If an American Jew votes for one party, some say this is a foolishness. If an American Jew votes for another party, some say this is should be separated from being identified as Jewish as a "DIY religion." {Poppycock, a word from the Nederlandse which would be amusing for readers to research.)
But this seems the state of American politics today, daring to disenfranchise a Jew by another Jew for perceived disloyalty to a particular political cause and adding a bit of ad hominem in the bargain.
Personal attacks unrelated to this theme seem quite passionate. If an American Jew votes for one party, some say this is a foolishness. If an American Jew votes for another party, some say this is should be separated from being identified as Jewish as a "DIY religion." {Poppycock, a word from the Nederlandse which would be amusing for readers to research.)
But this seems the state of American politics today, daring to disenfranchise a Jew by another Jew for perceived disloyalty to a particular political cause and adding a bit of ad hominem in the bargain.
S W on October 10, 2012 at 3:19 am ()
The flag, Islamophobia, comes out too easily these days. Where and with whom are Muslims in murderous contention, besides Israel?
A short worldwide sketch: The Philipines. South Eastern Europe. The southern border of China and in India against Hindus. Against tribal blacks and Christians in North Africa, Nigeria, Kenya and more. We should not forget the Muslim-on-Muslim war going on in Syria as this flag "Islamophobia" is waved as accusation that Jews have created it.
"This is an example of how Islamaphobia comes around to bite Jews in the tush?" The illogic astounds as the accusation echoes with hollowness.
A short worldwide sketch: The Philipines. South Eastern Europe. The southern border of China and in India against Hindus. Against tribal blacks and Christians in North Africa, Nigeria, Kenya and more. We should not forget the Muslim-on-Muslim war going on in Syria as this flag "Islamophobia" is waved as accusation that Jews have created it.
"This is an example of how Islamaphobia comes around to bite Jews in the tush?" The illogic astounds as the accusation echoes with hollowness.
Lauren on October 10, 2012 at 11:13 am ()
Jacob; you are a bright fellow, but you really must learn to read CLOSELY!
Otherwise you make ridiculous errors, like saying CONSCIOUS when you mean CONSCIENCE (as noted above) and claiming that Shimshon was the author of the FORWARD postings, when he made it quite clear that he was not.
As for Germany-loving Jew "SW"'s comment in defence of the GOP (and the RJC), his own words come back to haunt hin: A nar darf keyn muser nit.
For he seems to oppose " daring to disenfranchise a Jew by another Jew for perceived disloyalty to a particular political cause " when that cause is Jew-for-Jesus-driven!
Otherwise you make ridiculous errors, like saying CONSCIOUS when you mean CONSCIENCE (as noted above) and claiming that Shimshon was the author of the FORWARD postings, when he made it quite clear that he was not.
As for Germany-loving Jew "SW"'s comment in defence of the GOP (and the RJC), his own words come back to haunt hin: A nar darf keyn muser nit.
For he seems to oppose " daring to disenfranchise a Jew by another Jew for perceived disloyalty to a particular political cause " when that cause is Jew-for-Jesus-driven!
jacob arnon on October 10, 2012 at 3:42 pm ()
Lauren, are you the inscrutable H. Senesh?
Your attack on S.W. is pretty lame, Lauren.
btw: you better concentrate on your own weak posts and stop worrying about my "close reading" skills. I could give you lessons in close reading (if you paid me enough, Lauren, though any such lessons, I am afraid would be lost on you.)
Your attack on S.W. is pretty lame, Lauren.
btw: you better concentrate on your own weak posts and stop worrying about my "close reading" skills. I could give you lessons in close reading (if you paid me enough, Lauren, though any such lessons, I am afraid would be lost on you.)
Beatrix on October 11, 2012 at 2:36 pm ()
Jacob, Lauren hasn't contributed one original idea since she's joined this "discussion."
S W on October 10, 2012 at 3:50 pm ()
Lauren seems to think Beatrix is a Christian, when she has in fact defended Judaism and shown no evidence that she is a Jew-for-Jesus. Lauren seems to think me a Germany-loving Jew, though I feel free to criticize both Germany, the United States and even Israel as I see it warranted to do so. And Lauren acts as Jacob's proof reader cum Strunk and White. What a busy set of comments for someone who has had nothing to say about Butler and the so-called bi-national dream, the declarations of Hamas and the PA. Goodness, how rational discussion loses its train of thought. I suggest the Jiddische adage has proven most appropriate yet again.
Beatrix on October 11, 2012 at 2:34 pm ()
This is stupid. I've been Jewish for 73 years, and I'm certainly not going to change now. Beatrix is an on line pen name, but my real name isn't particularly Jewish either, except that it belonged to my Jewish great aunt. I don't know anything about Jews for Jesus except their name, which seems to say they believe Jesus is Messiah. I don't believe that.
Nor can I accept Orthodox Judaism. I'm Reform. And I absolutely can't accept other people doing my thinking for me. I live in a free country, but because I'm Jewish, you say I have no choice but to be a liberal Democrat and to believe in abortion. Baloney! I'll vote the way I want and I'll believe what I want, and I'll stay Jewish because that's between G-d and me and is none of your damn business.
BTW, over 20% of Jews say ;they plan to vote Republican. I really doubt that all the Jews voting Republican belong to Jews for Jesus, an obscure group that's only known for having an outrageous name. And Republicans, like Democrats, have liberal, conservative, and moderate wings. It's really not the same as voting for the Nazis.
SW, I think you're less threatened by the Germans than you are by some of the Jews posting to this site. You have courage, a profound curiosity, and a deep seated need to understand your fellow man. You already understand your fellow Jews.
Nor can I accept Orthodox Judaism. I'm Reform. And I absolutely can't accept other people doing my thinking for me. I live in a free country, but because I'm Jewish, you say I have no choice but to be a liberal Democrat and to believe in abortion. Baloney! I'll vote the way I want and I'll believe what I want, and I'll stay Jewish because that's between G-d and me and is none of your damn business.
BTW, over 20% of Jews say ;they plan to vote Republican. I really doubt that all the Jews voting Republican belong to Jews for Jesus, an obscure group that's only known for having an outrageous name. And Republicans, like Democrats, have liberal, conservative, and moderate wings. It's really not the same as voting for the Nazis.
SW, I think you're less threatened by the Germans than you are by some of the Jews posting to this site. You have courage, a profound curiosity, and a deep seated need to understand your fellow man. You already understand your fellow Jews.
jacob arnon on October 11, 2012 at 5:12 pm ()
The origin of Beatrix goes back to Latin and was early on embraced by Christians who transformed it into a "christian" name.
Still, I don't see why a Jew can be called "Paul" definitely a Christian name but not Beatrix.
In any case, some people named Beatrix may have been named after the children's writer Beatrix Potter.
Still, I don't see why a Jew can be called "Paul" definitely a Christian name but not Beatrix.
In any case, some people named Beatrix may have been named after the children's writer Beatrix Potter.
Beatrix on October 11, 2012 at 6:37 pm ()
How about the Queen of Holland?
I didn't know that everything about me had to be Jewish---I just am Jewish. I can see why Reform Jews broke free of the Orthodox---they're stultifying.
And people lecturing me about what religious beliefs I'm allowed to hold would do better to concentrate on educating their children, who probably don't listen to them, either. But telling a stranger what to think is absurd, especially when I'm probably older than they are. Wanting to share your beliefs is one thing, but criticizing me for not sharing them is out of bounds.
People take many different paths to being Jewish, and we should welcome all of them. We're a small group that has gotten smaller over the years, and we don't know what the saving remnant will be in the future.
Trying to make ourselves exclusive is stupid just as stupid as mixing up conservatism with Nazism. The Prime Minister of Israel is conservative.
Equating Jews with the left isn't as easy as it once was. As elevating as it was watching all those Jews traipsing before McCarthy trying to explain how American their Communism was, or seeing the NY Times wallowing in adulation of Abbas, nevertheless, a lot of us think the left is nuts and prefer the center.
I didn't know that everything about me had to be Jewish---I just am Jewish. I can see why Reform Jews broke free of the Orthodox---they're stultifying.
And people lecturing me about what religious beliefs I'm allowed to hold would do better to concentrate on educating their children, who probably don't listen to them, either. But telling a stranger what to think is absurd, especially when I'm probably older than they are. Wanting to share your beliefs is one thing, but criticizing me for not sharing them is out of bounds.
People take many different paths to being Jewish, and we should welcome all of them. We're a small group that has gotten smaller over the years, and we don't know what the saving remnant will be in the future.
Trying to make ourselves exclusive is stupid just as stupid as mixing up conservatism with Nazism. The Prime Minister of Israel is conservative.
Equating Jews with the left isn't as easy as it once was. As elevating as it was watching all those Jews traipsing before McCarthy trying to explain how American their Communism was, or seeing the NY Times wallowing in adulation of Abbas, nevertheless, a lot of us think the left is nuts and prefer the center.
S W on October 12, 2012 at 3:42 am ()
As to Jewish names and "Christian" names: here is a list of beloved rabbis from many streams of Jewish thought which have other than Hebrew antecedents:
Rabbis Harold Kushner, Balfour Brickner, Emil Hirsch, Leopold Zunz, Leo Baeck, Laszlo Berkowitz, Maurice Davis, Gunther Plaut, Stephen S. Wise, Hermann Adler, Isidore Brodie, Selig Starr, Hermann Gollancz, Raymond Apple, Barry Freundel, Irving Greenberg, Norman Lamm, Louis Finkelstein, Marshall Meyer, Morris Silverman, Bradley Artson, Elliot Dorff, Jules Harlow, William Lebeau, Harold Schulweis, Lionel Blue and the list can continue beyond these.
Rabbis Harold Kushner, Balfour Brickner, Emil Hirsch, Leopold Zunz, Leo Baeck, Laszlo Berkowitz, Maurice Davis, Gunther Plaut, Stephen S. Wise, Hermann Adler, Isidore Brodie, Selig Starr, Hermann Gollancz, Raymond Apple, Barry Freundel, Irving Greenberg, Norman Lamm, Louis Finkelstein, Marshall Meyer, Morris Silverman, Bradley Artson, Elliot Dorff, Jules Harlow, William Lebeau, Harold Schulweis, Lionel Blue and the list can continue beyond these.
Lauren. on October 12, 2012 at 1:24 pm ()
S W 's Oct 12 posting is beyond silly. "Beatrix" admitted that such was her PEN name, not her real name. So, for a JEWISH blog thread, why not use a JEWISH pen name!
Secondly, I am certain all those rabbis have Hebrew names: Greenberg, e.g., these days goes by 'Yitz' (for Yitzhak) rather than Irving. On the other hand, Freundel's is Issachar, which explains why he sticks with "Barry." (BTW, Barry is not his given name- it is Bernard, but he hates "Bernie" so he prefers Barry. Sort of the way Pres. Obama, as a kid, went by "Barry" vice "Barack.")
Actually, Barack (the Arabic "baraka' means blessing) is cognate to the Hebrew "Baruch." So of the lot, Pres. Obama has the closest thing to a genuine Hebrew name! How about that, "Beatrix"?
And, of course, "Judith"- as in Butler!- is, literally, the most JEWish name of all. Right, Jacob?
Secondly, I am certain all those rabbis have Hebrew names: Greenberg, e.g., these days goes by 'Yitz' (for Yitzhak) rather than Irving. On the other hand, Freundel's is Issachar, which explains why he sticks with "Barry." (BTW, Barry is not his given name- it is Bernard, but he hates "Bernie" so he prefers Barry. Sort of the way Pres. Obama, as a kid, went by "Barry" vice "Barack.")
Actually, Barack (the Arabic "baraka' means blessing) is cognate to the Hebrew "Baruch." So of the lot, Pres. Obama has the closest thing to a genuine Hebrew name! How about that, "Beatrix"?
And, of course, "Judith"- as in Butler!- is, literally, the most JEWish name of all. Right, Jacob?
jacob arnon on October 12, 2012 at 3:18 pm ()
What kind of Jewish name is Lauren, Lauren?
And Butler, that is a real Jewish name isn't it?
As for Barak it can come from ברוך (Baruch) but the name can also come from בָּרָק
meaning lightning (as in Ehud Barak). Of course in Obama's name it is related to Baruch.
But what is your point, Lauren, besides just coming up with another nasty attack on another poster?
And Butler, that is a real Jewish name isn't it?
As for Barak it can come from ברוך (Baruch) but the name can also come from בָּרָק
meaning lightning (as in Ehud Barak). Of course in Obama's name it is related to Baruch.
But what is your point, Lauren, besides just coming up with another nasty attack on another poster?
Beatrix on October 12, 2012 at 8:50 pm ()
Lauren: I do use an appropriate name for the web sites I post to. When I go to an Italian site, I use the name Bianca, on an Irish site, I use Bridget, on English sites, I use Brook, on German sites, I use Brunhilde, and on French sites, I use Babette, or I could use Lauren, a French name, as you do. And, of course, on Jewish sites, I use Beatrix.
Lauren, can I ask you a personal question? Do you drink?
Lauren, can I ask you a personal question? Do you drink?
Beatrix on October 12, 2012 at 8:54 pm ()
SW. thank you for your thoughtful post and the research that went into it. As I said, my real names isn't particularly Jewish, either, so your post was entirely appropriate. My last name, like most Jewish names, is considered Jewish, but is in fact German. Jews had no last names when we left Israel, and so we took the names of the countries we emigrated to.
Jacob-I don't think Lauren is Senesh. I liked Senesh much better. Of course he has a French first name, too---Henri. Hmmmm.
Jacob-I don't think Lauren is Senesh. I liked Senesh much better. Of course he has a French first name, too---Henri. Hmmmm.
Baal Shem Tov, Jr. on October 13, 2012 at 10:42 am ()
Mind your manners - aka derech eretz- Jacob. You are just upset because people have dented your smug claims to being all-knowing by highlighting your sloppiness in the error of confusing 'conscious' with 'conscience.' As you yourself admit, the African BARACK is cognate with the Hebrew BARUCH. So why bring in 'lightning' other than as a pretentious way of showing off? True (Torah) scholars do not behave that way!
As to how Jewish a name 'lauren' is, why don't you ask the wealthy and world-famous Ralph Lipschutz/Lauren?
As for Beatrix's hilarious - and utterly false- comment that "And Republicans, like Democrats, have liberal, conservative, and moderate wings". If there were a moderate, let alone liberal wing of the GOP in 2012, Mitt Romney would not have had to disown his record as Governor of Massachusetts to win the Republican nomination for President, and Bob Bennett and Dick Lugar would have won their Senate primaries. What, in years past, consisted of the Jacob Javits ("liberal") wing of the GOP has long been defunct, with its residue migrating to the DLC- which explains the duplicitous voting record of Joe Lieberman.
As to how Jewish a name 'lauren' is, why don't you ask the wealthy and world-famous Ralph Lipschutz/Lauren?
As for Beatrix's hilarious - and utterly false- comment that "And Republicans, like Democrats, have liberal, conservative, and moderate wings". If there were a moderate, let alone liberal wing of the GOP in 2012, Mitt Romney would not have had to disown his record as Governor of Massachusetts to win the Republican nomination for President, and Bob Bennett and Dick Lugar would have won their Senate primaries. What, in years past, consisted of the Jacob Javits ("liberal") wing of the GOP has long been defunct, with its residue migrating to the DLC- which explains the duplicitous voting record of Joe Lieberman.
jacob arnon on October 13, 2012 at 11:16 pm ()
"Baal shem tov" is just Senesh and Lauren under another name).
First it was H. Senesh, then Lauren, now it's "Baal....'
What they all have in common is their personal attacks. They can't argue logically or historically about the issues so they resort to personal attacks.
For his (their) information, I come from a Litvak background and couldn't care less about the Baal Shem Tov either the real man, or the fake who appropriated his name.
I doubt this make belief "Baal...." has even read the 'Baal..." certainly not in the original.
He couldn't even write בעל שם טוב or דרך ישראל in Hebrew this ignoramus.
Besides he used an incorrect phrase he should have said דרך ארץ and not derech Israel.
But never mind. No use casting pearls before swine or rather לפזר פנינים לפני החזירים.
Yes I know the origin of the phrase is probably from the other bible, but it probably came from a Hebrew phrase to begin with.
First it was H. Senesh, then Lauren, now it's "Baal....'
What they all have in common is their personal attacks. They can't argue logically or historically about the issues so they resort to personal attacks.
For his (their) information, I come from a Litvak background and couldn't care less about the Baal Shem Tov either the real man, or the fake who appropriated his name.
I doubt this make belief "Baal...." has even read the 'Baal..." certainly not in the original.
He couldn't even write בעל שם טוב or דרך ישראל in Hebrew this ignoramus.
Besides he used an incorrect phrase he should have said דרך ארץ and not derech Israel.
But never mind. No use casting pearls before swine or rather לפזר פנינים לפני החזירים.
Yes I know the origin of the phrase is probably from the other bible, but it probably came from a Hebrew phrase to begin with.
S W on October 13, 2012 at 3:55 pm ()
One notes that this comment stream stems from an article by Joffe critical of Butler and the Adorno Prize and, from my perspective, the issue of the so-called "bi-national state" concept with the added perspective I included of the hardline, foundational statements by Hamas and the PA. Given that, it is inexplicable that Lauren has opined about the article not at all.
If the requirement according to Lauren -- a fine Jewish name, apparently -- that a Jewish blog should have users with Jewish names, then JID violates this in articles and comments by some rabbis, among them the fine rabbi, Lawrence Grossman. Do we have Hebrew names? Of course. Must we blog with them to assuage the passionate foolishness of a Lauren? No. Why the fuss? Most likely to divert the contents and character of an article and discussion about Butler and the "bi-national" state to issues of no real consequence. Why? This may be left to Lauren to answer.
If the requirement according to Lauren -- a fine Jewish name, apparently -- that a Jewish blog should have users with Jewish names, then JID violates this in articles and comments by some rabbis, among them the fine rabbi, Lawrence Grossman. Do we have Hebrew names? Of course. Must we blog with them to assuage the passionate foolishness of a Lauren? No. Why the fuss? Most likely to divert the contents and character of an article and discussion about Butler and the "bi-national" state to issues of no real consequence. Why? This may be left to Lauren to answer.
jacob arnon on October 14, 2012 at 12:34 am ()
“Jacob-I don't think Lauren is Senesh. I liked Senesh much better. Of course he has a French first name, too---Henri. Hmmmm.”
It doesn’t really matter who they are they both (all including the Baal character) argue in a similar way: try to discredit the arguer since the can’t deal with the argument.
I wonder what identity the obsessed supporter of Judith Butler will assume after claiming to be the “Baal shem tov” (which means the master of the good name)?
I would not be surprised if after claiming to be "shem tov" (שם טוב) s/he will claim to be one of the prophets.
It doesn’t really matter who they are they both (all including the Baal character) argue in a similar way: try to discredit the arguer since the can’t deal with the argument.
I wonder what identity the obsessed supporter of Judith Butler will assume after claiming to be the “Baal shem tov” (which means the master of the good name)?
I would not be surprised if after claiming to be "shem tov" (שם טוב) s/he will claim to be one of the prophets.
Beatrix on October 14, 2012 at 12:39 pm ()
Jacob, I agree with you now. Senesh is Lauren. He probably used the name Lauren from Ralph Lauren and didn't realize we'd see it as female. And of course Ralph Lauren is not a Jewish name, but is simply a name used by a Jew. Like my pen name.
[He could be Shimsohn and JBS, too.] Apparently, you had an on line tiff going with Senesh, and now you've won over two allies, I think SW and definitely, me.
Republicans have left, right and center, just as the Democrats do. The left controlled the Democrats in 2008 and currently, the right controls the Republicans. When the country is in trouble, the parties become more extreme. But this isn't a forum about the election.
As for Butler, I go to battle with anyone who is anti-Israel, especially a Jew who is anti-Israel. Though we don't agree politically, Jacob, you've always defended Israel and you and SW are definitely two of the most erudite posters I've met on line.
[He could be Shimsohn and JBS, too.] Apparently, you had an on line tiff going with Senesh, and now you've won over two allies, I think SW and definitely, me.
Republicans have left, right and center, just as the Democrats do. The left controlled the Democrats in 2008 and currently, the right controls the Republicans. When the country is in trouble, the parties become more extreme. But this isn't a forum about the election.
As for Butler, I go to battle with anyone who is anti-Israel, especially a Jew who is anti-Israel. Though we don't agree politically, Jacob, you've always defended Israel and you and SW are definitely two of the most erudite posters I've met on line.
Beatrix on October 14, 2012 at 12:48 pm ()
And of course, it goes without saying, that Senesh is Baal Shem Tov.
H. Senesh on October 14, 2012 at 3:14 pm ()
Jacob: Lauren already warned you about reading closely-
BST JR's blog comment did indeed say "derech eretz", NOT, as you claim, 'derech Israel'.
Pay attention!
As to his non-use of a Hebrew font: it just so happens that many people do not have access to a Hebrew font- e.g., the main article in the daily JID does not use one. Therefore, perhaps BST Jr is Alex Joffe or Eliot Jager!
Further: your conscious/conscience gaff on this blog thread is part of the digital record, which means it is PERMANENT and ETERNAL. Therefore, in your future pontificating, when you offer, say, "opinion x" and someone disagrees with it, all the critic has to do is observe that "Jacob Arnon, who doesn't know the difference between 'conscious' and 'conscience', now claims (opinion x)....
BTW: in French, the word CONSCIENCE can mean either 'consciousness' or 'conscience'. So, next time, Jacob, if you must express yourself, you'd be better off staying away from the English language blogs and trying the French ones, instead.
BST JR's blog comment did indeed say "derech eretz", NOT, as you claim, 'derech Israel'.
Pay attention!
As to his non-use of a Hebrew font: it just so happens that many people do not have access to a Hebrew font- e.g., the main article in the daily JID does not use one. Therefore, perhaps BST Jr is Alex Joffe or Eliot Jager!
Further: your conscious/conscience gaff on this blog thread is part of the digital record, which means it is PERMANENT and ETERNAL. Therefore, in your future pontificating, when you offer, say, "opinion x" and someone disagrees with it, all the critic has to do is observe that "Jacob Arnon, who doesn't know the difference between 'conscious' and 'conscience', now claims (opinion x)....
BTW: in French, the word CONSCIENCE can mean either 'consciousness' or 'conscience'. So, next time, Jacob, if you must express yourself, you'd be better off staying away from the English language blogs and trying the French ones, instead.
jacob arnon on October 14, 2012 at 11:38 pm ()
"Baal Shem Tov, Jr. on October 13, 2012 at 10:42 am (Reply)
"Mind your manners - "
"H. Senesh on October 14, 2012 at 3:14 pm (Reply)
Jacob: Lauren already warned you about reading closely-
BST JR's blog comment did indeed say "derech eretz", NOT, as you claim, 'derech Israel'.
Pay attention!"
Two peas in a pod.
No need to waste time on a hypocritical liar.
If they can't be honest about their identity, why should they be trusted in any other matter?
"Mind your manners - "
"H. Senesh on October 14, 2012 at 3:14 pm (Reply)
Jacob: Lauren already warned you about reading closely-
BST JR's blog comment did indeed say "derech eretz", NOT, as you claim, 'derech Israel'.
Pay attention!"
Two peas in a pod.
No need to waste time on a hypocritical liar.
If they can't be honest about their identity, why should they be trusted in any other matter?
jacob arnon on October 14, 2012 at 11:47 pm ()
“Republicans have left, right and center, just as the Democrats do. The left controlled the Democrats in 2008 and currently, the right controls the Republicans. When the country is in trouble, the parties become more extreme. But this isn't a forum about the election.”
I think this is too simplistic.
Obama is not leftist. He is a centrist who tried to accommodate the right wing (Tea party) Republicans too much. This is one reason he is in trouble right now.
Btw: I don’t trust the Republicans on foreign policy any more than I do on domestic policy. They did laud the isolationist Congressman Ron Paul whom some say is also antisemitic.
“As for Butler, I go to battle with anyone who is anti-Israel, especially a Jew who is anti-Israel. “
Butler is a mediocre scholar who made a name for herself because she is gay and because she is anti-Israel which is to say antisemitic. Many "intellectuals on the left are using her" to hide their own antisemitism.
She is one of those useful idiots as Lenin used to say about wealthy donors who gave money to the Bolsheviks.
I think this is too simplistic.
Obama is not leftist. He is a centrist who tried to accommodate the right wing (Tea party) Republicans too much. This is one reason he is in trouble right now.
Btw: I don’t trust the Republicans on foreign policy any more than I do on domestic policy. They did laud the isolationist Congressman Ron Paul whom some say is also antisemitic.
“As for Butler, I go to battle with anyone who is anti-Israel, especially a Jew who is anti-Israel. “
Butler is a mediocre scholar who made a name for herself because she is gay and because she is anti-Israel which is to say antisemitic. Many "intellectuals on the left are using her" to hide their own antisemitism.
She is one of those useful idiots as Lenin used to say about wealthy donors who gave money to the Bolsheviks.
jacob arnon on October 15, 2012 at 12:06 am ()
I'd like to suggest an interesting article that deals with the Republican party?
"How the GOP Destroyed its Moderates" Jonathan Chait
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/108150/the-revolution-eats-its-own
"How the GOP Destroyed its Moderates" Jonathan Chait
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/108150/the-revolution-eats-its-own
S W on October 15, 2012 at 1:29 am ()
As a matter of consistency and fact, the recent complaining interlocutors have all avoided the topic of the article in varying attempts to avoid making statements about Butler's stance on the bi-national state and none have had a word to say about my addition to the dialogue about that, the statements from Hamas and the PA as above.
It is ironic and perhaps post-ironic that this article by Joffe mentions the Adorno Prize. There is a monument to Adorno in a Frankfurt public square which is an empty desk chair at a sparsely appointed desk, encased in a glass box.
The many attempts to make this comment stream about Jewish names, American political candidates and such obscures the theme of the article: Butler and the Death of Irony. Joffe writes, "At a certain point, the ironic becomes the merely predictable, part of the pattern and not a contrast with it."
Predictable has been the ad hominem and whine all suited only to divert attention from discussion and critique of the article's topic. It seems as my citation of the Jiddishce adage above was apt and now more than apt, so too is the image of the Adorno monument's empty chair and sparse desk. Joffe is proven correct.
It is ironic and perhaps post-ironic that this article by Joffe mentions the Adorno Prize. There is a monument to Adorno in a Frankfurt public square which is an empty desk chair at a sparsely appointed desk, encased in a glass box.
The many attempts to make this comment stream about Jewish names, American political candidates and such obscures the theme of the article: Butler and the Death of Irony. Joffe writes, "At a certain point, the ironic becomes the merely predictable, part of the pattern and not a contrast with it."
Predictable has been the ad hominem and whine all suited only to divert attention from discussion and critique of the article's topic. It seems as my citation of the Jiddishce adage above was apt and now more than apt, so too is the image of the Adorno monument's empty chair and sparse desk. Joffe is proven correct.
Baal Shem Tov, Jr. on October 15, 2012 at 10:10 am ()
I accept Jacob's apology. Beatrix admits to being a shape-shifting/name-shifting blog commentator; and yet it is other posters - those critical of his intellectual sloppiness- whom Jacob accuses of hiding their real identity?
At least Beatrix has an an excuse: she says she is 73 yrs old. Age can do that to some people, unfortunately. Or is "73" her blog-identity age, and not her real one?
At least Beatrix has an an excuse: she says she is 73 yrs old. Age can do that to some people, unfortunately. Or is "73" her blog-identity age, and not her real one?
jacob arnon on October 15, 2012 at 10:57 am ()
“Baal Shem Tov, Jr. on October 15, 2012 at 10:10 am (Reply)
I accept Jacob's apology.”
Apologize for what?
I haven’t apologized, nor will I ever apologize to this cynical individual who goes be at least three different names and has nothing to say in any of his made up identities.
Unless, this “baal shem….”, Lauren,” this “H Senesh” (they are the same person---it should be easy enough to check the origin of the nasty and off topic posts they scribble), unless they have something cogent to say about Butler or Adorno, don’t bother to address me.
I will ignore your posts.
I accept Jacob's apology.”
Apologize for what?
I haven’t apologized, nor will I ever apologize to this cynical individual who goes be at least three different names and has nothing to say in any of his made up identities.
Unless, this “baal shem….”, Lauren,” this “H Senesh” (they are the same person---it should be easy enough to check the origin of the nasty and off topic posts they scribble), unless they have something cogent to say about Butler or Adorno, don’t bother to address me.
I will ignore your posts.
Beatrix on October 15, 2012 at 12:30 pm ()
No more shape changing than Ralph Lauren using Ralph Lauren instead of his real name. And if women lie about their age, they go in the other direction---forty instead of fifty. Don't you know anything?
Beatrix on October 15, 2012 at 1:11 pm ()
Ok Jacob. Ron Paul is not Republican, he is Libertarian, and if not antisemitic, he attracts antisemites like brown-shirts to a book burning. I attack libertarians every chance I get.
Maybe to a liberal, Obama doesn't seem to be a leftist, but he's very left wing to me. My background is business, not academic, and Obama runs the country like a left wing teacher who never left the tower. His ego comes from being mentored, not from experience. Romney has had success in business and government, and I trust him to get this country back on its feet.
Jacob, when it comes to politics, I would no more listen to you than I'd listen to Senesh about anything else. Often, the very things I admire about you keep me from listening to you.
And since I have to draw pictures for you Senesh, I don't use different names on different posts---I was showing you how ridicuous that would be.
I picture SW in a cafe surrounded by friendly people, and Jacob in a study surrounded by beloved books. But Senesh, you seem frustrated---as though you're in a situation where you don't have much power.
Maybe to a liberal, Obama doesn't seem to be a leftist, but he's very left wing to me. My background is business, not academic, and Obama runs the country like a left wing teacher who never left the tower. His ego comes from being mentored, not from experience. Romney has had success in business and government, and I trust him to get this country back on its feet.
Jacob, when it comes to politics, I would no more listen to you than I'd listen to Senesh about anything else. Often, the very things I admire about you keep me from listening to you.
And since I have to draw pictures for you Senesh, I don't use different names on different posts---I was showing you how ridicuous that would be.
I picture SW in a cafe surrounded by friendly people, and Jacob in a study surrounded by beloved books. But Senesh, you seem frustrated---as though you're in a situation where you don't have much power.
jacob arnon on October 15, 2012 at 8:40 pm ()
Beatrix on October 15, 2012 at 1:11 pm (Reply)
"Ok Jacob. Ron Paul is not Republican, he is Libertarian, and if not antisemitic,
he attracts antisemites like brown-shirts to a book burning. I attack libertarians every chance I get."
I thought he was a Republican congressman from Texas, and his son a Republican Senator from Kentucky. He was also given a special warm welcome at the Republican convention this year. But what do I know lost as I am in my dusty basement surrounded by old books.
Good luck to you, Beatrix.
"Ok Jacob. Ron Paul is not Republican, he is Libertarian, and if not antisemitic,
he attracts antisemites like brown-shirts to a book burning. I attack libertarians every chance I get."
I thought he was a Republican congressman from Texas, and his son a Republican Senator from Kentucky. He was also given a special warm welcome at the Republican convention this year. But what do I know lost as I am in my dusty basement surrounded by old books.
Good luck to you, Beatrix.
Beatrix on October 16, 2012 at 2:12 pm ()
Sorry, Jacob, I run into you too often on line (and agree with you too often) to leave things like this.
Libertarians have latched onto the Republican Party because they don't have enough followers to form a party of their own. Kind of like leeches. Their followers appear to be young and clueless. Some Republicans accept them. Though I'm Independent, not Republican, I try to set party supporters straight because I'm voting Republican this time.
The good news is that since retiring, Ron has to operate through his son, Rand the Bland, who has all the charisma of a cockroach. It's wise to keep an eye on them, though.
I did not see you down the basement, but in a cozy room with a fireplace surrounded by your beloved book, sipping a glass of cognac. I envy you your erudition---don't ever put it down.
Libertarians have latched onto the Republican Party because they don't have enough followers to form a party of their own. Kind of like leeches. Their followers appear to be young and clueless. Some Republicans accept them. Though I'm Independent, not Republican, I try to set party supporters straight because I'm voting Republican this time.
The good news is that since retiring, Ron has to operate through his son, Rand the Bland, who has all the charisma of a cockroach. It's wise to keep an eye on them, though.
I did not see you down the basement, but in a cozy room with a fireplace surrounded by your beloved book, sipping a glass of cognac. I envy you your erudition---don't ever put it down.
George on October 16, 2012 at 3:17 pm ()
Darling Beatrix:
You state that "Romney has had success in business and government, and I trust him to get this country back on its feet."
2 comments:
a. America has had two businessmen serve as President: Herbert Hoover and George ("MBA" from Harvard) W. Bush. How did the economy fare under them?
b. From David Stockman (budget director under Ronald Reagan) article in NEWSWEEK:
Mitt Romney claims that his essential qualification to be president is grounded in his 15 years as head of Bain Capital, from 1984 through early 1999. According to the campaign’s narrative, it was then that he became immersed in the toils of business enterprise, learning along the way the true secrets of how to grow the economy and create jobs. The fact that Bain’s returns reputedly averaged more than 50 percent annually during this period is purportedly proof of the case—real-world validation that Romney not only was a striking business success but also has been uniquely trained and seasoned for the task of restarting the nation’s sputtering engines of capitalism.
• Except Mitt Romney was not a businessman; he was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses. He did not build enterprises the old-fashioned way—out of inspiration, perspiration, and a long slog in the free market fostering a new product, service, or process of production. Instead, he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt, gussy them up as reborn “roll-ups,” and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale—the faster the better.
You state that "Romney has had success in business and government, and I trust him to get this country back on its feet."
2 comments:
a. America has had two businessmen serve as President: Herbert Hoover and George ("MBA" from Harvard) W. Bush. How did the economy fare under them?
b. From David Stockman (budget director under Ronald Reagan) article in NEWSWEEK:
Mitt Romney claims that his essential qualification to be president is grounded in his 15 years as head of Bain Capital, from 1984 through early 1999. According to the campaign’s narrative, it was then that he became immersed in the toils of business enterprise, learning along the way the true secrets of how to grow the economy and create jobs. The fact that Bain’s returns reputedly averaged more than 50 percent annually during this period is purportedly proof of the case—real-world validation that Romney not only was a striking business success but also has been uniquely trained and seasoned for the task of restarting the nation’s sputtering engines of capitalism.
• Except Mitt Romney was not a businessman; he was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses. He did not build enterprises the old-fashioned way—out of inspiration, perspiration, and a long slog in the free market fostering a new product, service, or process of production. Instead, he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt, gussy them up as reborn “roll-ups,” and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale—the faster the better.
Seymour Fishbein on October 16, 2012 at 3:43 pm ()
for Beatrix:
from Thom Hartmann, TRUTHOUT
Is Mitt Romney responsible for the youth smoking epidemic?
The Huffington Post reports that while he was at Bain, Romney was consulting tobacco giant Philip Morris on how the company can sell more cigarettes. It was Bain's idea to drastically slash the price of Marlboros by 40-cents a pack down to $1.80. And that's just what Philip Morris did back in 1993 – and it worked. A lot more cigarettes were sold – especially to young people who could not afford it. According to the Center for Disease Control – smoking among young people increased 20% in the years following the price cut. Between 1993 and 1997 – the nation saw the single-largest growth in youth smoking since 1964. As Matthew Myers – the President of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids – said, "Price is the single most important factor in the number of young people who smoke...price increases have been proven to drive down youth tobacco use. And price decreases translate immediately." To Mitt Romney and Bain Capital – getting kids hooked on smoking didn't bother them one bit. As long as profits increased – then it was a job well done.
from Thom Hartmann, TRUTHOUT
Is Mitt Romney responsible for the youth smoking epidemic?
The Huffington Post reports that while he was at Bain, Romney was consulting tobacco giant Philip Morris on how the company can sell more cigarettes. It was Bain's idea to drastically slash the price of Marlboros by 40-cents a pack down to $1.80. And that's just what Philip Morris did back in 1993 – and it worked. A lot more cigarettes were sold – especially to young people who could not afford it. According to the Center for Disease Control – smoking among young people increased 20% in the years following the price cut. Between 1993 and 1997 – the nation saw the single-largest growth in youth smoking since 1964. As Matthew Myers – the President of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids – said, "Price is the single most important factor in the number of young people who smoke...price increases have been proven to drive down youth tobacco use. And price decreases translate immediately." To Mitt Romney and Bain Capital – getting kids hooked on smoking didn't bother them one bit. As long as profits increased – then it was a job well done.
Beatrix on October 18, 2012 at 11:31 am ()
First of all I'm independent---I don't defend either party. I think both Hoover and Carter failed as Presidents. Bush made mistakes, but it was at the end of his presidency and so we don't know if he could have corrected them or not had he stayed in office. Roosevelt brought hope, but he wouldn't work with businessmen who could have created jobs, and so we didn't get out of the depression until WW2, when he had to rely on businesses to manufacture munitions. A lot of Presidents failed initially, including Clinton, but had time to make up for it. Bush didn't.
Huffington Post's claims are new. They're based on one man's accusations (Ghosh) and go much further than you state. According to HuffPo, Romney not only lowered the price of cigarettes, destroying American youth, but enticed Russians to start smoking, destroying their health and leading (according to HuffPo) to the installation of Putin as head of Russia. I'm not as credulous as you. I'd like to hear Romney's response.
Romney was a businessman (and Governor and head of the Olympics). His business was trying to rescue failing enterprises. Sometimes he succeeded and sometimes he didn't. Our country is Capitalist and well as Socialist. I'm happy with both. But I'm not happy that we've descended into a 2nd rate power and have a President who isn't solving our problems.
As for Reagan's underling expressing his personal animosity toward Romney, I've read books full of animosity toward Obama. And Lincoln. That's part of the Presidency. It will probably get worse once Romney becomes President.
Huffington Post's claims are new. They're based on one man's accusations (Ghosh) and go much further than you state. According to HuffPo, Romney not only lowered the price of cigarettes, destroying American youth, but enticed Russians to start smoking, destroying their health and leading (according to HuffPo) to the installation of Putin as head of Russia. I'm not as credulous as you. I'd like to hear Romney's response.
Romney was a businessman (and Governor and head of the Olympics). His business was trying to rescue failing enterprises. Sometimes he succeeded and sometimes he didn't. Our country is Capitalist and well as Socialist. I'm happy with both. But I'm not happy that we've descended into a 2nd rate power and have a President who isn't solving our problems.
As for Reagan's underling expressing his personal animosity toward Romney, I've read books full of animosity toward Obama. And Lincoln. That's part of the Presidency. It will probably get worse once Romney becomes President.
M.C. on October 19, 2012 at 12:31 pm ()
Devout Mormons — and everyone acknowledges that Gov. Romney is a devout Mormon — affirm that “Jesus Christ … was slain by the Jews ...” (Book of Mormon 7:5)
Presumably, this dogma is the pivotal consideration underlying the LDS decision to posthumously baptize Jews, including/especially Holocaust victims. After all, who could be in more dire need of Christian charity in the form of Christian salvation than Jesus’ slayers?
There is an excellent reason Mormons only deal with dead- and not living … Jews: Dead Jews can’t talk back, and object. This is called cowardice.
Presumably, this dogma is the pivotal consideration underlying the LDS decision to posthumously baptize Jews, including/especially Holocaust victims. After all, who could be in more dire need of Christian charity in the form of Christian salvation than Jesus’ slayers?
There is an excellent reason Mormons only deal with dead- and not living … Jews: Dead Jews can’t talk back, and object. This is called cowardice.
Comments are closed for this article.
