Rightist Jews Defend Hagee as Another Wallenberg & Israel Deports Norm Finkelstein (Good Riddance)
The tiny right-wing Jewish minority is fascinating.
In this article, Dennis Prager, the leader of the suck-up to anti-semitic Christian pack, explains that Pastor Hagee is not anti-Semitic even though he said that the Holocaust was part of God's plan and that Hitler was essentially his messenger. In fact, Prager compares Hagee to Raoul Wallenberg who saved 100,000 Jews from the gas chambers designed by God's messengers.
This is the same Prager who denounces liberals, gays, Democrats, African-Americans, feminists and anybody who dissents from far-right policies on Israel as anti-Jewish, anti-Christian and anti-American.
How to explain these guys? Easy. They are today's counterparts of the Jewish Stalinists who defended everything Stalin and the Soviet Union did to demonstrate their loyalty to the larger cause. The more anti-Semitic Stalin got, the more slavish these Jewish Uncle Toms got.
These guys obviously have no Moscow to fall on their knees to defend. But they have the Christian Right. That is why Prager was the leading American of Jewish persuasion to defend Bill O'Reilly's war on secular Jews for destroying Christmas! Is Prager really anti-gay or anti-abortion? No way. But his masters are so he has to pretend he is too.
The bottom line is that Prager and company are terrified of the people they hang out with so they will say or do anything to ingratiate themselves. It's very sad, pathetic even.
There is a phrase in Yiddish. It's hard to be a Jew. How much harder it is to be a right-wing one?
You'll find Prager's greatest hits here. I'm waiting for him to attack circumcision next. There are no limits with these people.
Meanwhile, Israel deported Norman Finkelstein, the anti-Israel academic who has devoted himself in recent years to promoting Hezbollah. I can't say I blame them. Here is Norman defending Hezbollah.
My head hurts.
May 24, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Self Hating Jews rush to Obama.
Why stay with a candidate with a good record toward Israel.
May 24, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
To whom are you referring to? So totally confused here. Self-hating Jews flock to Obama? HUH? Because Obama is for healthcare, better education, universal justice, civil liberties and civil rights? A self-hating Jew is against these things? WOW - things have changed, I guess I never understood Judaism. I have to go back to school.
May 25, 2008 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love being Jewish and I love Israel. In fact, I am sponsoring an Israeli student in my home, and my son will be living there in the fall.
Oh-- and I'm supporting Obama.
May 24, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why not take a little time to know the man you support?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html
May 24, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?hp
and also check
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/opinion/28krugman.html?ex=1364443200&en=9617286a4a524de8&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
May 24, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lute,
I hate the way Corporate America seems to always win over the public because of the money involved, but if you can find some politician running for office that's sparkling clean, let me know who it is and I'll certainly vote for him/her.
The Immunity for Telecoms Bill being worked on is an example of what I deplore.
May 25, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Hagee says in the sermon: "How did [the Holocaust] happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel." link
Lucky for the Jews Gawd* didn't let Hitler 'get them' all in His zeal to populate the Holy Lands. Otherwise there wouldn't have been any Jews left to go to Israel. (maybe one way tickets and a free Leica would have worked just as well?)
* (pronunciation for a Hagee types = G-a-w-d)
May 24, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Sounds like jerry fowl-wail and pat bobblehead telling us the reason for 9/11--God lifted His mighty Hand of protection from America because of the feminists and the abortionists and the ACLU.
May 26, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Prager really anti-gay or anti-abortion? No way. But his masters are so he has to pretend he is too.
You seem to be implying htat there is no reason why a Jew would be anti-gay except because he is sucking up to right-wing Christians.
Actually, any Jew who actually believes in the Hebrew Bible (i.e. what we Christians call "the Old Testament") would likely have a negative view of homosexuality. You may think that this is a wrong belief, but it is hardly anti-Jewish.
Moreover, the idea that God uses persecution and tragedies to achieve his ends is hardly un-Judaic. The idea that God lets the Jews be persecuted as a punishment when they turn away from him is also quite consistent with the Bible as well.
So I really don't see anything antisemitic about Hagee's statements. Certainly his statements about the Holocaust are not intended to encourage the persecution of Jews.
May 24, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glavister,
I say Hagee is anti-Semitic because he's using Israel as a way to get to the Rapture, at which time the Jews must convert to Christianity, accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, or they burn in hell for eternity.
May 25, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
well heck if I was facing eternal flames I'd convert too. That is if the "rapture" actually takes place and it was evident that if you did not convert to Chrisitianity you would face eternal damnation, you would be a fool if you did not convert.
I don't think Denis Prager is sucking up to Hagee I think he is using him as a useful fool for the time being.
May 25, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew,
You can order tickets for The Rapture by sending $500.00 for each ticket to Rev Hagee, and $300.00 for each ticket to the RNC. You better hurry, they're going fast, I just barely got my 4 seats in row 5 atop Mt. Ararat.
May 26, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm.. Are you Jewish, Glaivester? Have you spent any time reading the commentary? Or do you have a secular education on matters of the Torah ("Old Testament")?
The truth is, the Torah is a living document, and most modern Jews do not have a negative view of homosexuality at all. In fact, the most sacred traditions in Judaism are study and debate. Questioning G-d and the Torah is part of the deal. It's the very meaning of Israel.
The Holocaust happened because people allowed it to happen. People allowed it to happen because they failed to do G-d's will. Let's not confuse human failure and iniquity with the will of G-d, mmkay?
May 24, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm a Gentile Chirstian.
and most modern Jews do not have a negative view of homosexuality at all.
I'm under the impression that most modern Jews would probably have joined those who were worshipping the golden calf while Moses was on the mountain. In terms of their Judaism, most modern Jews do not impress me much.
In any case, just because most Jews ignore or interpret the relevant passages in such a way that they think that homosexuality is okay, it hardly follows that a Jew cannot have a negative view of homosexuality based on their reading of the Torah rather than due to a desire to suck up to Christians.
The Holocaust happened because people allowed it to happen. People allowed it to happen because they failed to do G-d's will. Let's not confuse human failure and iniquity with the will of G-d, mmkay?
I'm not arguing that the Holocaust was a punishment. I am just saying that it would hardly be inconsistent with the Bible to say that such persecution occurred as a punishment or to accomplish some greater good. It's not like similar events never happened in the Bible (although perhaps not on quite as genocidal a scale).
May 27, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The irony is that no one has questioned whether Hagee remarks are anti-christian. From Pragers article.
"Viewing Hitler as acting completely outside of God's plan is to suggest that God was powerless to stop the Holocaust, a position quite unacceptable to any religious Jew or Christian,"
In order for the above to be true. It suggests Hitler was following God's plan. Which implies Hitler was a disciple of God. Which of course overlook his persecution of Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses. Unlike Jews, who were killed simply for being Jewsish (including aposates), Jehovah's Witnesses actually had a choice, renounce your belief and live, or die.
Perhaps Hagee and his defenders should be asked to comment on how Hitler's other victims fit into their theological explanations.
May 24, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either Hitler was part of god's plan or god failed to control Hitler. Either way, god doesn't come off well here. Shouldn't your imaginary friend be nicer?
May 24, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"G-d's plan" (inasmuch as it can be called a "plan") is actually a set of guidelines, ways to act ethically in this world, otherwise known as mitzvot or commandments--and we all know not everyone follows those, including those people who stand in silent witness of tragedy. This failure is a result of a pesky little concept frequently described as "free will," which is also part of the "plan." (See Genesis/B'reshit.)
So, Hitler was NOT following G-d's plan NOR was he acting "outside" of it. If Prager is quoted accurately above, he is misinterpreting his Torah.
May 24, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same thing is true of Osama Bin Laden.
All the fundies who say that 9/11 was God's will being enacted to punish the gays, abortionists, etc. are in effect saying that Osama was doing God's will.
Osama agrees.
I find it repulsive myself.
May 24, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is really ironic is that these same nutjobs (I believe that is the technical term) are the same ones who often use this dainty phrase "G-d is love."
Hunh???
May 24, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg and I agree on something--Hagee and Prager are wackjobs. Let's see if Hagee shows up at next week's AIPAC Conference. The only reason any Jews take them seriously is that the left wing groups who applauded an Israel filled with the kibbutrzim 50 years ago now blame Israel first, and so extreme right wingers are seen as friends of Israel instead.
May 24, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe there is a much more practical reason why AIPAC and other groups have linked up with the Christian Zionists and the Hagee's of the world. It's called votes on the Hill. For the most part, the Christian Zionists have political influence in congressional districts where relatively few Jewish organizations or population exist, but if you have the CZ'ers making the case against true negotiations and land for peace arrangements, based on a hoped for Armageddon, you vastly increase your strength on various issues. In reality it is a straightforward political alliance where the currency is votes.
What is being deconstructed by examination of Hagee's actual theology is the dishonesty behind this coalition. The Christian Zionists do not much advertise their belief that the ingathering of Jews in Israel is their version of "God's Plan" for forcing Jews to either convert or be sent into the sea of brimstone, and all too many Jews lower their voices on traditional domestic social and economic matters. The vast majority of Jews are not "anti-science" or "anti-Humanist" nor are they anti-immigrant or opposed to a strong social safety net. But many have dimmed their voices on these matters given pressure to keep the alliance. Finally letting people see the profound anti-semitic character of Hagee and the Christian Zionist Theology (very much a minority Christian position) may have the effect of breaking up this unholy alliance.
May 25, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sara,
I have to strongly disagree with the idea that "many" among the vast majority of Jews shut up and toe the reactionary party line on these issues. Scan the lists of the boards, staff and membership of liberal groups and I am confident that you will come away with an appreciation for the overrepresentation of Jewish names. Jewish voters constitute one of Obama's strongest demographics -- certainly stronger than the electorate as a whole.
When we find the likes of "Beit Podhoretz" spouting right wing talking points, we are looking at those who more often tend to receive the media megaphone because they are speaking out for the main cause. Namely, ensuring that a comfortably deregulated mass communications industry stays that way; because the political wing of Blackwater Worldwide is less likely to restore regulations like ownership limits or the equal time provision of the fairness doctrine than is the Democratic Party.
May 26, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Conservative Christians support Israel like the rope supports the hanged man. Or like the farmer fattens his veal.
May 24, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prager is pathetic. Comparing Hagee to Raoul Wallenberg is an insult. Wallenberg risked his life and likely died in a Soviet gulag as a result of his incredible service. About all the danger Hagee has faced is a brawl with his fellow TV preachers over how to fleece their moronic followers and divide up the spoils.
May 24, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recent research in Sweden supports the proposition that Wallenberg's mission in Hungary was directly supported by funds supplied to Sweden by OSS, and that Wallenberg should be viewed as an agent/operative. The Wallenberg family is one of the most wealthy and influential in Sweden, with old links to Humanitarian organizations such as the International Red Cross -- it was afterall Swedish Red Cross paper that Wallenberg used as identity papers to cover many he saved. In all probability the reasons the Soviets picked him up and imprisoned him was because they understood the OSS connection, and the fact that he had a network in Hungary working with him, which they wanted to destroy.
The Wallenbergs also had long standing economic interests in Germany, and along with the Swedish Government, they had interests in safeguarding these given Germany's coming collapse, thus the interest in cooperating with OSS on the part of Neutral Sweden. The Wallenberg mission was as much about saving Hungarian Jews as it was about providing a means to bind Swedish post-war interests with Anglo-American ones.
I think it would be a hell of a stretch to see the likes of Hagee in this sort of covert role that mixed high finance with Humanitarian action.
May 25, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would be a hell of a stretch to see the likes of Hagee in this sort of covert role that mixed high finance with Humanitarian action.
Yeah, Hagee (like most of these mega-church preachers) is 100% about high finance. The mega-church is the ultimate tax shelter--not only is it technically a non-profit, it is protected from most government regulation or oversight by the special status the First Amendment gives "religious" organizations. There's a reason these guys preach the gospel of low taxes and small government--and it has nothing to do with Jesus. These preachers worship money first and foremost. "In god we trust"--just as it tells us on the almighty dollar bill. Don't think it's slipped Hagee's notice that there are a lot of wealthy Jews out there willing to give great gobs of money to pro-Israeli causes. He's already got millions of white protestants giving him millions of dollars for his snake oil. Now he's expanding his market to the Jews. I'm not sure whether Hagee is or is not an anti-Semite in his heart. What I do know is that he sees Jews and their love of Israel as another revenue stream and he's out there working it for all he's got. Hagee's a scam artist--for him money is god and taxes satan. Israel is just his latest scam. It's both a way to diversify into Jewish money and a new "cause" to use to extort money from his Protestant faithful. Hagee's said some offensive things about Catholics and Muslims--but don't you worry, when the right opportunity arises, he'll find some way to extend his Christian charity to them as well.
May 25, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I listened to Mr. Finkelstein's speech that Mr. Rosenberg linked to. I did not agree with everything in it, but I did agree with the sentiment that the level of Israeli response to the Hezbollah kidnapping of Israeli soldiers was criminal and morally condemnable. We can discuss this at length I thin k. Mr. Finkelstein went quite a bit further. But deportation? Is Israeli democracy so fragile that it needs to deport a critic like Mr. Finkelstein? And you agree, Mr. Rosenberg? Please explain.
(And try to focus on the question, not on how much you disagree with Finkelstein.)
May 25, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finkelstein was not deported: he was denied entry -- see my post below. There's a big difference.
May 27, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, M.J, you might be interested in this story: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1211288137410&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Apparently, the US "doesn't object" to talks. Contrast with the overflowing verbal ad monetary support Israel gets for military action.
And this guy's just plain awesome: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1211434075812&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
May 25, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
bruno,
god to me is a paradox;
he's either the greatest underachiever in the history of the universe, or...
the greatest mass murderer in the history of the universe.
May 25, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I believe in the separation of church and hate."
Signed,
Rev Hagee and Rev Wright
May 25, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you, a rare enough occurrance, Prager. (I have to look into the Finkelstein matter, I take the right of return very seriously).
That being said, you left off a word to describe Prager, and one I think that always should be used, "Kapo".
May 26, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Following Mr. Rosenberg's outburst against Professor Finkelstein I spent some time reading Finkelstein's writing. A pretty complete list of works can be obtained on his website:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/
One of the dangers of having someone like Mr. Rosenberg leading the charge against the right-wing Likudnik scum is that he seems to feel that position makes him the vigilante who can decide what is proper and what is over the line (well we all make a decision on where the line is but it is clearly not in the same place for all0. I see NO justification for deporting Mr. Finkelstein. He says a number of things I do not agree with but they are not anti-Semitic. Does Mr. Rosenberg assert they are? NO. The great arbiter of things Jewish just announces "good riddance". One can get a more serious intellectual discussion from a brick wall. Here is a letter to Finkelstein which reflects liberal democratic views; not Mr. Rosenberg's intemperate outburst:
"Dr Finkelstein,
I must state that I am very far removed from your political views of Israel and Palestine. Still, I write to you to express my dismay at your treatment at the hand of the Israeli Shabak. There is no justification for not allowing a bona-fide, academic entry into any country and to do so in your case is a bad mistake. This is an example of the short sightedness of those in charge of Israel's security.
Our punishment and your revenge will be the publicity you receive for this, for example I had not heard of you before reading this morning's paper!
Please, please do not give up. The outcry this has caused over one weekend should be enough to change the stupid minds of those who made this bad decision. I look forward to hearing that you have once again visited our country.
Saul Davis
http://benqish.blogspot.com"
May 27, 2008 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
VLaszlo writes:
Finkelstein was not deported -- this is Rosenberg's mis-translation. Finkelstein was denied entry -- see Rosenberg's link to the original Haaretz story. There's a big difference.
The U.S. denies entry daily, to thousands of individuals, on a variety of grounds and sometimes for no reason at all. I know for a fact that the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv routinely turns down tourist visa requests from a variety of Israeli citizens, Jews as well as Arabs.
No one knows on what grounds Finkelstein was denied entry: he chose not to contest/appeal the decision, so the authorities are not obligated to disclose their reasons. Personally, I think it was a publicity stunt.
As to Finkelstein's "academic bona-fides", the man held faculty positions with five different academic institutions in the U.S. and was not granted tenure by any of them. Honestly, I think he ought to try his luck at colleges or universities that have the word "Islamic" as part of their name.
May 27, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the clarification on the deportation/entry denial and 10 year banning. As you say there is a difference, but my comments still remain. I do not see why a democratic country would ban the entry of a political critic. The US has done this with opponents of the Iraq war and occupation and other policies and I find it grossly insulting as a citizen and hypocritical of the self-proclaimed protectors of a free flow of ideas. I believe Israel saw fit to allow entry to the vile Meir Kahane with his fascistic and racist views; I find it contemptible that Israel is so frightened of a free exchange of ideas; apparently at all costs the conventional wisdom and acceptable discourse must be preserved at all costs. Sounds just like the political discourse and mindset that has led this country into its present disastrous policies.
However about the academic world you might not be knowledgeable. I am. You question Finkelstein's academic credentials. I do not know his work from a scholarly vantage point. I do know Princeton University well. In my area it is the top ranked department in the world. I am not certain what its ranking is in political science but earning a Ph.D there is certainly an achievement. But you go further. You say he held faculty positions at five universities and did not get tenure at any of them. Your Wikipedia link says more precisely: "He has held faculty positions at Brooklyn College, Rutgers University, Hunter College, New York University, and most recently, DePaul University, where he was an assistant professor from 2001 to 2007." Now that does not mean he was denied tenure at these five institutions. Possibly you did not realize that; otherwise your comment is grossly dishonest. As far as I can tell he had a tenure track position only at DePaul where, in what is pretty much unheard of since the McCarthy period, Alan Dershowitz marshaled enough right wing Jewish pressure on the DePaul administration to have Finkelstein denied tenure. Of course, DePaul undoubtedly paid through the nose to keep this case out of court. It is the same sort of pressure that right wing Jews mounted on the University of St. Thomas to prevent Desmond Tutu from speaking because Tutu decried some Israeli excesses. Your last sentence unfortunately seems to be a line taken from right-wing Jewish thought; if you cnanot argue a point at least you can throw an insult.
May 27, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
VLaszlo writes:
We don't know if Finkelstein's politics was the reason for denial of entry -- it's his claim, unconfirmed by Israeli authorities. He chose not to contest this decision, and so we may never know.
Kahane was not a tourist: he emigrated to Israel and gained citizenship through The Law of Return. Had Finkelstein pursued such an option and qualified under the law, I'm sure he too could have become an Israeli citizen. Btw, Kahane had to play be the rules: as soon as he crossed the line, his political activities were banned.
Actually, I am -- although admittedly not in Polit. Sci. A Ph.D. degree from a good school should have enabled Finkelstein to immediately pursue a tenure-track position. Even if we allow for a post-doc. and few openings in Polit. Sci., Finkelstein went through four (!) different schools before landing at DePaul. Charitably, that's uncommon.
As for him being denied tenure at DePaul, look: Finkelstein who is far from stupid knowingly chose a highly controvercial area of reaserch. IOW, he's a risk-taker, akin to a biologist specializing in intelligent design theory or a climate scientist working to disprove global warming.
While one may admire Finkelstein's courage, the nature of risk is that some bets are losers. As a smart guy, he certainly could have done some mainstream stuff to gain tenure; then he'd be free to branch out into the fringe.
Frankly, what I particularly dislike about Finkelstein is his whining! He makes the choices (deny certain aspects of the Holocaust or don't contest the Border Police at Tel Aviv airport), takes the risks, then blames others when things don't work out in his favor.
May 28, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is true it is uncommon, but I do think we should at least ascertain the facts before questioning his academic bona fides. You do not challenge his degree; he has published some five books several at least seem to have gone through some academic vetting. On the face, and focusing on just this aspect, you seem to be agreeing that he either DOES have academic bona fides or at least no one has brought a suitable challenge academically to debunk them.
I think your analogy about a biologist seeking to prove intelligent design is NOT valid (that might better be a discussion for another day), but I do like your analogy with a scientist working to debunk global warming theory. I do agree that such a path is involved with risk; that bucking the prevailing winds can hurt one's academic career; I think it would be outrageous if someone prominent scholar from a very prestigious institution in a different area of academic expertise intervened to get his work discounted and the scholar denied tenure. I think you would agree. Even if he whines (I actually do not know Finkelstein or his work that well. I was immensely bothered by Mr. Rosenberg's unfair and imperial "good reddance" in the original post), one can dislike Finkelstein and be shocked and offended by his treatment.
May 28, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not permitting Finklestein to visit Israel is a total laugh. Both of his parents were survivors of Auschwitz, they met in a DP camp, and migrated to the US, where Norman was born. One has to wonder about policy that allows a Hagee to visit Israel (and run the major tour industry for Christian Zionists to Israel), but does not allow the child of two survivors to visit.
What Norman Finklestein has done that so provokes is to build the intellectual argument against the "Holocaust Industry" with all the bells and whistles one would expect of a Scholar. He considers the post 1967 "industry" a blasphemy on the lived life experience of his parents, and a significant part of their generational circle, and his work is centered on this hypothesis (to use a social science term.) Apparently one of his closest intellectual mentors was Noam Chomsky. One doesn't need to agree with him to know a little of his work, and just see it for what it is, an alternative explanation, that has the potential to threaten certain conventional assumptions.
May 28, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink