TPMCafe
« How occupations end | Home | Bergdahl is doing the right thing: Analysts who second-guess the captured G.I. are a disgrace »

Obama Attacked As Holocaust Acknowledger

user-pic

Writing in Foreign Policy's brilliant new blog, Professor Noah Efron of Bar Ilan University, a member of the Tel Aviv City Council, writes that he is sick and tired of ultra-Orthodox Jews making life in Israel unbearable.

In the last few weeks alone a violent battle (replete with death threats) has been raging over a new (and much needed) parking lot that is open for business on the Sabbath. Another battle is being waged in Jerusalem over whether special bus lines should be established for women so that male ultras can be spared close proximity to female passengers.

Then there is the case of the yeshiva student who ran over a young female parking attendant for demanding he pay his parking fee. She suffered brain damage but he was spared prison on the grounds that he is a brilliant Torah scholar whose scholarly undertakings would be damaged if he were jailed.


But this takes the cake. Prof. Efron writes about the latest horror show, which has been page-one news for a week. It was discovered that an ultra-Orthodox woman had starved her three-year-old son down to 15 pounds and was denying the child medical care. Social workers and the police were called in and, following an investigation, the boy was picked up and hospitalized at Hadassah Hospital. The mother was jailed, pending trial.

Efron writes:

"And then all hell breaks loose. A rabbi declares the event a blood libel, comparing the police to Cossacks. Immediately, young men in black robes and fur hats take to the streets, setting bus stops and dumpsters ablaze, pelting police with stones, and decrying the doctors of Hadassah as latter-day Josef Mengeles. Someone sets aflame the government welfare and social services building in the ultra-Orthodox neighborhood of Me'ah Shearim; others enter the building, smashing computer screens as they go. In the first three days after the toddler is taken for treatment, dozens more are sent to the hospital with wounds from stones and broken glass, and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of city property are burned or smashed."

For the vast majority of Israelis, who are secular and choose to live in the twenty-first century, these ultras are the worst thing about living in Israel. The good news is that they are still a minority in the country, albeit a growing one.

Nonetheless, most of Israel's most pressing problems today come not from outside its borders but from within.

Unfortunately, the problem posed by the ultras is not limited to the domestic scene.

They are the reason the United States and Israel spent this past week engaged in a battle over a hotel in East Jerusalem that Irving Moskowitz, a casino millionaire from Miami Beach, wants to turn into an ultra-Orthodox settlement in the heart of a Palestinian neighborhood. President Barak Obama said "no" and asserted that the U.S. call for a settlement freeze applies to East Jerusalem just as it does to the West Bank.

But again the ultras (in this case, the ultra-religious plus the ultra-nationalists who value settlements over Israel itself) succeeded in forcing the government to fight for Moskowitz's right to build wherever he chooses.

So far, Netanyahu is doing their bidding and tensions with Washington are growing. The stakes are high. The United States is Israel's lifeline. Israel depends on U.S. aid (especially military aid) to maintain its edge over its enemies. In 1973, when Israel was on the verge of losing a war to the combined forces of Egypt and Syria, President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger ordered the largest arms airlift in history to save the Jewish state. American support is nothing to trifle with and Netanyahu knows it.

But Netanyahu is up against a huge constituency that believes that Israel does not need the United States. After all, with God on its side, why would Israel need America let alone President Obama (whose race adds to his problems with Israel's ultras)?

In the end, however, I expect Netanyahu will come to terms with the President of the United States. Netanyahu may be a loose cannon but he is no dummy. He knows exactly what is contained in the foreign aid bill and he knows that neither rabbis nor settlers can provide what America routinely does.

But right-wing Israelis are not alone in attacking the president.

Some American Jewish leaders are now going after Obama because of his statement in his Cairo speech, that Israel's legitimacy stems, in part, from the suffering Jews endured during the Holocaust. Obama said that "America's strong bond with Israel is unbreakable." It is based, in part, on the "recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied . . . an unprecedented Holocaust." The Holocaust proves, Obama has repeatedly said, why Jews must have a state of their own.

And right-wingers are fuming.

They are upset, or claim to be, because Obama cited the Holocaust but did not refer to the 4,000 year Jewish connection to Eretz Yisrael or the Bible.

It is rather amusing. Every foreign dignitary visiting Israel--including Barack Obama--is taken to the Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, as soon as he or she sets foot in Israel. It is always the first stop because it is the Israeli government's way of showing that the State of Israel is the living embodiment of the concept of "Never Again." These visitors are not taken to see the ancient Dead Sea scrolls or the Western Wall. No, Yad Vashem is the destination because, in Israeli eyes, it is the Holocaust that provides the prime justification for a Jewish state.

But now the right-wingers here are angry because Obama learned that lesson too well. Hypocrisy? No, they dislike Obama because of who he is and the Israeli-Palestinian peace he is trying to achieve. They will clutch at any straw to libel him. In this case, they are accusing Obama of being, get ready, a Holocaust acknowledger. It's laughable.

But it is also utterly predictable. For people hell-bent on preserving the deadly status quo, there are no limits. They will, quite simply, say anything. To his credit, this president is not listening to them. These people didn't support him in 2008 and they won't in 2012. Besides, the policies they Johnny-one-note about are invariably wrong--wrong for the United States and wrong for Israel.

Obama should hang tough.


32 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Then there is the case of the yeshiva student who ran over a young female parking attendant for demanding he pay his parking fee. She suffered brain damage but he was spared prison on the grounds that he is a brilliant Torah scholar whose scholarly undertakings would be damaged if he were jailed.

this guy is an asshole, defined as a person who can't tell the difference between his anus from a hole in the ground. he's a pretend religious student 'cause he ain't got no spirit. that others are recommending that he be spared punishment, shows how much out touch with reality they are too.

What is hateful to thyself do not do to another. That is the whole Law, the rest is Commentary. Hillel

user-pic

MJ: I'm sure you know that the ultra-orthodox people you're referring to (hasidim and neturei karta groups who reject Zionism), belong to completely different groups that have nothing in common with the Zionist-orthodox settlers and live within the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel.

Bringing up Israel's problems with the ultra-orthodox in this forum without explaining the distinction is very misleading, and has the potential to stir up anti-Semitic feelings that are already latent in some of the posters here. I'm really surprised at you.

user-pic

Rosenberg DOES make a distinction between fanatic Ultras within Israel and Ultras who are part of the fanatic settlers - you didn't read it closely enough and probably didn't want to.

You jumped to conclusions ostensibly to prove a point (that didn't even need making) but instead used the occasion to unleash your hair-splitting vitriol. Some "conscience" you are. The only "progressive" thing about you is the progress and escalation of your mental condition.

user-pic

I see no distinction. The ultras are all the same although some are more inclined to beat up fellow Jews while others prefer beating up Palestinians.

user-pic

Sadly, the word for this completely biased, undifferentiated lumping together of religious Jews, and bringing whatever sins a religious Jew committed as evidence for the allegation that their religiosity is a problem, is racism and bigotry.

Whether one or ten religious students are as*oles doesn't say anything about any religious community. The fact that the ultra orthodox community doesn't want to be subject to policing by the secular state is of course problem for the secular state, but not a proof of depravity, as such sentiment is quite widespread (and justified) among minorities.

MJ Rosenberg, like his "moderate" secular Jews in Israel he associates with, resorts to antisemitic and anti-Jewish language as a way of pinning the occupation on religion, and thus implicitly exonerating secular Israelis from responsibility.

Secular Israelis are not 'the majority' in Israel. They are one social sector, that can vary between 20% and 50% depending on the definition. People who identify as secular and vote based on this identity are no more than 25%.

The ultra-orthodox are not the settlers, although some ultra-orthodox do live in settlements, mostly for economic reasons as 50% of them are below the poverty line.

Secular Israelis are a privileged minority, earning 30% above the national average. They dominate the corporate economy, the professions, the universities, and the high ranks of the army. As a group it was the decisions of secular Israelis that made the occupation. Itzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ariel Sharon, Moshe Dayan, Igaal Alon, Menachem Begin, Rehavaam Zeevi, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, etc. all secular Israelis voted into power on secular Israeli platforms--these were the people who made the occupation what it is now, who nurtured the settlements, diverted huge funding for them, etc.

The bucket should stop at the top. Ultra orthodox Jews, a relatively poor sector with limited power, are not responsible for Israli apartheid. The people at the top of the social pecking order, the people who derive most of the economic benefit from the status quo, the people who actually made the status quo with their collective decisions, should bear the largest share of the blame.

Once one understands some basic social facts about Israel, it should be clear that blaming the occupation on the Ultra-Orthodox is the same kind of right-wing scapegoating politics as blaming the housing bubble on low income buyers.

It is testimony of the completely corrupting role of support for Israel on the so-called left in the U.S. left that such arguments are presented and accepted as anything other than right-wing bigotry.


user-pic

Do you also see no distinction between Chinese and Japanese people? The distinction is that they're different people, with no overlap.

The only thing the two groups you've invidiously conflated have in common is that you've labeled both of them "ultra", even though the ultra-Orthodox are well known to be anti-Zionist, and the settlers are ardent Zionists.

user-pic

I normally yield to no one in my disdain for the dishonest hackery that characterizes the average MJ post. But in this case, I'll make an exception. While it is true that the Haredim and the religious-nationalists are different groups, they are similar in that they are opposed to the vision of Israel as a liberal democracy.

To liberals like MJ, the "real" Israel is the Israel of Tel Aviv, Netanya and Haifa - the secular, tolerant, western-oriented multicultural melting pot. The "Jewish France" as it were. The religious, the nationalist, the conservative - these are interlopers. They keep Israel from realizing its true character. In that sense, there's no useful distinction between the Haredim and the settlers. Both groups are fanatics.

I have to say I'm somewhat sympathetic to this view. Few things make my blood boil more than the black-hatted fanatics imposing their medieval views on others. Similarly, the fanatic settlers would endanger the rest of Israel so they fulfill their God-given right to put a few trailers on a remote hilltop in the West Bank. They're both disgusting, as far as I am concerned (although I disagree that they are the prime cause of Israel's inability to achieve a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians.)

In general, I agree with Christopher Hitchens that religious figures are accorded entirely too much deference in public life and nowhere is that more apparent than in Israel. Religious people should have the right to do whatever nonsense they want to do in the privacy of their communities. And then leave the rest of us alone. It's the only way for a heterogenous society to survive.

user-pic

Brad: Your point is a reasonable one, in the same sense that in this country the abortion-clinic bombers and the leftist anarchists are birds of a feather.

But I think MJ's post was deeply misleading to his readers who may not know the sociology in Israel. Also, the differences are so numerous that to give them one name is silly. Leaving aside their political views, we would not refer to the settlers as "ultra-orthodox" but rather as "modern orthodox".

I'm starting to get used to the fact that MJ is a controversialist who uses words as a rhetorical weapon, as opposed to as a tool to get at the truth. I doubt I should try to change him on this point since he appears to be set in his ways, and anyway I am spending too much of my time trying to do so. This happens whenever I get writer's block, which keeps me from my real pursuits.

user-pic
I'm starting to get used to the fact that MJ is a controversialist who uses words as a rhetorical weapon, as opposed to as a tool to get at the truth. I doubt I should try to change him on this point since he appears to be set in his ways, and anyway I am spending too much of my time trying to do so.

Great description of a fate many have fallen to on this website; they should consider putting it as a warning label on Rosenberg's posts. Here's the thing you left out: not only do you waste your time, it might also eventually get you labeled hee as something you're not--as often as not he'll attempt to use anyone attempting nuance by giving them a label in a reply to a comment, using an ad hominen, thereby making them a tool of the rhetorical game. Then his fan base starts calling the nuancer that and new readers, not having read the commentary of that person, think the nuancer is that label. And should that not work, the whole thing should fall apart disastrously, the nuancers manage to make his game apparent, and that is hurtful to his rep, he might delete the whole post.

You used a nicer word than commenter bslev--"controversialist"--I recall that more than once he used the description "shit stirrer" instead. :-)

The sad irony is that shit stirring, or whatever you want to call it, is one of the major obstacles to peace in the Mideast. It seens to be what a lot of leaders there do if the spectre of peace starts to threaten them.

I'd also like to add that it's really a shame that Rosenberg tied the two groups together in this post, as he really had some interesting things to say about problems with the ultra Orthodox in Israeli society. As a New Yorker where the mantra is "people, try to all get along," and as someone who also hopes that a place like Afghanistan can somehow succeed with their version of "ultra-orthdox" living alongside seculars, the topic very much interests me.

user-pic

I just read Ephron's article, which is strikingly sympathetic to Israel's ultra-orthodox, highlighting their poverty and referring to them as an "underclass", at the same time as it notes their extreme dysfunction. Your striking bias is not shared by Ephron.

Ephron notes that the mother who starved her child was mentally ill; why did you remove this fact? Ephron notes that these ultra-orthodox are anti-Zionists and does not conflate them with the settlers. Why do you?

By projecting your ugly biases on Ephron, you do a great disservice to Ephron, to your readers, and to the truth.

user-pic

Thanks! From you, that's a compliment.

user-pic

As your Conscience, I'm planning to send your writeup to Ephron. I don't think he will like the ugly, slanted way in which you used his piece and foisted your own jaundiced views on him.

It's not just me, either. Rusty Pipes (below) makes a similar point in different words about your lack of balance compared with the article you were supposedly citing.

user-pic

Thanks!

user-pic

To be fair, Efron writes about the deterioration of quality of life and relations between secular and ultra-religious Jews in Israel. He writes that secular Jews are "sick and tired of ultra-Orthodox Jews making life in Israel unbearable." Ultra-Orthodox Jews appear to have a similar opinion of Secular Jews. While Efron himself appears to be a Secular academic, he critiques both sides of this divide among Israeli Jews (no mention of how he sees non-Jewish Israelis fitting into this struggle to define Israeli identity though).

user-pic

Keep commenting, PC. My numbers suck on this one.

user-pic

Maybe I scared them all away . . . I don't mind helping you out.

They compensate you based on number of comments?

user-pic

Does that mean I've been unwittingly supporting the Mondoweiss crew?

user-pic

LOL.

You can always compensate by going to support the numbskull duo doing their Noblesse Oblige thing among the Noble Savages at "the sad (oh so very very saaaaad) red earth".

Nothing like showing up in a $200,000 motorcoach in order to get down with the locals on the rez in order to document their pitiful existance in this White Man's Burden Amerika.

user-pic

RE: "They are upset, or claim to be, because Obama cited the Holocaust but did not refer to the 4,000 year Jewish connection to Eretz Yisrael or the Bible."

MY COMMENT: This is being done because Israel within the ‘Green Line’ is generally seen as fulfilling the Holocaust justification but does not justify Israel’s keeping the West Bank. Consequently, they are now adopting the “rational” used by the nuttiest of the West Bank settlers.

Of course, if the "Biblical rational" justifies Israel's keeping the West Bank, then it would also seem to justify Israel's taking control of (depending on Biblical interpretations) southern Lebanon, much of Syria, Jordan, half of Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, The Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, other parts of Egypt, and God* only knows what else.

* or more likely, the "Reverend" John Hagee

user-pic

"Biblical rational" = Biblical rationale

PS. And since Judaism is thought to have originated in Persia, perhaps Israel should claim Iran!

user-pic

The amount of rubbish this smiling face is putting on a permanent basis on the web is simply astonishing. After reading a few of Rosenberg's entries one can safely postulate that he is out of reality. In my profession we call it "delusional personality disorder".
Contrary to Rosenberg's opinions on Netanyahu and Israelis as a major obstacle for peace one can come with a different assumption, for instance:
only when the majority of Arabs and Muslims worldwide will be able to find national pride not in the killing of Jews and Christians, not in humiliating of their own women on a daily basis, not in practicing slavery (and one can go on), but in the pursuit of peace; only when that day comes can we expect that we are moving toward the end of the conflict.
This day, however, will never come until the Arabs and the rest of the Muslim world will experience a total humiliation, that is to say a military defeat beyond their wild imagination. Something of a sort that happened to Germany more than 60 years ago. Your Obama, Mr. Rosenberg is not helping but rather presents another obstacle for a long standing peace around the world.

user-pic

What, you mean like the massive islamic empire having it's butt roundly spanked in WWI, leading to the British takeover of the Ottoman lands in western Asia?

Damn, shame nothing like that's happened...

The problem is one of infrastructure and decentralization. Until very recently (and in some cases, even today) most of the populace was very isolated from news of the outside world and news even of their rulers' actions. Germany's defeat 60 years ago had the impact it did because there was no significant population that weren't directly involved, and made more aware by radio and newspaper reports.

To have a similar effect in the decentralized populations of the Middle-East, you would quite literally need to put three quarters of the people in the region to the sword. Effective or not, that level of slaughter is immoral. It's mass murder with the intention of intimidating the survivors. It is, in fact, terrorism - advancing an agenda through violence and the fear of violence.

user-pic

Stated like a true racist!

user-pic

i'm listening to brent scowcroft on charlie rose. general scowcroft says that unless there is a solution to the IP conflict, isreal will be left with the choices of either giving up democracy, giving up being a jewish state, or resorting to ethnic cleansing.

user-pic

general scowcroft says that unless there is a solution to the IP conflict, isreal will be left with the choices of either giving up democracy, giving up being a jewish state, or resorting to ethnic cleansing.

The General, like the usual elite commentator, is in fact whitewashing Israel.

Israel has nothing to 'give up'. It has never been a "Jewish state," whatever that means, only a state in which Jews enjoy unearned privileges. It has never been a democracy except in the sense that South Africa under apartheid was a democracy. And it has been engaged in some kind of ethnic cleansing or other for every single year of the last 60 years.

So the General says that if nothing changes nothing will change.

That is enlightening.

user-pic

Maybe.

But would you say the US was a democracy from, say, 1776 to around 1965?

Maybe not. But most people would, however, imperfect it was.

user-pic

True about the faux Israeli democracy.

and to Tintin I'd say no, the U.S. was not a democracy until 1965 and actually still has a way to go.

user-pic

I can't really agree with your assessment.

Perhaps in an ideal world, yes, or when measured against the ideals of democracy...but in the real world where countries and people have to live...the US was indeed considered a democracy.

An imperfect one...

user-pic

Measured against the idea of democracy, no state has ever been a democracy. However, that does not mean that all failures are equally distant.

Comparison between Israel and a regime that perished a century before it was established are not pertinent. After WW-I, a certain standard package that defines a liberal democracy has been established, including universal franchise, formal equality before the law and constitutionalism. This is a very minimal standard and Israel has never met it.

user-pic

I assume you're referring to the US here. I'm not sure what you mean by "perished a century before it was established."

After WWI, the blacks in this country hardly had the franchise. Moreover, Jim Crow was baked into the laws of the south.

In Israel, Arabs do vote, do form parties, do get elected to the Knesset. Just after WWI, there were no black members of Congress that I'm aware of and most blacks didn't vote.

In fact, it was interesting to hear about all the older black voters who voted in this past presidential election for the first time in their lives--a function, I'm sure, of the old laws and just not seeing much point in the exercise.

user-pic

In Israel, some Arabs do vote. It is convenient to refer to Palestinians in the occupied territories as "not in Israel" and therefore not disenfranchised. That is the Israeli line, and perhaps in 1968 it could fly. But with the occupation passing its midlife crisis, this is a legal legerdemain, like declaring people "unlawful combatants" in order to avoid having to apply the Geneva Convention to them. Palestinian under occupation live their whole life disenfranchised, side by side with fully enfranchised Jewish communities on land that is fully under the control of civilian Israeli authorities and military might. You can call the situation anything you like, but it still remains what it is, millions of people with no civil rights living under arbitrary tyrannical rule.

Once we move away from an all or nothing attainment of the idea. Numbers matter too. Under Jim Crow a few percents of the U.S. population were disenfranchised. In Israel there are as many non-citizens as there are citizens.

Furthermore, democracy is not just a matter of practice but also a matter of conceptualization. The Civil Rights movement, as King said, was able to come to Washington to "cash a check." They could do that because that check has been written in the U.S. constitution and its amendments. Universal franchise was promised and yet denied, equality before the law was promised yet denied (still is denied) in practice.

No such promise of equal rights exists in Israel. The state conceives itself legally as a state for the benefit of Jews, with courts of law and enlightened public opinion willing to "tolerate" a small percentage of non-Jewish citizens. Israel's level of democracy is more like the U.S. before the passing of the 14th amendment than like the U.S. under Jim Crow. And that U.S. perished long before Israel came to be.

user-pic

Way to go MJ! Keep stirring them up, it is good for them.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Book Club Calendar

Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address