The Law Of Return: 'Oh Learned Judge!"
Undaunted in his campaign to ferret out "anti-Zionists," yet apparently wondering if his own powers may be faltering, Jeffrey Goldberg has called in his Balthazar, "the erudite Yaacov Lozowick," to deal with a hard case:
"My impression of The Hebrew Republic thesis is that [Avishai is] talking about medinat kol exrachai'ah, the country of its citizens. This idea was formulated and mostly promoted by folks who were not only non-Zionist, they were anti-Zionist; it was a ploy to weaken the Jewish aspect of Israel until eventually the Jewish state would be submerged into its Arab environment. Yet Avishai isn't Azmi Bishara. I get the impression he's a caring Jew who is attracted to the medinat kol exrachai'ah idea because it fits so nicely into his broader Weltanschauung, the one that praises the European Union as the way of the future, the goal of human history and so on. On that level, he's non-Zionist because he's joining forces with a particular group of enemies of Zionism, even though he and they are using the same concepts for very different goals."
There is more to his letter. You cannot really understand the surreal quality of intellectual life in Israel today--the rhetoric you hear from talk shows to academic conferences--unless you take a moment to digest it whole. Yet beyond the glib "impressions" of books unread, the illogic ("non" = "anti"), the cozy appeal to dogma ("the Zionist way"), the guilt by association, the condescending tone, the last-minute finessing of obvious contradictions (viz., "the Zionist way" that takes Israeli Arabs as a "constituency and responsibility"), even the yanking-in of hackneyed German to sound, well, "erudite"--beyond all of this transparent demagogy--is a common claim that requires a moment's thought.
It is that people who argue Israel should be a state of its citizens cannot believe Israel should be a "Jewish state." Presumably, "state of its citizens," medinat kol exrachai'ah (actually, this should be ezrakheha), is an idea that originated with "enemies of Zionism" such as Azmi Bishara.
And here I thought the principle that a democratic state's legitimacy derives from the just consent of the governed was older than that. I also thought it was the counterpart to an argument about human nature and human limitations, you know, a moral argument reasonable people since Kant have had some trouble refuting. Wow, it is actually only a Weltanschauung our kids and other "poor, deluded dears" pick up along with a Eurail pass.
Had Lozowick actually read The Hebrew Republic, rather than merely forming an impression of its thesis, he would know that its point was to clarify just how a democratic state could retain a Jewish national character; how to protect its cultural distinction without violating ordinary standards of human rights. I am no Emile Zola, God knows. But imagine someone saying that Zola's case for equal treatment for Jews in the Republic was discredited by the fact that Jews had demanded it before him; that the case "originated" with enemies of the French nation. (Come to think of it, it is not so hard to imagine such people, is it?)
By the way, I interviewed Azmi Bishara at length in the book, and though I took issue with him on many points, Bishara shared with me his abiding respect for the work of Achad Haam, Zionism's most influential early writer, who was trying to explain how the "Hebrew national atmosphere" created by Zionism was the only way, really, to create a state of its citizens that was also a Jewish state. The replacement of the Law of Return with an immigration law that gives preference to refugees from anti-Semitism, but conditions citizenship on naturalization to Israeli identity, not J-positive blood, is just one reform that is overdue.
A FINAL WORD to Goldberg. Look, Jeffrey, people we know in common tell me you are "good company," and given your delight in identifying yourself as a teenage acolyte of Shomer Hatzair, I suspect that, had we met under different circumstances, and though you are closer to my son's age than mine, we would probably have become what writers call "friends." Hell, we might have traded nostalgic, knowing glosses on why Borochov's slavish borrowing from Plekhanov actually caused him to misunderstand how Jewish workers in the Pale would suffer from the rise in the "organic composition" of capital--or was it just that the Shomer Hatazir shaliach in your hometown served better pizza than USY?
In any case, I am humbly asking that you stop. The claims you continue to make about me--that is, "anti-Zionists" like me--are too silly to be worth anyone's time, but the reach of the Atlantic website is too important to ignore. If I do not respond, it may seem that your take-away is true, or plausible, or at least worth repeating.
Nor is this 1909, when calling someone anti-Zionist meant you were merely a part of a fascinating debate on how Jews survive "modernity." It is 2009, and calling someone anti-Zionist tends to type him as opposed to the very existence of Israel or a Jewish national home of any kind. Given the constellation that runs from Hamas to the Oxford Debating Union, the epithet can do a person harm.
And I write from the gate at JFK, returning (legally, but warily) to Jerusalem, embattled enough by the fear that Sidra's and my home will soon be swept up in a kind of Balkan tragedy, with bloody-minded fanatics on both sides demanding allegiance, and "experts" like Lozowick only too eager to choose sides. My deeds upon my head! I crave the law, if not that law. I have enough on my mind.
Bernard: these posts sound like family squabbles over Thanksgiving dinner about the identity of the favorite child.
Maybe there is simpler point here. Israel wants to be a 21st Century Nation and yet it wants to preserve its 19th Century mentality of Manifest Destiny.
Cognitive dissonence?
October 30, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, there is a more important point here that is not simply personal. It is that democratic countries can have national characters in certain legal ways and not in others. There is nothing 19th. century about wanting to preserve one's language and the culture it subtends. The question is how, which our Zionist watch-dogs cannot really grasp. This debate is long overdue, and not only for Jews.
October 30, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would be a good discussion to have. I'd posit that you defend a language and a culture by winning out in the market place of ideas, not by using legal means.
I'm really not sure that a true democracy can have a religious character. It's offensive to say "The U.S. is a Christian nation," I think. But then, why isn't it offensive to say that "Israel is a Jewish nation?" Is there an exceptionalism here? Or something deeper. Shouldn't Israel just want to be the best democracy it can be and let the chips fall where they may? After all, a solid democracy will protect people of Jewish faith and heritage along with everyone else.
October 30, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: This debate is long overdue, and not only for Jews. - Avishai
MY COMMENT: I agree. I think it has a rather broad application.
October 31, 2009 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the second time in as many days, I find myself agreeing with mythbuster. Perhaps peace is really possible after all?
This utterly avoidable dust-up seems of importance primarily to those involved. To summarize:
(1) Goldberg was wrong to lump Avishai in with the anti-Zionists (i.e., Weiss, Horowitz, Blumenthal, perhaps TPM's own MJ Rosenberg, and others) who, in the view of many, represent a threat to the influence and appeal of the incipient J-Street organization.
(2) Avishai was wrong to state that his presence was keeping Goldberg from the J-Street conference.
(3) Avishai, Goldberg and Lozowick, Zionists all, differ on the continued importance of the "right of return" as a defining characteristic of the State of Israel. (By the way, in addition to Lozowick, Goldberg also quotes eminence grise Leonard Fine, who appears to side with Avishai that the right of return may be outmoded - http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/should_there_be_a_time_limit_o.php.
(4) Goldberg, Lozowick and Avishai would probably get along swimmingly and should really discuss this interesting issue further over coffee, outside the glare of the blogosphere, where they will probably discover they agree about more than they let on here.
Now that this is out of the way, can we move on to more serious matters? The J-Street conference has concluded and there is a significant debate about whether the organization will reflect the fairly centric, pro-Israel, two-state, anti-settlement views of its founder (as expressed, for example, in his interview with Goldberg) or the more strident anti-Israel positions of some of its supporters. There are intersting pieces on this by Jonathan Chait, Matthew Yglesias and even the (in my view execrable) Philip Weiss, and a compelling essay in Haaretz by Rabbi Eric Yoffie explaining the poisonous effect of the settlements on Israel's relations with the broader world and American jewry in particular. (I would provide links, but have had comments rejected in the past for exceeding the as-yet-unspecified number).
October 30, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since we are on the topic (though, as stated above, to my inconsequential chagrin), the Armchair Guerrilla's officially approved views on the right of return fall somewhere in-between those of the protagonists (antagonists?) here. That is, the right of return, while obviously central to the founding principles of Zionism and critical in building the State of Israel, may have outlived its usefulness to some degree and could indeed be modified along the lines Avishai proposes to bring Israel more in line with current conceptions of nationhood, etc. (Although, I am constrained to point out that on the anachronism scale, the right of return pales in comparison to the positively medieval citizenship and immigration restrictions that prevail throughout the Arab world; see, e.g. Saudi Arabia). On the other hand, the chance of reforming the right of return at this moment in time is nil and enjoys virtually no support among Israeli Jews, many of whom literally owe their lives to it, and for whom this is an increibly emotional issue (hence the misguided characterization of Avishai as anti- or non- Zionist). Other than conversations like this, it's a non-issue.
October 30, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Native American/Chicano from here in the Southwest of the USA, I have found the pros and cons of this Argumentation on I-P, both enjoyable and knowledgable. And yet, I am dissatified with the intensity that is the American portion that reflects on Israel.
And to date, I have yet to conclude what is the "correct" and what is the "wrong" from the standpoint of morality. Thus, I remain where I started and that's with the Question of "How do I honor myself?" as I contemplate the many issues of this human endeavor.
Consequently, I am moving, albeit slowly, to the question of the "geographical boundaries" from its inception in 1949 and to this date. Perhaps, forcing this "boundary" that is yet to be cast in concrete, will bring forth a more solid perspective of what America's Jewish political activists hope to achieve in the future?
So, I will continue to "listen" as well a read the posts that are focused on the future, and not the past.
Jaango
October 30, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't live in Israel, I don't speak Hebrew, and even if I did I wouldn't participate in the "intellectual" life you speak of. I'm not insulting you here by using those quotes, I'm accepting your view of that life.
But it seems to me that what Lozowick is saying is quite simple; You're an honorable man and a caring Jew but your goals and visions are those of the European enlightenment - internationalist, tolerant, non-tribal - and therefore not Zionist. Nothing to criticize there. But your Arab allies are playing you for a fool - they'll support you until they gain control of your Hebrew Republic and then treat its Jewish citizens the way they always have - as dirt.
If I've understood Lozowick correctly I'd like to hear your response. In simple English, if possible. :)
October 30, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But your Arab allies are playing you for a fool - they'll support you until they gain control of your Hebrew Republic and then treat its Jewish citizens the way they always have - as dirt."
A hundred years from now, "latinos" will eventually achieve the majority here in the USA, and imputing from your statement from above, I find this to be specious at best.
However, let me cite an example that is far more current, and in which the Arizona will soon become a "majority-minority" and yet, the Constitution will not be rendered asunder, should this occur. And history supports my thesis.
Now, if Israel were to become a "majority-minority" of Palestinians born and raised in Israel, you are de-legimatizing these Palestinians, or so I believe.
Jaango
October 30, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering when I'd hear from you...and in plain English. I'm honored.
History doesn't support you. It's ambivalent. There are situations where people have given up aspects of their tribal identity in favor of a greater nationalism...and situations where they haven't. The 20th century is replete with examples of the latter. So is the 21st. The claim of American "exceptionalism" is based on its being an example of the former.
More generally, the enlightenment and other forms of internationalism have foundered on the tenacity of tribalism. Cultures are different and often incompatible, and people cling to them.
It's a bad idea to try to force people who hate each other to live under the same roof. On a personal level that's why we have divorce; its better to separate the parties and go through the agony of partitioning the property and the kids then to keep them together - united forever - but dead.
October 30, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spider,
Permit me to dispense with any strawman argument and thusly, remove the 'hitch' from the giddyup.
Have you seen a recent public opinion from the Palestinian perspective that measures the perceived antipathy that Palestinian have toward Israelis? Of course, I am speaking of Palestinians that have lived in Israel for many years.
Further, have you seen an recent public opinion poll that speaks to affection that Palestinians would have, should Palestinians ever enjoy full citizenship?
In both instances, and particularly the first, I have yet to encounter such a public opinion poll. As to the second instance, our State Department should be hiring a reputable public opinion polling outfit in order to measure this second instance or for the affection that Palestinians would have for Israelis, given that full equality exists for each.
And in doing this polling, I think that if done correctly, many minds would be changing quickly, should the results I suspect prove true, and thusly, our national foreign policy would take a turn for becoming more constructive in the short term as well as for the long term.
Jaango
Jaango
October 30, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What strawman argument are you talking about?
Have you seen a recent public opinion from the Palestinian perspective that measures the perceived antipathy that Palestinians have toward Israelis?
No. But both Ha'aretz and the Jerusalem Post regularly feature articles about that antipathy.
have you seen a recent public opinion poll that speaks to affection that Palestinians would have, should Palestinians ever enjoy full citizenship?
No.
Your wishes and surmises aren't reality. But if Jews and Arabs were able to live harmoniously in Israel they would be the first to know it and act on it...unless you believe that evil Jews control the state and prevent them from doing so. Is that what you believe?
October 30, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spider,
Thank you for your response as well as for making my two points for me.
Have you ever asked yourself why these two newspaper have never done this public opinion polling? Perhaps like me, they too know what the results would be in advance.
As an aside, I suppose, since no one has to date, that I will have to advocate for a "new" School of Thought for America's foreign policy initiative and which I will call, "The Sex Is Great!" School. To wit, the USA will utilize its foreign aid in a more creative or innovate manner. As such, America suspends its military aid, and begins to emphasize it predominant attention onto the married couples in which one parent is Palestinian and the other is Jewish or non-Religious. Thus, their children could attend a primary and secondary schools and a college or university where these children come to understand that full equality of citizenship is of primal importance, and thus, a newer version of Democracy is crafted for the long term.
Therefore, America's "nation building" efforts in Israel is spent on our delivering our taxpayer dollars to a new generation of Israelis in which these oft neglected and easily dismissed citizens receive all the benefits that accrues from have a full citizenship.
And of course, I will have to sell this to the Hispanic, Black, and Asian/Pacific Congressional Caucuses and followed by the Progressive Caucus. And done in this manner, will cause the Bald-Headed White Guys of Legacy and Identity Politics, to be subsumed into my overall Schema For Progress.
Consequently and through this political engagement, I can improve my mental health while poking fun at the late American Philosopher in the name of Eric Hoffer, and for his having said, "It almost seems that nobody can hate America as much as Native Americans. America needs new immigrants to love and cherish it."
:-)
Jaango
October 31, 2009 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
What strawman argument are you talking about?
Why do you focus on the purported defects of the Jewish state of 5 million when the surrounding Arab states of 100 million are, by the same standards, far, far more defective?
When posting to threads dealing with the supposed illegitmate powers of AIPAC you have more than once said that when Spanish-speaking voters obtain majority powers in the United States they'll put Jews in their place. What place would that be?
Do you, like most progressives, believe that American democratic capitalism is a sham, a front which disguises a plutocracy run by and for the benefit of bald-headed white guys, a large percentage of whom are Jews? It seems you do. Do you hate those bald-headed white guys, a large percentage of whom are Jews? It seems you do.
October 31, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't your "The Sex Is Great!" School just a euphemism for the old "Lets Fuck White Women" School?
October 31, 2009 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spider,
I see that I have touched one of your sore spots. And chuckles to follow.
Nah, you got it 'wrong'. If America is going to support--politically and financially--the least I can expect from my government is that we "demand" from Israel, to enter the 21st Century. And by way of analogy, Afghanistan is 40 to 50 years behind Pakistan, and thusly, I would not want to see Israel fall this far behind the USA, but Israel is moving in that direction.
Unfortunately, you "project" your angst and anger onto me, and that I can understand, but when I read your continuous commentaries on the various I-P threads, I see nothing of particular importance other than the usual 'critique. Perhaps, one day you will come to realize that Congress will get around to passing legislation that will prohibit the major political parties from accepting memberships from the bigots and the racists. And when this does occur, the Democratic and Republican Parties will insert the word progressive, as in the Republican Progressive Party. Perhaps, this too should occur in Israel, as well? Regardless, "regressive" is for Dummies, but then, I consider myself an Optimist when it comes to political engagement in a manner that is consistent with resolving our mutually shared problems.
As to the bald-headed whites guys, they are what they are. Consider, Dobbs, Limpbutt, and Beck. As to the sex, there are far more white guys than there are of me, and yes, the sex is great too. And that's a fact. And as to my focus on Israel in contrast to the Palestinians outside of Israel, that's comes from the easy answer, we are supporting Israel including the intangible and which is kept out of sight, and yet, Israel has the primary responsibility for changing the existing dynamic and they haven't and too is by choice. And of course, you impute to me that the minority-minority will put "Jews in their place." That's pure drivel and you know it since I can't speak for the behavior of future generations. And I were to listen to all the voices of Religion, the Human Endeavor will no longer exist after 2012.
One of the sad facts that intermarriage cannot and will not change, is that the Oldster of yon generation, will not change, and that is usually by choice. As such, I focus my attention onto the younger generation since that is where the resolution to our dilemmas will be found.
Writ large, in the short term, America's "racial and ethnics" will become actively engaged in seeking a resolution to the I-P, and the status quo here in the USA will resist this change.
Jaango
October 31, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
What sore spot is that?
You got it wrong in every way,Jaango. Israel is far less supported by us than you think. It wouldn't collapse if we withdrew that support. That's not true of Egypt or Jordan; without our support they'd collapse immediately. So would Pakistan. Afghanistan has already collapsed. It hasn't been a country in quite awhile. Nor do we support these places in order to make it easier for Israel.
But that's not the question I asked you. If you're so concerned with "social justice" why don't you insist that Muslim societies, Arab societies display some? If you think that Jews should treat Arabs as equals instead of enemies why don't you insist that Arabs do the same? 100,000,000 Arabs kicked 1,000,000 Jews out of their countries and stole their properties. Why don't you insist that that be reversed...and all the dhimmi laws overturned? Why don't you begin with Saudi Arabia? Faced with examples like that don't you think Israel would immediately follow?
I didn't impute anything to you, although I might have misunderstood what you said since you're almost never clear and straightforward. So tell me again. What did you mean when you posted on those AIPAC threads?
Prohibit bigots and racists from joining the major parties? But bigotry and racism are all too often in the eye of the beholder. I see you as a terrible bigot and a furious racist, hiding behind the banner of "social justice", false comraderie, and almost impenetrable, convoluted commentary. That why I've asked you those questions.
If you can't speak for the behavior of future generations then don't tell me how Spanish-speakers will behave when they attain majority status. We all try to influence future generations. We all try to solve human problems. That's what education is all about. But history tells us that they'll be just as divided as we are on how they view those problems, on what constitutes a "proper" solution.
If all that you get out of my posts is "nothing of importance" I can tell you that I find even less substance in yours...and that is sad. Because it insures that these murderous divisions will surely continue.
October 31, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spider,
So, you see me as a terrible bigot and a furious racist. That's hilarious. Now, I don't know if you're from here in the USA or not? And yet, it really doesn't matter much.
However, I do see myself as Indigenous to this Hemisphere. And it's from this Construct that I approach my political engagement. Thus, historically, America's Jewish Community has stood should-to-shoulder with us in defending the Constitution. And if you'll notice, we, in the progressive community, have no fear of criticizing either the Democrats or the Republicans. And there are many here in the Sonoran Desert, and I am one of them, that advocate that 50% of the "racial and ethnics" should become members of the Republican Party. In so doing, the Republican Party will become "progressive", otherwise their eventual demise as a political force will occur. Perhaps, the Right should reorganize itself as a Conservative Party?
Obviously, our history of our interaction with America's Jewish Community, commenced, here in the Sonoran Desert,for all intent and purpose, when the Great European Migration reached our particular geographical location. In a paralell basis, European Jews had fled the Spaniards. Subsequently, if you have any familiarity with the history of New Mexico and Santa Fe and its environs, it was the Indigenous population that welcomed these immigrants and hid them quite well from the Spanish sword. And during this time frame, the Jews had ample opportunity to practice their language, culture and religion. And this relationship has been ongoing for over these 500 years when measured against our overall span of history for these past 50,000 years. In our arrogance or hubris, we are the Gente Fina.
And as such, you are indeed a Johnny-Come-Lately, and you have the "expertise" to counsel me?
As to bigotry and racism being in the eye of the beholder? You're kidding me, right? I experience it every day, especially should I get in my vehicle and travel the public thoroughfares. Have you ever been stopped for racial profiling here in the good old USA? I have. Here in Arizona, this behavior for racism and bigotry is institutionalized, given that the State Legislature provides the local County Sheriff with the financial wherewithal to do exactly this same, and of which I speak.
And yes, you do impute! In my lack of voice for denigrating the Palestinians, you see in my behavior, my support for the Palestinians in general. More to the point, when I do criticize the Palestinians, it will come in the form of our national public policies, as I have with any critique of Israel. Obviously, that's your confusion, when reading my posts. Thus, your preconceived mindset interferes and done in order to achieve some sort of intellectual victory.
And when looking at 'social justice' you won't find an Indigenous Person advocating a devolving citizenship onto any of our fellow citizens, despite your thinking and notwithstanding your 'wrong-headedness. Take, for example, here in Arizona, there are 22 tribal entities. Perhaps, one day you will come out for a visit and see first-hand, and make your assessment and done on a first hand basis, of our existing relationship for self-governance for achieving our 'consensus' in both the spiritual and mortal realms.
And my one last thought is that bigotry and racism, is a Euro-Centric behavior in response to the "sharp elbows of competition". And as an added asise, your imputations, suggest to me that you are a Republican practicing this traditional behavior, and therefore, I must offer the requisite defense. Not so, of course, but your being misguidedness would not be a surprise for me.
Jaango
October 31, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mercifully, I've been spared the humiliation of state bigotry but I've had plenty of experience with the unofficial variety common in Chicano communities all over the Southwest. Some of them - Aztlan - do indeed advocate "devolving citizenship" and are overtly anti-semitic and anti-Israel.
But perhaps you don't consider Chicanos as Indigenous. I have far, far less experience with amerindian communities, not enough to make a first hand judgment about them. But I find it impossible to believe that they've escaped the evils of tribalism. I know they haven't. I saw some of it in Guatemala and Chiapas in 1974. I don't know about the Santa Fe area. I have friends who live there - very successful lawyers and judges - but I never thought to ask them about local bigotry or anti-semitism. A friend of mine who made a movie out there did speak of strong anti-white feelings, though.
Which brings me back to the Israel-Palestinian dispute. What about demanding social justice from the Arabs? You say you'll demand it in the future. Why not now?
October 31, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spider,
Earlier this morning, I wrote a follow-up response and when I hit the submit button, I got the "previewing your comment". Thus, I don't expect the post to make it to the board. And Artappraiser, in the past few days, informed me that the software picks up certain words and thusly, a post will not make to to the board.
Anyhoo, just so you know, I made mention that you are nice guy despite our disagreements, and therefore, should you ever show up in my neck of the woods, I would offer to buy the first cold beer. And if not a cold one, my offer still stands, and the mezcal is also available.
Just a Passing Thought.
Jaango
November 1, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, that quote is from what I believe Lozowick to have said. Although I agree with him, its important to keep that in mind.
October 30, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
when i read the response from goldberg i could not help but smell a nauseating stench of an holier-than-thou superiority. is he aware that is the way he comes across?
bernard i bet you stimulate goldberg's activity in the dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex of his brain just like hillary clinton does as he has lots of conflicts in his mind about hillary Re-Thinking Jeffrey Goldberg
October 30, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You're an honorable man and a caring Jew but your goals and visions are those of the European enlightenment - internationalist, tolerant, non-tribal - and therefore not Zionist. Nothing to criticize there. But your Arab allies are playing you for a fool..."
There is nothing honorable or caring about "European enlightenment". A Mation is a creature of Faith and Feeling, not Reason. If you base your nation on reason and culture, you want to make it pleasant, attractive, inclusive. A culture with universal value is like a salad with a choice of a dressing. Israeli or Blue Cheese?
Shared sacrifice, vigilance and hatred and much stronger bonds. But they are not pleasant, and they cause scoffing among enlightened friends in Europe. A good caring Jew would never be afraid to sound like a fascist.
October 30, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jaango,
The software is buggy and unpredictable. If at first you don't succeed try again, making changes as you think warranted. For example, this morning I had to supply a new password. I have no idea why...but I went through the drill, supplying the old password as the new one, and here I am.
I must admit that I owe you an apology. I missed some of your commentary...so that I believed you were an East L.A. chicano, drinking away his anger in Northern Mexico. Had I been more careful, and realized you were a native American living in Arizona/New Mexico, I would approached you in a much different way, since I've had little experience with your community.
I doubt I'll make it out to your neck of the woods. My traveling days are over...but thanks for the invite.
November 1, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a multi-ethnic citizen of a multi-ethnic country I find this all bizarre. And on a "liberal" site. Spider, Mexicans are Native Americans. The white spaniards are a minority, especially among the poor. Those round little brown people have been around for a long time.
And the post itself as a defense of racist dogma as something other than what it is...
The human mind is a weak instrument.
November 1, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are really confused.
Whatever the origins of chicanos they are not a homogenous group. East L.A. chicanos are far different than those from rural areas, who, in turn, are different from Hopis and Navahos of the Southwest, and all differ from the Quiche and Kakchikel speakers of Guatemala.
Take your ignorant self-righteousness and shove it.
November 1, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or are you so dumb as to believe there's no difference in behavior - or ethnicity - between a southern redneck and a New York Jew?
November 1, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chicano is a term going back to earlier in the 20th century for Americans [US] of Mexican descent.
November 1, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mexican society is generally considered to be composed of 3 classes; Europeans mainly but not exclusively of Spanish descent, native Americans of various tribes, and mestizos - mixtures of the other two. Most chicanos are mestizos from various parts of Mexico, some have only recently come here, others have been here a long time - long enough to have interbred both physically and culturally. You would hardly expect such people to be homogeneous in either appearance or behavior - unless you were a shit-stained, politically correct liberal.
November 1, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chicano culture is the culture of Americans of Mexican descent, from the last century, not Mexican immigrants. Chicanos are the Nuyoricans of California.
I hear complaints in my neighborhood about Chicano's moving in, The people complaining are immigrants from Puebla.
"Or are you so dumb as to believe there's no difference in behavior - or ethnicity - between a southern redneck and a New York Jew?"
Schmuck, my mix is Virginia Scots-Irish and Bronx Jew.
November 1, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schmuck, my mix is Virginia Scots-Irish and Bronx Jew
Oh. Well. Then our conversation has been far too tame. You're a highly experienced bullshitter. Next time, I'll do better.
November 1, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you're an honest racist; an improvement on Avishai at least.
November 1, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Captain John Smith, writing in 1610, observed that variation, in both behavior and appearance, among native tribes of the Northeastern United States alone was as great as among the nations and peoples of Europe.
Yet 400 years later you liberals are constantly running around with soiled underwear trying desperately to avoid making the same observation, like the one I made in my earlier post.
November 1, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Behold! The Law of Return is perfect and in need of no amenedment;
"Alleged Jewish terrorist arrested for murder, series of bomb attacks"
"...Teitel, a resident of the northern West Bank outpost, was born in Florida and has moved back and forth between the United States and Israel over the last two decades. In 2000, he returned to Israeli to live permanently.
During a search of his home, police discovered rifles, handguns and explosive materials; they were unable, however, to find the gun which he allegedly used to kill the Palestinians...."
"...He even apparently claimed during his investigation to involvement in the attack on a gay-lesbian youth club in Tel Aviv, in which two people were killed. The Shin Bet has said, however, that there is not sufficient evidence at this point to tie him to that attack."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1125063.html
and
Who is suspected Jewish terrorist, Yaakov Teitel?
By Chaim Levinson, Haaretz Correspondent
"...Yaakov Teitel, who was arrested last month for suspected murder and a string of alleged murder attempts, was born in Florida in November 1972, the son of Mordehai (Mark) and Devorah (Dianne), American ultra-Orthodox Jews."
"...Teitel began making regular trips to Israel in the mid-1990s using a tourist visa, around the time the settler "hill op youth" began to form in the West Bank."
"...August 1997 marked Teitel's first run-in with the law, after he was arrested by the Shin Bet on suspicion of shooting Palestinian Isa Machmara, a Palestinian resident to death during a walk along the road near the settlement Carmel"
"...Teitel was always considered an outcast in Shvut Rachel, as a result of his limited proficiency in Hebrew and the family's tendency to stay indoors. Neighbors said that Teitel was hardly ever seen around the settlement, and that he didn't take regular part in services in the local synagogue."
Other residents of the settlement agreed that Teitel was a little-known, low-key introvert, unknown also to local far rightists and within the hilltop movement. According to a local source, Teitel "was somewhat active in the hilltop region, and people could recognize his face, but nothing beyond that."
Teitel did have, however, two acquaintances in Shvut Rachel: Avraham Richland, a 22-year-old former Kahanist, and fellow American native Yosef Eshpinoza. Eshpinoza, 50, had befriended Teitel after the latter aided him when he had fallen ill.
In 2005, Richland was arrested, and eventually released by police after it was discovered he had consorted with Eden Natan-Zada, an Israel Defense Forces deserter who opened fire in a bus in the northern Israeli town of Shfaram in 2005, murdering four Israeli Arabs."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1125062.html
Real piece of work, eh? Now according to Goldberg, this guy's the real zionist, the real jew. Funny. If Yaakov had his druthers, he would slit Jeffreys throat from ear to ear.
Dr. Avishai, I beleive the debate between Jeffrey and yourself is now officialy over
November 1, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
As to the word Chicano, there are many derivations, and perhaps, commencing with the railroads when migrants were loaded on the trains going north for employment. Another has to do with the Mexicha, an indigenous entity and pre-Columbian. Regardless of the word, immigrants arriving into the USA and from anywhere South of the Rio Grande, quickly call themselves Chicano, once they have experienced their anticipated discrimination, bigotry and racism. Therefore, "joining" the existing terminology and community.
And the battle of terminology is central to the debate on immigration. Here in the Southwest, the word of "co-nationals" and which accrues to both the documented and undocumented immigrants, encompasses everybody. And if you don't have a sense of humor or fail to understand the ebb and flow of the School of "Great Sex!", it's "high Spanish".
Consequently, this Indigenous approach is important. Take, for example, Yaquis (of which I am) is co-located on both sides of the Mexico-USA border, and collectively, is the largest Indigenous Society in this Hemisphere. Otherwise when measured only by here in the USA, the Dineh Society or the Navajo Nation, is that demographic. Moreover, the word "co-national" drives the the folks on the Right and in particular, the anti-immigration mindset, batshit crazy.
However, with Israel's Law of Return on the books, are America's Jewish political activists deemed Israel's particularized subset for being "co-nationals"? And if so, are they deemed "second class" citizens?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Jaango
November 1, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
...are America's Jewish political activists ...deemed "second class" citizens?
Only if they are members of J-Street, in which case second class is far too high a class. Sound familiar?
November 1, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Regardless of the word, immigrants arriving into the USA and from anywhere South of the Rio Grande, quickly call themselves Chicano, once they have experienced their anticipated discrimination, bigotry and racism."
The Colombians, Cubans, Ecuadorians, Peruvians, and Mexicans in my neighborhood don't consider themselves Chicanos. Co-nationals yes, like all the other immigrants, but strongly "co" -nationals and thus strongly US. But most of them are from a comparatively recent wave, over the past 25 years.
I know one miserable man who's been here for a long time and was here early and alone, as a Mexican surrounded by Italians and white ethnics. He's a sullen and abusive drunk and everyone's lost patience with him. And I know a 24 year old Colombian who's been here since she was 15 and who'd never in her life heard the word "spic." She didn't know what it meant. And an Ecuadorian woman I know laughs "everybody's racist" But when she talks about her "people" she means Ecuadorians from her part of the country.
As I said Chicanos are the Puerto Rican's of the west. Latino immigrants in NY struggle, but they're moving up. The man from Puebla complaining about Chicanos moving in was complaining about California ghetto culture.
Times are changing. You and Spider in your owns ways, are late to the party.
November 1, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't mean for that to sound rude, Jaango. Not to you at least.
The southwest and west are still border areas. Other parts offer a fresh start. My experience is that latin immigration in NY is more and more like every other with less and less racial stigma.
Progress not utopia,
November 1, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr D.
I did not think you were rude. Far from it!
To wit, if reputable public opinion polling is to believed, and in particular, Gallup, back in 1963, the results were that 55% looked favorably on integration. Today, the opinion is being measured at 56%. And yes, Progress versus Utopia, is important.
Jaango
November 2, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
So people are as worried now as they were 46 years ago while the percentage of immigrants has increased dramatically!
The internationalization -and the Latinization- of the US moves on.
Fine w me.
November 2, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr D.,
Permit me to explain. I enjoy doing the teasing, the agitating and the provoking. And it's with this in mind, that I do this post.
Moreso, if one thinks that white America is another simplified/complex subset within this Indigenous Hemisphere.
Thus, Bernard Avishai's perspective when 'measured' within this overall perspective of mine. he come's up short in a couple of instances, but then, I do not have to urge to 'attack' him. I much prefer to hear and read what he has to say, and in greater detail.
Jaango
November 2, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your enjoyment, but to me he's defending the logic of Haider, Le Pen and Bull Connor, if only in a more passive and melancholic way. I have more patience with arguments for barbarism than from hypocrisy. Zionism is racism and the crimes are ongoing. Maybe you should spend more time reading Anna Baltzer than Bernard Avishai.
Or maybe you're as generous with sad eyed po-faced defenders of Southwest militias. But I take it personally. I have family in Israel.
November 2, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. D.,
You're too kind and no, I did not take your post as any perceived condescension.
I understand what you're say, but I do disagree with you, and really, not with you in particular. I disagreed with Bush and Cheney's foreign policies, and I too disagree with President Obama's foreign policy, as well. HRC is now busy walking back her latest and public statement.
Now, if our foreign policy was focused on making the actual and final geographical boundaries for Israel to become cast in concret, I would be cheerleading this effort. And that's for starter's. As to the Goldstone Report, I have intentionally not participated in this thread/discussion, since I see no value for "constructiveness" in this instance.
Thus, my encouragement would be to cause our government to encourage the Israelis to conduct their democracy according to my view of democratic standards. But, the Second Go-Around with Netanyahu, was a choice cast by the majority of the Israelis, and is not helpful. And equally important, the 'labor' political movement seems to have imploded.
Now, from your perspective, what is the temporal "hook" that America can grab to change the existing dynamic?
And as an aside, I will handily accept your suggestion and read more of Baltzer. Of note, I came to this particular discussion at TPM to exercise my curiosity, and perhaps, learn more and beyond just my accumulated knowledge gleaned over many years. And truthfully speaking, the subject of Israel has not been high on my agenda. And it's nice of you to share with me the fact that you have family in Israel.
Jaango
November 2, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Bethlehem – Ma’an – An Israeli judge has announced the establishment of a new military court dealing solely with the sentencing of Palestinian children.
Ma’ariv, the daily Hebrew-language newspaper, wrote that “from now on, Palestinian children will be brought in front of military judges under the new structure of a special military court to sentence children under the legal age of majority to avoid the recent situation where children have been brought to normal military courts.”
The sentencing of children under the legal age of majority in regular military courts constitutes a contravention of the Convention of the Rights of the Child, which Israel ratified in 1991."
November 3, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink