Wattree's Blog | Talking Points Memo | January 11, 2009

« December 28, 2008 - January 3, 2009 | Home | January 18, 2009 - January 24, 2009 »

Week of January 11, 2009 - January 17, 2009

A Discussion on Zionism

January 17, 2009, 11:10AM

A Discussion on Zionism

After submitting an article on the Daily Kos entitled, "Do You Really Want Peace in the Middle East", I became engaged in a discussion with a gentleman who identified himself as "Fischfry". He took the position indicated in quotes. You'll find our initial discussion in the first four paragraphs. The final two paragraphs sums up my position.

"You're stuck in ideology. It may not be the ideology espoused by Israelis or Palestinians, but it is an ideological position. Nothing moderate about it. You've changed one ideology -- that the events of 1948 justify continued Palestinian outrage -- to another ideology that denies anyone's right to a nation there. Interestingly, both ideologies deny the validity of Israelis' claim to even as much the pre-'67 borders. Way to be consistent."

So I take from your position that anyone who doesn't support Israel's position is engaging in ideology over thought. That's a very open-minded position indeed. With that kind of thinking, there's no wonder there's a blood bath taking place in the region.

"I didn't say ideology precludes thought. And, there are multiple positions that could be characterized as Israel's position. However, I would say that anyone rejecting the starting point -- that Israelis have some right to a Jewish state in their ancestral homeland -- is taking an ideological stance against Zionism."

I don't see that as an ideology--I'm also against the United States as a WHITE homeland. Is that an ideological stance? And by the way, I am against Zionism--Zionism and racism are synonymous terms, at least, with respect to the state of Israel. There's only one difference--racism promotes racial supremacy, and Zionism promotes religious supremacy.

Thus, I don't consider my stance against either of these "isms" as an ideological one at all--I consider my stance a moral one. Zionism can only be justified if one accepts the legitimacy of either one of two arguments. The first argument is, the world should return to the geographical boundaries as established in the Bible; or secondly, that the Palestinian people should have to pay for the German persecution of the Jews.

While I have much respect for the Jewish people and what they've contributed to the world, I find neither of those arguments either reasonable, rational, or justification for one additional drop of human blood.

Eric L. Wattree

wattree.blogspot.com

P.S. By the way, all Hell is breaking loose over there over the issue. No wonder so many people are dying in the Middle East. People just can't seem to discuss the subject rationally.

An Epiphany

January 14, 2009, 10:27PM

An Epiphany

Rabbi Shifren,

I want to thank so much for your timely, and very enlightening, response. You shouldn't be running for local office, Obama needs you in his diplomatic corps.

Your response to my writings on the situation in Gaza has gone a long way towards causing me to re-think my previous position in this matter. While I continue to believe that what took place in the creation of Israel in 1948 was unfair to the Palestinian people, you've cause me to reconsider my position on European Jewry. I've now come to believe--over night, actually--that my previous position was counterproductive, and in itself, contributes to the hostility and the political posturing that has caused the loss of so many lives around the world.

I now take the position that no group of people can "own" any part of this planet--it ALL belongs to God. We can only be custodians, though I do recognize the need to setup governments to manage the parcel of land that we're blessed with inhabiting.

While my new position is consistent with my continued belief that the Palestinian people were treated unfairly, it does suggest a solution--though a highly unlikely one, considering man's current state of barbarism. Israel, Palestine, or whatever one chooses to call it, should be considered God's land, for which no man, or group of men, should be able to claim exclusive ownership.

As for what is said in scripture, that's grist for another debate. After all, does scripture actually constitute the word of God, or is scripture actually the words of the men who wrote it? Personally, I think God was much too efficient in his creation of man to require an owner's manual-especially one that would cause so much dysfunction among those that it was created for. Even if an entity as flawed and unholy as MicroSoft had created such a problematic user's manual, it would have long since been withdrawn from the market.

And yet another indication of what many consider "the word of God" may actually be the word of man, is the fact that I don't need a book to inform me that it is wrong for me to covet my neighbor's wife. The minute I begin to indulge in such activity, and I have, I could hear the personal voice of God whispering into my ear-- "Eric, what you're doing is wrong."

Thus, while man insists that we must have "faith" in these matters, is he asking me to have faith in God, or is he actually asking me to have faith in what he's telling me about God? Because it seems to me that if God created a universe where I can observe the electrons and protons orbiting around the nucleus of the tiniest atom, in the exact same way that the solar system orbits around the Sun, and the Sun orbits around the center of the galaxy, and the galaxy hurls through space and time in search of the center of the universe, he's done enough. That alone should be enough to demonstrate his awesome existence.

But if it's not enough, when you add the fact that I can cut my finger, then watch the stuff of life ooze from the wound to repair it as good as new, or watch two lovers come together to love and comfort one another in the frigid cold of Winter, only to create a third bundle of love in the Fall, how can one not see the face of God? After he, or she, has done all these things, and then went on to create birds that fly, fish that swim, and man with the ability to think, it seems to me that is the epitome of arrogance for man to require him to allow Moses to part the Red Sea to demonstrate his existence.

From my point of view, we can only know God by what he has done. So again, he's demonstrated his will by making birds fly, fish swim, and man to think. We know it's his will because if any of those creatures fail to remain true to their nature, they cannot survive.

Thus, man burst upon this planet as a necked ape-he wasn't as mighty as the elephant, as ferocious as the lion, nor could he soar like the eagle. But it was God's will to provided him with a brain-cognition, logic. It was those qualities alone that allowed man to survive. He was given the ability to assess, evaluate, and manipulate his environment. As direct result, man can now build machines that are mightier than any elephant, more fearsome than the most ferocious lion, and can soar far beyond the eagle's domain.

Therefore, God has demonstrated through what he has done, just as surely as he made whales to dominate the creatures of the sea, and made lions to be king of the beasts, that he created man to be logical, thinking beings. But now, man is REQUIRING, that we give up those very qualities-to suspend our intellect--in lieu of simply having FAITH in what HE tells us is God's will. The intellect that I KNOW God gave me, suggests that I should have a problem with that.

As I write, I can hear God whispering in my ear. Even as I write, he speaks: "When man tells you to set aside the logic that was my exclusive gift to mankind , and to have "faith" in what HE'S telling you about me, he's asking you to ignore my will, and to have "faith" in HIM.

"After all, my child, you don't have to have faith in the fact that you're sitting here writing-you know that to be a fact, therefore, faith is not required. Faith only has relevance where there's doubt. So to simply acknowledge man's prescription that you have "faith" in God, is a slap in my face. It is nothing less than an acknowledgment that you're more prone to worship what man says, than what I have actually done.

"This, is the evil of man-in his arrogance, he tries to speak for me."

Maybe this is simply a delusion, and not God at all. After all, I also suffer from the frailties of mankind--but that's what I hear.

Eric L. Wattree

wattree.blogspot.com

A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology.

ABOUT JEWS AND OTHER PEOPLE WE LOVE TO HATE

January 12, 2009, 7:26PM

AN OPEN LETTER TO ROB:

ABOUT JEWS AND OTHER PEOPLE WE LOVE TO HATE

I try to Avoid addressing the same issue in consecutive columns-that's my only defense against my natural tendency to be tedious and predictable. But this past weekend a young man, let's call him Rob, came up to me and said, "Brother, I got to give you props-you really stuck it to those damn Jews last week." As soon as the words came out of his mouth, I knew I was going to have to clarify my message by revisiting the issue of Zionism. I didn't have the time, at that moment, to stand there in front of the store and explain to the young man that my article wasn't against Jews, but on the other hand, I wanted to make sure that he understood the distinction between hating a philosophy, and hating a people. So I asked the young brother to be sure to pickup this week's paper, because this article was going to be written especially, and specifically, for him. So Rob, as promised, good brother-and I sincerely hope, just this once, that God gives me the skill to make my point:

Rob, while my last article had to do with a segment of Judaism, it wasn't intended as a diatribe against Jews. I'm not against Jews. I'm not against any group of people, because as I see it, it would be a pity to go through the pain and suffering that we've experience here in America and not come out with at least some measure of wisdom. One would think that we would have learned through the blood, sweat, and tears that we've shed that trying to paint any group of people with the same broad brush, whether it's to say that they're all good, or they're all bad, is not only the height of stupidity, but is the very mindset that has caused Black people so much misery here in America. How can I claim to detest racism, only to turn around an embrace that very same ignorant philosophy?

No, I'm not against Jews, I'm against the injustice of Zionism-a philosophy which dictates that one group of people are entitled to the land of another by virtue of their religious beliefs alone. But while I argue passionately that Zionism is a gross and unjust philosophy, I always keep in mind that all Jews are not Zionists. In fact, some Jews are more adamantly opposed to Zionism--at least, as currently practiced--than non-Jews.

It's important to recognize that fact, because efficient thought requires that we always recognize subtle distinctions. While knowledge is power, knowledge can only yield its power when combined with the wisdom of truth. Evident of that is the fact that one of the most prolific problems that we have in this vast world filled with knowledge, is our tendency to circumvent that knowledge through thinking with our brain stems. Instead using our higher cognitive abilities and taking the time to be precise in our thinking, we find it easier to lob preconceived generalizations at every problem--and more often than not, those generalizations cater to the very darkest side of our nature. Look at what we're doing with our knowledge in the Middle East. Instead of using that knowledge to enhance the quality of life for all of humanity, we're using it to spread death and destruction around the entire world.

So we've got to learn to stop thinking in terms of Black and White, Jew and Gentile, or whether a person is Gay or Straight. As long as we think in those terms and continue to antagonize one another, we sabotage every opportunity to form coalitions to fight for our common good. That's why people like Bush and Cheney thrive in a hostile environment. They love keeping us ignorant, because ignorance keeps us divided, and that very division allows them to step in and conquer all of our hopes and dreams as a people. It is a must, therefore, that we develop the wisdom to understand that there are only two kinds of people in this world-good people, and bad people.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Black people forget their history and engage in a rousing chorus of Kumbayah, that would be fool hearty. But it behooves Black people to not only understand, but remember, that while malevolent White men did indeed place us in chains, it was malevolent Black men who made us available to be shackled. We must also recognize that we commit a gross injustice by forgetting the sacrifice, and the families, of the thousands of White men of good character who gave their lives to unlock those shackles.

So while we witness the horror and atrocities that the state of Israel is committing against the Palestinian and Lebanese people, and we lean toward condemning all Jews, we must keep in mind men like Joel Elias Spingarn, also a Jew, and a prominent literary figure of his time. He not only gave great support to the Harlem Renaissance, but helped W.E.B. DuBois to establish the NAACP as a driving force for change in America. Spingarn also established the Spingarn Medal in 1913-- and to this day, it's awarded annually for Excellence in African American Achievement. So as we're formulating our opinions about Jews, we should remember this man, and his contribution to the African American people as Chairman of the Board of the NAACP from 1913 until his death in 1939. We should also consider that during that period the NAACP board was predominantly Jewish-W.E.B. DuBois was the only Black man on the Board of Directors. In fact, the NAACP didn't elect its first Black president until 1975. Think about that.

But it's become less than politically correct to bring up issues such as these-probably because many of us are afraid of becoming associated with Black opportunist, turncoats, and White apologists like Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, Larry Elder, and the like. But it's important that we keep these facts in mind and pass them down as part of our history. Facts such as these represent valuable knowledge to our youth. It's a source of knowledge to young people that says, as the three misguided Black men mentioned above clearly demonstrate, everybody that looks like you is not your brother, and conversely, everybody that doesn't look like you is not the enemy.

That's an invaluable lesson, not only for Black people, but for all of America, because we will never truly overcome until all people of good faith come together as a coalition-and that will never happen, until we begin to recognize that true brotherhood is not of the skin, but of the soul.

Eric L. Wattree, Sr.

Do You Really Want Peace in the Middle East? Try Starting The Peace Talks With, "I'm Sorry"

January 12, 2009, 3:28PM

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR.

Do You Really Want Peace in the Middle East?

Try Starting The Peace Talks With, "I'm Sorry"

Well, "God's chosen people" are raising unholy hell in the Middle East again. And please don't buy into the nonsense that it's about Israel being attacked, or the defense of democracy, or Israel having the right to exist--it's not about any of that. What this is about is hubris, injustice, and greed. Sure Israel has a right to exist--if that's what the indigenous people decide they want to continue to call it. But whatever it's called, be it Israel, or Palestine, Europeans have absolutely no justifiable right to be making demands in the Middle East. They don't even have the RIGHT to be in the Middle East-at all. That's the two-ton gorilla that needs to be appeased, but Israel, the United States, and Europe are bringing up every other issue on the face of the Earth to avoid having to address that very simple fact.

But those who seek the destruction of Israel are being unrealistic as well. Yes, the Palestinians were robbed during the creation of Israel, but the fact is, as funky as it was, what's done is done. They can no more expect the current Israelis to just pack up and leave Israel than Native Americans can expect Americans get on a boat and return to Europe. So there must be a compromise--but the onus of that compromise rests squarely on the shoulders of the Europeans. Because regardless to whatever argument you decide to indulge, there's one fact that will always remain constant--there would be no Middle Eastern conflict if the Europeans had stayed in Europe.

The dispute over Israel is nothing less than "The Manifest Destiny" being re-enacted. When the Europeans came to America and began to strip the indigenous people of their land, they justified their unholy atrocities by declaring that it was God's will that they settle, and bring his word to this "uncivilized land"-it was their manifest destiny. So in true civilized Christian fashion, they began to spread the Holy word of God, through the muzzle of a Gatlin gun. It was a brutally unconscionable and gruesome event, but what could these good Christians do--after all, it was God's will that they slaughter those "Godless savages." That is the exact same scenario that is currently taking place in the Middle East today. It began with the "creation" of the state of Israel in 1948, and the campaign continues as I speak--but this time, it's called Zionism.

In 1882, while Jews were being massacred throughout Russia, Leo Pinsker, the founder of the Zionist movement, published a small booklet entitled "Auto-emancipation". It pointed out that Jews would never find equality in Russia, so it was necessary for world Jewry to establish their own homeland. At first, he didn't care where it was located--in fact, the area encompassing Zaire, Africa was even considered. But later, Pinsker recognized that in order to get Jews to immigrate in numbers large enough to establish a homeland, he needed a location that would inspired the Jewish soul, and no location in the world would suit that purpose like Palestine, the land of Zion-the land that God had promised the Jews. The fact that there were indigenous people already living in Palestine never even crossed his mind.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines Zionism as follows:

"Zionism (zº"...-n¹z"...m) n. An organized movement of world Jewry that arose in Europe in the late 19th century with the aim of reconstituting a Jewish state in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the development and support of the state of Israel." Thus, Zionism, by definition and design, is a doctrine dedicated to the taking of Palestine-and on May 14, 1948, European Jews did just that.

Between 1944 and 1948, due to their experience with the Nazi's, Eastern European Jews wanted to get off the European continent by any means necessary, so various Zionist organizations created the Bariha (escape) Organization that helped close to 200,000 Jews to leave Europe and settle in Palestine. Prior to that time, in July of 1922, the League of Nations (the progenitor of the United Nations) gave Great Britain a mandate to protect the people of Palestine, but on November 29, 1947 when the U. N. General Assembly passed a resolution to partition off Palestine between the Arabs and Jews, Great Britain announced that it was terminating its mandate. The end of the British mandate was to go into effect on May 15, 1948, but on May 14, 1948 the Zionists declared the creation of Israel, a Jewish state.

But in order for the new State of Israel to have any legitimacy, it had to be recognized by the United States. The U.S. State Department was less than enthusiastic about creating a Jewish state in Palestine, but shortly after President Truman took office, European Zionist, Chaim Weizmann, convinced the president that it was only just that the survivors of the holocaust would be given their own homeland. Truman agreed, and recognized the State of Israel on May 14, 1948, and all hell's been breaking loose every since.

The Israeli-American alliance is a match made in Hell-they don't even trust each other. One of the largest units in the CIA is dedicated to the prevention of Israeli spying on the United States, and one of the biggest spy scandals in U.S. History involved an Israeli spy name Jonathan Pollard, an American of Jewish descent, born in Galveston, Texas. But in spite of that, Israel receives more U.S. Foreign aid than any other country in the world, and we've made them one of the most formidable military forces in the world. The reason for that--oil. Israel stands as an extension of the United States in the Middle East, within easy striking distance of Middle Eastern oil fields. So what we have in the Middle East is an unholy quid pro quo-The United States will help the Israelis steal Arab land, and the Israelis will help the United States steal the oil beneath the land.

So the Israeli claim that their slaughter of the Arab people is simply an attempt to defend themselves, is nothing but a farce. Granted, when someone invades your home you do have a right to attack them, but Europeans have about as much right to call Israel their home as I'd have of tearing off a part of China simply because I converted to Buddhism.

Far be it from me, however, to say whose a Jew and whose not, but I think we can all agree that European Jews are not the same Jews that were spoken of in the Bible. But, of course, you're not suppose to even whisper such sentiments here in America. To say that European Jews don't belong in Israel, or to speak out on any atrocity that the State of Israel might commit, is considered anti-Semitic in this country. But even that's a farce. There's a big difference between being anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist-to be anti-Semitic is to be against a people, while being anti-Zionist is to be against a philosophy. After all, all Jews are not Zionist. But there's another issue here as well. How can you be anti-Semitic towards Europeans? They aren't even Semites.

So as I said, all of the killing in the Middle East is about hubris, injustice, and greed. But it's also about opportunity and racism. Think about it-- as bad as the Germans and Russians treated the Jews over the years, you'd think the Jews would have been given part of one of those countries. If they'd done that, European Jews wouldn't have even had to leave home. But White folks don't play that-no matter how much they hate each other.

Eric L. Wattree

wattree.blogspot.com

A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology.

« December 28, 2008 - January 3, 2009 | Home | January 18, 2009 - January 24, 2009 »