Anti-Imperialism & Anti-Humanist Rhetoric of Gilad Atzmon

[Simulist]

Okay. But you remarked that Finkelstein and Atzmon are being treated differently, and that's true.

And I'm responding that Atzmon has said some really, really dumb things. Hateful things, too.

That was just one example. There are numerous examples throughout this very long thread.

Not sure if that was for me^^ - if it was, I meant to be clear that outside this thread Atzmon and Finkelstein ARE being treated with entirely similar accusations and behaviours and processes.

I found the film was really moving BTW. I was left thinking who is speaking up for HIM?

Understood, Searcher. Yes, outside this thread Finkelstein and Atzmon do appear to generate similar responses.

Which seems to me to be nuts, frankly.

[Searcher08]

Okay. But you remarked that Finkelstein and Atzmon are being treated differently, and that's true.

And I'm responding that Atzmon has said some really, really dumb things. Hateful things, too.

That was just one example. There are numerous examples throughout this very long thread.

Not sure if that was for me^^ - if it was, I meant to be clear that outside this thread Atzmon and Finkelstein ARE being treated with entirely similar accusations and behaviours and processes.

I found the film was really moving BTW. I was left thinking who is speaking up for HIM?

Understood, Searcher. Yes, outside this thread Finkelstein and Atzmon do appear to generate similar responses.

Which seems to me to be nuts, frankly.

And that is it, Simulist
THAT response is what I'm talking about.

To use a biological metaphor, I'm interested in this 'cultural immune system response' which seems to want to mediate discourse as a means of avoiding facing certain parts of itself.
When I have tried to put it into an Irish / Famine context, the nearest subjective expression I can get is "we bury the pain of the English not caring into stories and fractured family";
The Dershowitz one seems to be "If your words are outside these areas, it will kill us"

I wonder whether there is a huge amount of unfaced stuff about the Holocaust which is being
lost - like it being a rational act to spy on everyone...
because during the Holocaust there was enormous denial / lack of awareness of what was happening. For people who survived, spying on everyone is a rational act, because in their model of the world, a lack of intelligence may get your family exterminated and did.
Personally, I objected to ADL turning Aushwitz into a multi-media theme park - it seemed to actually dishonour what had happened.

What does one do/ how should one be, when you (like Finkelsteins mother) survive people trying to frickken exterminate you???

[American Dream]

This one is well worth checking out::

The Past Didn't Go Anywhere:

Making Resistance to Antisemitism Part of All of Our Movements


http://www.thepast.info/

[compared2what?]

I mean, could there POSSIBLY be anyone on the board who is unaware that Alice makes and enforces the rules according to which it's acceptable to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict around here? Or that she's ceaselessly, boundlessly punitive to those who don't follow them to the minutest letter or the law?
I'd like to hear from them, if so.
I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm actually sympathetic to Alice, overall. But I really, really object to this pretense that there's a pro-Israel gang of bullies roaming these threads. It's not true.
And it's also not fair that AD, in particular, has to be subjected to both vicious bullying and accusations that he's a bully.
So if it's not necessary, it would really be nice to see a little less of it.

On the other hand... there is the mirror image of what you wrote.

I mean, could there POSSIBLY be anyone on the board who is unaware that AD makes and enforces the rules according to which it's acceptable to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict around here? Or that he's ceaselessly, boundlessly punitive to those who don't follow them to the minutest letter or the law?

I'd like to hear from them, if so.

Yes. I am such a person. And, lest we forget, it's not like I'm a person who's never had any heated disagreements with AD over the justice with which he was characterizing my views, myself. Further, I wouldn't dispute that he often responds to dissent by copping what I'd describe as a morally judgmental -- and therefore softly censorious -- more-politically-correct-than-thou attitude. He can also be tenacious to a fault. (As can I.)

But he doesn't use intimidation tactics, or lay down the law from on-high, or otherwise seek to impose on the freedom with which others express themselves in any way that amounts to either abuse (in itself) or an abuse of power. That I've ever seen. He occasionally uses the start-your-own-thread gambit, when it's his OP. But a lot of posters do that, on their own threads. In fact, most, I'd say.

I've never seen boundlessly punitive behavior from AD. Basically. Ceaselessly disputatious behavior, sure. Absolutely. But that does take two. And genuine disputes about legitimately contested issues on legitimate grounds do frequently occur here. After all.

And wrt this thread, specifically, I'm not aware of one single aspect of the subject that AD has put off-limits for discussion, or unilaterally targeted anyone else for a campaign of personal shaming and hostile reprisals in connection with.

Whereas, conversely, you (for example) have repeatedly and explicitly accused AD of being a booster for Israel -- thus, essentially, calling him a liar, since he's never said one pro-Israeli word that I've ever noticed -- because he objects to antisemitism.

And, I mean, you're free to argue that Atzmon's words are not antisemitic, if you think they aren't. Of course. But I don't think you can really argue that the only thing that anyone who objected to them on those grounds could conceivably be responding to was what he said about Israel. Because very, very little of what he says is (in fact) about Israel. It's mostly about Jews.

Also conversely:

It's been crystal clear from the very start of this thread -- and, actually, before it -- that all mention of the Holocaust as a causative or influential factor in Israel. or among zionists/Jews amounted to a statement of support for the Likud. And it's also been crystal-clear for most of it that all mention of antisemitism -- not excluding use of the word or acknowledgment of the phenomenon -- was irrational (at best) and suspect (at worst).

And, sorry, kids. But that does really, really skew the terms of the discussion. Away from reality. Israel is wrong. And since wrong is wrong, nothing changes that. But it's insane and self-defeating to re-write history in order to make the forces you oppose for doing something really wrong into more emotionally satisfying and conveniently all-purpose villains.

As I've said repeatedly, my primary problem with the History of Zionism According to Alice (as well as the discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict according to the conventions of this board) actually isn't that it's antisemitic. It's that it's based on false premises that are (effectively) mandatory, due to the inadmissibility of any and all elements that might attest to the reality of antisemitism. That's really not a minor fucking handicap to comprehension, when you're talking about people the vast majority of whom it would be more accurate to describe as "refugees" than as "zionists." Which is what you're talking about when you're talking about Jews in Palestine/Israel between (roughly)1920 and 1970.

I don't say that for any reason other than that it's true.

I'm afraid you're going to have to show me the countervailing repressive tendencies, if there are any. Because I don't see them.

I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm actually sympathetic to AD, overall. But I really, really object to this pretense that there's a anti-Semite gang of bullies roaming these threads. It's not true.
And it's also not fair that Alice, in particular, has to be subjected to both vicious bullying and accusations that she's a bully.
So if it's not necessary, it would really be nice to see a little less of it.

You can't really say that credibly, because you've never staunchly defended and/or praised AD. I've had very serious problems with Alice's behavior on this thread. But historically, while I've often bickered with Alice, I've equally often agreed with her, and regularly made it clear that I respected and admired her. Which I do.

It's also not a true analogy, in that Alice is very, very rarely seriously challenged by any poster other than AD about anything. And when she is challenged by him (or, on occasion by traditionally non-dirty fighters such as barracuda, or JackRiddler, or I-hope-me) popular board opinion is largely -- if not exclusively -- on her side. AD, on the other hand, has dedicated, hostile persecutors.

I think I need to say something about that - called a racist and anti-semite and a nazi because I object to endless Greenstein copypasta and then being called a vicious bully because I object to

Who called you any of those things?

[compared2what?]

While it's perfectly valid, even necessary, to proclaim, rather forcefully, when someone's views are unacceptable, abhorrent even, where were those proclamations 5, 6 years ago? Am I missing something?

It feels rather like people are trying to destroy what little sense of community is left on this board, with a helping of distrust and projection, coming from all sides.

I lost patience and made one obviously out-of-bounds post. And I'm not seeking to minimize or excuse that, at all. So please feel free to read me out for it to whatever degree you think is merited, if you want. But if you've seen any other instances of unfair fighting on my part, I'd be much, much more grateful to you for condemning (or whatever) them.

I want to know about them, if there are any. In short.

I have no interest whatsoever in combing through 1000's of entries in order to call out individual instances, so consider this a formal retraction of everything I said above, as it's just more sniping and unhelpful to a process that's already a sinkhole.

Forgive me, I lost patience.

Forget I posted. Carry on.

I don't accept the retraction, although I appreciate the spirit in which it was tendered. But apart from that, all right. Nothing to forgive. You're right not to like fighting. I don't like it either.

[compared2what?]

Or maybe you can expand on when you think it might be appropriate to "burn down a synagogue." Or when you think that might be a "rational act."

Because I really can't think of one.

Let's up the ante.

If I said
"I can see it is a rational act for a Provo to pack a bomb full of nails and place it in a Belfast cafe and maim dozens of people" does this imply personally I support it?
"If I can see it is a rational act to bulldoze Palestinian homes and go in and shoot kids" does it mean I personally support it?

Absolutely profoundly certainly completely NO.

I am saying these are action consistent with a 'map of the world' that person is acting from. It is not some 'madness', it doesn't occur in isolation. It would have been done by a person in a context. It is an action that makes sense in terms of what they perceive as actions are open to them, they believe, feel they are capable of, their identity.

I wouldn't call it the least defensible thing Atzmon's ever said, personally. But neither would I say it could be defended on the grounds that he said it with the meaning you suggest. He wasn't talking to a Jewish audience who couldn't, for the life of them, understand why political outrage at Israel might ever take such a form. He was talking to students at the School of Oriental and African Studies, during a period of conflict there over such things as:

· A row over a conference held at the college about the academic boycott of Israel titled Resisting Israeli Apartheid.
· An article in the student magazine Spirit which said: "Those who benefit from the immoral actions of a colonial state in which they have chosen to reside cannot be considered as innocent".
· The union's banning of Roey Gilad, an Israeli embassy representative, because of their policy which equates Zionism with racism. Professor Bundy overturned the ban.
· The screening in the union of a controversial film, Promise of Heaven, which describes Jews as 'having no values or ethics'.
· Gilad Atzmon, a pro-Palestinian activist and musician, who gave a talk to students this month, arguing: "I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act".

LINK

The first item is, imo, not antisemitic, and not anybody's business to boycott.

But the other three non-Atzmon items strongly suggest that it was an unnecessarily and intentionally inflammatory statement, assuming that he made it in the course of remarks that included all his usual talking points about Jews, Jewishness, Judaism, and the tribal collective soul -- rather than "Israel," "the Israeli government," "Israeli policy," etc. -- which it seems very safe to assume, in light of how consistent he is on such points.

And his work doesn't support your interpretation of his meaning, either. If it comes to that. He doesn't waste breath conceding that it might ever be irrational. He gets straight to explaining that it's just deserts and then some.

[compared2what?]

Okay. But you remarked that Finkelstein and Atzmon are being treated differently, and that's true.

And I'm responding that Atzmon has said some really, really dumb things. Hateful things, too.

That was just one example. There are numerous examples throughout this very long thread.

Not sure if that was for me^^ - if it was, I meant to be clear that outside this thread Atzmon and Finkelstein ARE being treated with entirely similar accusations and behaviours and processes.

I found the film was really moving BTW. I was left thinking who is speaking up for HIM?

Understood, Searcher. Yes, outside this thread Finkelstein and Atzmon do appear to generate similar responses.

Which seems to me to be nuts, frankly.

And that is it, Simulist
THAT response is what I'm talking about.

To use a biological metaphor, I'm interested in this 'cultural immune system response' which seems to want to mediate discourse as a means of avoiding facing certain parts of itself.

That assumes that there is one. And for that assumption to be justified, you would, of course, have to demonstrate that it was the culture's reflexive, universal and unique way of remaining in denial about the same "certain parts" of itself.

IOW, in order for that hypothesis to work, you'd:

(a) have to grossly distort Simulist's point (that it was nuts to respond to such different things the same way) in order to repurpose it as what you were talking about (one culture's unvarying evasive response to facing "certain parts of itself."); and

(b) find some way of accommodating the contradictory evidence represented by the numerous members of that very culture who condemned Israel -- such as repurposing them into anti-zionist-zionists for objecting to antisemitism.

Also, and strictly btw,honey:

You might want to bear it in mind that unde most general conversational circumstances, it's probably a good idea to come up with a non-biological metaphorical framework in which to consider the uniquely problematic cultural traits of Jews, if you can. Because there's kind of a little potential for misunderstanding there.

[AlicetheKurious]

Throw the question open - do you see no difference in what is happening to each of these people Atzmon and Finklestein?

If Finkelstein had made outrageous, hateful remarks as Atzmon has ("I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act," for one example...), I would condemn him, too.

The source for that quote is a certain right-wing zionist, who twisted Atzmon's meaning to suit its own defamatory purposes -- i.e. to 'prove' that Atzmon 'defends' burning down synagogues. Since then, it has been quoted and re-quoted to 'prove' that Atzmon supports violent antisemitism.

Before 'condemning' someone on the basis of a quote taken out of context and distorted beyond recognition, maybe you'd like to know Gilad Atzmon's real point of view, in his own words. Or maybe not. In any case, I have faith that there are still SOME fair-minded people still at RI (although at this point, there is little evidence for it) so here goes:

In an article published on Comment is free, David Hirsh an ultra-Zionist academic, accused me of being "anti-semitic" and an "anti-Jewish racist". But Hirsh fails to present one single argument to support his accusations. On those occasions, when he seems to be getting close to substantiating his accusations it is only because he takes my words completely out of context, crudely diverts their meaning and deliberately misleads his readers. This is something you might expect from a politician but not from an academic.

In his piece, Hirsh extensively quotes from an old paper of mine in which I explore the politics of anti-semitism. In this paper I argue that anti-semitism is an archaic notion that exists only to fuel Zionism.

Here are my exact words:

"In the devastating reality created by the Jewish state, anti-semitism has been replaced by political reaction. I am not suggesting that Jewish interests are not being mutilated and vandalised. I am not saying that synagogues aren't being attacked, that Jewish graves are not brutally smashed up. I am saying that these acts, that are in no way legitimate, should be seen as political responses rather than racially motivated acts or "irrational" hate crimes." Link

What Atzmon says is true, in the same way that Israelis' desecration of mosques and churches is not an 'irrational act', any more than the home demolitions and the bulldozing of Palestinian homes to make way for Jewish-only colonies are 'irrational'. They are political acts, and the people who commit them should not be regarded as mentally ill, but as perpetrators of politically-motivated criminal acts (regardless of whether these political purposes are morally and legally defensible).

[compared2what?]

new rule...after 1070 replies or 72 pages, which ever comes first, topic qualifies for it's own sub-forum

I think it needs it's own meta-analysis in another thread

Slad, as a person of Irish descent, I was wondering if you read any of the posts where I was trying to map some of the questioning that Atzmon was saying in terms of Jewish Identity into a different domain (Irish identity).
Because I think it is interesting to explore parallel 'lines of enquiry, to gain another perspective on it. I posed some questions around The Famine earlier in the thread and would love to know what you think...

I am currently watching the Finklestein documentary, which is excellent. What has most surprised me so far is hearing the anti-Finkelstein arguments - which are spookily familar because they are the same one's that have been made on this thread, right down to the ad hominems, accusations of racism etc

The accusations that Finklestein is a 'self- hater' playing into the hands of the far right by repeating their talking points. The crowds appearing demanding that he not be given a platform because he is a racist anti-Semite whose vile vomiting besmirches the memory of The Holocaust. Even that he cant possibly believe his points and has major identity issues.
Finklestein's response to it is actually (so far) quite calm and focused.
Well worth watching. He comes across as much more funny, nuanced, sensitive to suffering and deeply principled than his abrasive media image.

Not everyone who disagrees with Finkelstein does it on the grounds that he's a racist antisemite, though.

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:

According to Norman Finkelstein, American Jews fall out of love with Israel? In this BBC Hardtalk exchange he argues that they are now so unhappy with what Israel is doing that they want to distance them from the country.

But is Finkelstein telling the truth here? I think that he is dead wrong! Diaspora Jews are actually more attached to their tribal identity than ever. For the time being, Israel is the one and only Jewish secular symbolic identifier (culturally, spiritually and nationally). Even the so-called Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists identify collectively with Israel by the means of negation. Israel is at the heart of the Jewish collective universe. Most Jews feel strong affinity towards the 'Jewish State' and just a very few claim to oppose it.

I would argue that for Jews to move away from Israel or Zionism a new Jerusalem is needed, I don’t see it happening voluntarily.

Like I said, irrational fanatics are always some kind of problem.

Further to the discussion of THE TOPIC, this...

1) Is Gilad Atzmon a racist?

No. He does not even acknowledge "racial differences" between people, whether in word or deed. He talks about 'tribal identity politics' that he condemns because they lay the ideological groundwork for supremacist calls for genocide and ethnic cleansing and other horrors, including apartheid. Even in its mildest form, this supremacy is manifested in the presumption that one's 'identity' gives one the right to impose rules about what others can say, write or even think, and to use bullying, harassment and threats against those who disagree. He criticizes individuals for their actions and their attitudes toward others, never for being Jewish or anything else.

...is not any truer than it was when you first said it 70-odd pages ago, or when I first pointed out (using the random collection of quotes by Atzmon that were in front of me at that moment) that he frequently -- in fact, usually -- criticizes Jews for being Jewish and nothing else, either without any reference at all to their actions or attitudes or -- as with the quote above -- in direct, witting and willful contradiction of their actions and attiitudes.

And seriously: It's hardly a secret that American Jewish support for Israel is declining. It has been for years. There have been numerous reports that it has been for years. That's largely what occasioned Peter Beinart's book. As summarized in 2010 by The Atlantic Wire (additional links in original):

For much of Israel's short history, it has enjoyed intimate diplomatic and cultural ties to the U.S. In addition to both being democracies and sharing a similar agenda in the Middle East, Israel and the U.S. boast the two largest Jewish populations in the world. But could the support for Israel among American Jews be slipping? Most American Jews are liberal, for reasons we explored here. Some liberal U.S. Jews, including Jon Stewart, are distancing themselves from what the New York Times calls "a state whose government is now dominated by nationalist and ultrareligious politicians." In the New York Review of Books, Peter Beinart--a prominent, liberal, Jewish pundit who has long supported Israel--says that American Jewish support for Israel is dropping rapidly and could, he says, disappear among the liberals who dominate the group.

How U.S. Jews Are Splitting Beinart writes, "Among American Jews today, there are a great many Zionists, especially in the Orthodox world, people deeply devoted to the State of Israel. And there are a great many liberals, especially in the secular Jewish world, people deeply devoted to human rights for all people, Palestinians included. But the two groups are increasingly distinct. ... For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead."

How Israel Is Shifting Right Beinart explains, "Israeli governments come and go, but the Netanyahu coalition is the product of frightening, long-term trends in Israeli society: an ultra-Orthodox population that is increasing dramatically, a settler movement that is growing more radical and more entrenched in the Israeli bureaucracy and army, and a Russian immigrant community that is particularly prone to anti-Arab racism."

How U.S. Pro-Israel Groups Are Shifting Right Beinart explains, "Because they marry earlier, intermarry less, and have more children, Orthodox Jews are growing rapidly as a share of the American Jewish population. According to a 2006 American Jewish Committee (AJC) survey, while Orthodox Jews make up only 12 percent of American Jewry over the age of sixty, they constitute 34 percent between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four. ... The same AJC study found that while only 16 percent of non-Orthodox adult Jews under the age of forty feel 'very close to Israel,' among the Orthodox the figure is 79 percent. As secular Jews drift away from America’s Zionist institutions, their Orthodox counterparts will likely step into the breach."

'Extinction' For Liberal Zionists? Politico's Ben Smith reflects, "There's no perfect phrase for the group; I'd initially said 'liberal, pro-Israel,' which drew reasonable objections from people to their left who consider themselves pro-Israel; 'liberal Zionist' may draw similar objections. But there's clearly a strain of thought on the American center-left, associated with the Democratic Party, which is at risk of extinction here."

Israel Lobby Worsens Divide Politico's Laura Rozen writes, "the American Jewish establishment, by condemning pro-Israel critics of, for instance, Israeli government settlement policy, risks alienating broad-based American Jewish support for Israel over the long term."

Decline of Israel Lobby? Media Matters' M.J. Rosenberg sees it coming. "The decline of the lobby is good news for America, for Jews and for Israel. That is because it is primarily the clout of the lobby that has led the US government to support an occupation that has virtually eliminated America's influence in the Middle East, has turned off younger Jews to Judaism, and will -- unless ended by Israel under US pressure -- lead to Israel's demise. The 'pro-Israel' lobby is anything but pro-Israel."

Inevitable Demographic Shift Mother Jones' Kevin Drum looks at the numbers. "These trends have been apparent for many years, and it's hard to see how they can be turned aside. It's also hard to see how they turn out well."

Who's Really 'Helping' Israel? Liberal blogger DougJ disputes the notion that because U.S. conservatives defend Israel, they are working in Israel's best interest. "A good start would be to stop describing neoconservatism as 'pro-Israel.' Facilitating irrational, suicidal behavior is not normally considered supportive." A commenter affirms, "they’re a good friend of Israel in the same way the guy who buys a case of scotch for an alcoholic is a good friend."

In Israel, Similar Fears Via Laura Rozen, Haaretz reports: "'Netanyahu should have taken into account the change within the American Jewish community,' Dov Weisglass, a senior adviser to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, told the MESS Report. 'Their support for Israel is decreasing and they will defend Israel in the face of the administration only on matters where there is a real threat to Israel. I have serious doubt that U.S. Jews see the Netanyahu government's territorial aspirations in Judea and Samaria [West Bank] and the Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem as an existential matter.'"

IOW, the trends on Israel in the U.S. (and, ftm, in Israel) are running roughly parallel with trends on everything, everywhere. The hardline right is in the minority, but on the rise wrt power. Most people don't like that and feel alienated from their governments. Others prefer to blame the Jews. You know. The usual routine.

________________

FWIW, I'm not as sure that the indications of declining power for what Atzmon invariably refers to as "The Jewish Lobby" -- although even his blurbing pal, Mearsheimer, co author of The Israel Lobby regards that as an unfair and untrue characterization -- are all that notable. Or that they're not. But it does strike me as a lot more debatable than the direction in which the how-Jews-feel-about-Israel/Palestine question is headed. The American Jewish Committee does what they can to sweep it under the rug, but that one's really pretty well attested to, by now.

[compared2what?]

What Atzmon says is true.

Sometimes. But most of the time, it's demonstrably false. And antisemitic. And your saying it isn't -- or that it doesn't say what it does -- doesn't actually change that.

[compared2what?]

The source for that quote is a certain right-wing zionist, who twisted Atzmon's meaning to suit its own defamatory purposes -- i.e. to 'prove' that Atzmon 'defends' burning down synagogues. Since then, it has been quoted and re-quoted to 'prove' that Atzmon supports violent antisemitism.

In an article published on Comment is free, David Hirsh an ultra-Zionist academic, accused me of being "anti-semitic" and an "anti-Jewish racist". But Hirsh fails to present one single argument to support his accusations. On those occasions, when he seems to be getting close to substantiating his accusations it is only because he takes my words completely out of context, crudely diverts their meaning and deliberately misleads his readers. This is something you might expect from a politician but not from an academic.

In his piece, Hirsh extensively quotes from an old paper of mine in which I explore the politics of anti-semitism. In this paper I argue that anti-semitism is an archaic notion that exists only to fuel Zionism.

Here are my exact words:

"In the devastating reality created by the Jewish state, anti-semitism has been replaced by political reaction. I am not suggesting that Jewish interests are not being mutilated and vandalised. I am not saying that synagogues aren't being attacked, that Jewish graves are not brutally smashed up. I am saying that these acts, that are in no way legitimate, should be seen as political responses rather than racially motivated acts or "irrational" hate crimes." Link

What Atzmon says is true, in the same way that Israelis' desecration of mosques and churches is not an 'irrational act', any more than the home demolitions and the bulldozing of Palestinian homes to make way for Jewish-only colonies are 'irrational'. They are political acts, and the people who commit them should not be regarded as mentally ill, but as perpetrators of politically-motivated criminal acts (regardless of whether these political purposes are morally and legally defensible).

The source for the quote in question was a speech he gave at SOAS and not that paper, per the Guardian article about it I linked to. Is there any reason to think that's wrong?

I mean, the quote is not in that paper, obviously. But that supports the reported version more than it refutes it.

I guess I'll go check.

[compared2what?]

Throw the question open - do you see no difference in what is happening to each of these people Atzmon and Finklestein?

If Finkelstein had made outrageous, hateful remarks as Atzmon has ("I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act," for one example...), I would condemn him, too.

The source for that quote is a certain right-wing zionist, who twisted Atzmon's meaning to suit its own defamatory purposes -- i.e. to 'prove' that Atzmon 'defends' burning down synagogues. Since then, it has been quoted and re-quoted to 'prove' that Atzmon supports violent antisemitism.

No. That quote's from a speech he gave at SOAS, and it had already been reported the year before right-wing-zionist David Hirsh took issue with some of his other remarks about burning down synagogues. (As described here.)

I haven't read Hirsh, but I don't think it's at all fair to say he (Atzmon) defended that approach. If that's what was said.

I guess that you could probably say that questions regarding the rightness and wrongness of burning down synagogues appears to come up a little more frequently in Atzmon's work than the opposition of Israel strictly requires, though.

[compared2what?]

"In the devastating reality created by the Jewish state, anti-semitism has been replaced by political reaction. I am not suggesting that Jewish interests are not being mutilated and vandalised. I am not saying that synagogues aren't being attacked, that Jewish graves are not brutally smashed up. I am saying that these acts, that are in no way legitimate, should be seen as political responses rather than racially motivated acts or "irrational" hate crimes." Link

What Atzmon says is true, in the same way that Israelis' desecration of mosques and churches is not an 'irrational act', any more than the home demolitions and the bulldozing of Palestinian homes to make way for Jewish-only colonies are 'irrational'. They are political acts, and the people who commit them should not be regarded as mentally ill, but as perpetrators of politically-motivated criminal acts (regardless of whether these political purposes are morally and legally defensible).

Okay. Once again, your assertion that it's true doesn't make it true.

For example, in 1999. the white supremacist Williams brothers (who also murdered a gay couple and bombed some abortion clinics during the same crime spree), burned three synagogues in California. That was not in protest of Israel.

Just last January, a 19-year-old white supremacist/anarchist with no known feelings about Israel fire-bombed a couple of synagogues in Bergen County. I'm not sure if there were more than two, but you can read about one of them here, in the not-very-politically-titled "Temple Attack continued after alleged firebomber heard screams"

And....I also thought I recalled reading something about some apparently antisemitic arson that turned out to be an insurance scam by Jews in this neck of the woods, not too long ago. I can't find it now, sadly. But in the event that it happened, it still wouldn't be political. Is my point.

_____________

Also: "Israelis' desecration of mosques and churches" is NOT a political act in the same way that "the home demolitions and the bulldozing of Palestinian homes to make way for Jewish-only colonies" are. It's very misleading and highly inflammatory to lump them together, therefore.
_______________

Plus, if you ask me, they're all irrational.

[AlicetheKurious]

And seriously: It's hardly a secret that American Jewish support for Israel is declining. It has been for years. There have been numerous reports that it has been for years. That's largely what occasioned Peter Beinart's book. As summarized in 2010 by The Atlantic Wire (additional links in original):

And yet, this is belied by the figures I quoted earlier, showing that concrete support for Israel, in the form of private financial donations from American Jewish donors, is actually increasing, rather rapidly (nearly US$2 billion per year now -- in addition to the billions that the US government gives to Israel in compliance with the wishes of American Jewish political organizations).

Furthermore, it depends who you ask. The real increase in concrete support for Israel and Israeli crimes among American Jews is consistent with other poll results showing that the decline in political support you mention may not be as conclusively proven as you indicate (links in original):

Finkelstein omissions: 95% of Jewish Americans feel pride in Israel, 75% approved Cast Lead, only 13% recognize that Israel occupies Palestinian land.

“Not Far Enough: Fact-Checking Finkelstein” –I’ve been reading This Time We Went Too Far: Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion by Norman G. Finkelstein (OR Books, 2010). Even though Finkelstein is “functionally a Zionist of the Left-liberal persuasion” there is no denying his passionate and often principled argumentation in support of positions that are generally helpful to those unemcumbered by Finkelstein’s tribal loyalties.

The “Gaza Invasion” of Finkelstein’s subtitle was the 22-day Hanukkah Massacre in the winter of 2008-2009 wherein forces of the Jewish state killed 1,417 Palestinians and wounded 5,303 in Gaza. I can’t say I made a thorough examination of Finkelstein’s book but I did flag two pages in chapter six, “Ever Fewer Hosannas,” in the hardcover edition for follow-up.

At the top of page 110 there appears the last sentence of a lengthy quote from “Poll: Attachment of U.S. Jews To Israel Falls in Past 2 Years” by Steven M. Cohen in the Jewish Daily Forward (March 04, 2005). It says: “Just 57% affirmed that ‘caring about Israel is a very important part of my being Jewish,’ compared with 73% in a similar survey in 1989.” In chapter six Finkelstein is making the case that American Jewish support for Israel is declining.

Finkelstein, apparently, didn’t go far enough in reading the article. When read in its entirety a more complex picture of the attitudes of Americans Jews towards Israel emerges. For example, there’s the finding that 95% of Americans Jews feel some degree of pride in Israel with fully two-thirds saying they “always” or “often” “feel proud of Israel”; only 5% said “never”. Then, too, “Only 13% said they are ‘sometimes uncomfortable identifying as a supporter of Israel,’ with an additional 14% ‘not sure’ “;73% disagreed with the statement.

Concerning the attitudes of American Jews regarding Palestinians, Cohen writes:

When offered sharply critical characterizations of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, more respondents disagreed than agreed. However, substantial numbers were unsure. Thus, by 60% to 11% the sample rejected the assertion that “Israel persecutes a minority population,” with 29% not sure. Similarly, by a 65% to 13% margin, they rejected the notion that “Israel occupies lands that belong to another people,” with 22% not sure.

To restate that, only 11% of Americans Jews recognize that Palestinians are oppressed by Israel and only 13% admit that Israel occupies Palestinian territory. Curiously, only 17% of American Jews answered “Yes” when asked, “Are you a Zionist?”

Regarding a poll more closely related to the subject of his book, Finkelstein spins the results of J Street’s March 2009 “National Survey of American Jews”. On pages 118-119, Finkelstein writes, “a poll of American Jews found that 47% strongly approved of the Israeli assault, but—in a sharp break with the usual wall-to-wall solidarity—53 per cent were either ambivalent (44 per cent ‘somewhat’ approved or ‘somewhat’ disapproved) or strongly disapproved (9 per cent).”

Now, before I tell you what Finkelstein didn’t tell his readers about that poll, I want to emphasize two points: First, these are American, not Israeli, Jews. Second, the poll was conducted from February 28, 2009 through March 9, 2009. The Hanukkah Massacre ended on January 18, 2009.

So, these American Jews were expressing their attitudes more than a month after the fog of war and Israeli gov’t. propaganda had begun to clear. The one-sidedness of the ‘conflict’ was well-known by then, graphic images of Palestinian suffering had circulated widely, and respected international human rights groups had already begun to weigh-in against Israel.

What did American Jews tell J Street pollsters? Fully 75% said they “strongly approved” or “somewhat approved” “of the recent military action that Israel took in Gaza”; a plurality (47%) of American Jews “strongly approved”. This despite the fact that 59% “felt that the military action had no impact on Israel’s security (41 percent) or made Israel less secure (18 percent)”. This is not quite the picture Finkelstein paints. Link

[compared2what?]

And seriously: It's hardly a secret that American Jewish support for Israel is declining. It has been for years. There have been numerous reports that it has been for years. That's largely what occasioned Peter Beinart's book. As summarized in 2010 by The Atlantic Wire (additional links in original):

And yet, this is belied by the figures I quoted earlier, showing that concrete support for Israel, in the form of private financial donations from American Jewish donors, is actually increasing, rather rapidly (nearly US$2 billion per year now -- in addition to the billions that the US government gives to Israel in compliance with the wishes of American Jewish political organizations).

No. I believe that's consistent with both the trends and Mearsheimer/Walt -- is, a smallish, unrepresentatively wealthy exceptionally right-wing group of American Jews and Evangelicals accounts for most of that support, and it's getting more extreme.

Furthermore, it depends who you ask.

Very much so. But it's been a while. Trends over time are said to be what counts, wrt such things. And I'm relatively sure that it's the trend lines (as opposed to a bunch of different numbers from different polls of different people) that have been showing a real decline for....I can't remember. But maybe since 2006?

I'll look into it more. But common-sense plus plain old inevitable demographic shifts -- born of intermarriage, decreasing rates of religiosity overall, # of young adults born not just after the H-word but also after the Six-Day War, etc. --strongly support the idea. And so do any number of bellwethers, a la Beinart/Goldberg/Remnick.

The real increase in concrete support for Israel and Israeli crimes among American Jews is consistent with other poll results showing that the decline in political support you mention may not be as conclusively proven as you indicate (links in original):

I don't think I said it was conclusive. I'm reasonably sure that trends show a decline.

However, whether they do or not, if "concrete" support means "financial support" -- and what else could it mean, really? -- it doesn't reflect on the decline in political support I just mentioned one way or the other. For the reasons already stated.

Finkelstein omissions: 95% of Jewish Americans feel pride in Israel, 75% approved Cast Lead, only 13% recognize that Israel occupies Palestinian land.

“Not Far Enough: Fact-Checking Finkelstein” –I’ve been reading This Time We Went Too Far: Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion by Norman G. Finkelstein (OR Books, 2010). Even though Finkelstein is “functionally a Zionist of the Left-liberal persuasion” there is no denying his passionate and often principled argumentation in support of positions that are generally helpful to those unemcumbered by Finkelstein’s tribal loyalties.

The “Gaza Invasion” of Finkelstein’s subtitle was the 22-day Hanukkah Massacre in the winter of 2008-2009 wherein forces of the Jewish state killed 1,417 Palestinians and wounded 5,303 in Gaza. I can’t say I made a thorough examination of Finkelstein’s book but I did flag two pages in chapter six, “Ever Fewer Hosannas,” in the hardcover edition for follow-up.

At the top of page 110 there appears the last sentence of a lengthy quote from “Poll: Attachment of U.S. Jews To Israel Falls in Past 2 Years” by Steven M. Cohen in the Jewish Daily Forward (March 04, 2005). It says: “Just 57% affirmed that ‘caring about Israel is a very important part of my being Jewish,’ compared with 73% in a similar survey in 1989.” In chapter six Finkelstein is making the case that American Jewish support for Israel is declining.

Finkelstein, apparently, didn’t go far enough in reading the article. When read in its entirety a more complex picture of the attitudes of Americans Jews towards Israel emerges. For example, there’s the finding that 95% of Americans Jews feel some degree of pride in Israel with fully two-thirds saying they “always” or “often” “feel proud of Israel”; only 5% said “never”. Then, too, “Only 13% said they are ‘sometimes uncomfortable identifying as a supporter of Israel,’ with an additional 14% ‘not sure’ “;73% disagreed with the statement.

Concerning the attitudes of American Jews regarding Palestinians, Cohen writes:

When offered sharply critical characterizations of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, more respondents disagreed than agreed. However, substantial numbers were unsure. Thus, by 60% to 11% the sample rejected the assertion that “Israel persecutes a minority population,” with 29% not sure. Similarly, by a 65% to 13% margin, they rejected the notion that “Israel occupies lands that belong to another people,” with 22% not sure.

To restate that, only 11% of Americans Jews recognize that Palestinians are oppressed by Israel and only 13% admit that Israel occupies Palestinian territory. Curiously, only 17% of American Jews answered “Yes” when asked, “Are you a Zionist?”

Regarding a poll more closely related to the subject of his book, Finkelstein spins the results of J Street’s March 2009 “National Survey of American Jews”. On pages 118-119, Finkelstein writes, “a poll of American Jews found that 47% strongly approved of the Israeli assault, but—in a sharp break with the usual wall-to-wall solidarity—53 per cent were either ambivalent (44 per cent ‘somewhat’ approved or ‘somewhat’ disapproved) or strongly disapproved (9 per cent).”

Now, before I tell you what Finkelstein didn’t tell his readers about that poll, I want to emphasize two points: First, these are American, not Israeli, Jews. Second, the poll was conducted from February 28, 2009 through March 9, 2009. The Hanukkah Massacre ended on January 18, 2009.

So, these American Jews were expressing their attitudes more than a month after the fog of war and Israeli gov’t. propaganda had begun to clear. The one-sidedness of the ‘conflict’ was well-known by then, graphic images of Palestinian suffering had circulated widely, and respected international human rights groups had already begun to weigh-in against Israel.

What did American Jews tell J Street pollsters? Fully 75% said they “strongly approved” or “somewhat approved” “of the recent military action that Israel took in Gaza”; a plurality (47%) of American Jews “strongly approved”. This despite the fact that 59% “felt that the military action had no impact on Israel’s security (41 percent) or made Israel less secure (18 percent)”. This is not quite the picture Finkelstein paints. Link

Those aren't too far above the top-line numbers in more than one poll I looked at earlier. But they're higher than a couple of others. And way higher than one I couldn't find in full on-line. However, again, that might or might not mean anything much. I believe the consensus is that there's a long-term decline in the trends. But I'm not positive there is.