Sunday, July 27, 2008
Tom Mountain takes on the loonies of Cambridge and their inappropriately named "Peace Commission" in this week's Jewish Advocate (in full below). Tom's excellent analysis goes beyond Cambridge and can be applied to ant number of times or places:
That the Cambridge Peace Commission is an anti-Israel organization should come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the radical left-wing mindset of a city that serves as one of the last bastions of Marxist lunacy in the United States.
Cambridge is to the east coast what Berkeley is to the left coast, a breeding ground for some of the wackiest radicals north of Havana; a mecca for the disgruntled, angry-at-the-world, smash-the-system leftists that reminisce about Timothy Leary and yearn for the day when Lenin will be required reading in public schools. The intelligentsia that permeates this city can usually be seen in Harvard Square coffee houses in their Che Guevara T-shirts and Parisian berets, pining for the demise of corporate America while sipping herbal tea under the watchful gaze of those old Andy Warhol portraits of Chairman Mao.
Since these people are hardcore leftists, they’re naturally fixated on Third World movements that seek to violently overthrow powerful Western nations, which means they are inclined to tender whatever ideological support possible to their latest oppressed-victims-of-the-month. And this particular month, like last month, and last year, and the last decade, and the decade before that, the Left has rallied to the Palestinians.
And thus, the Cambridge Peace Commission has targeted Israel.
Israel is viewed by the left as an extension of modern Western imperialism in the Middle East, foreign invaders in a land populated by indigenous peoples whom this American-sponsored Zionist entity oppresses. And their victims are the Palestinians, who only want to live in peace and harmony in a free state of Palestine beside the Zionist entity, or better still, in a multicultural haven where all peoples, Moslem and Jew, Palestinian and Israeli, can live together in one united country.
To accomplish this, the Palestinians must use whatever means necessary to overthrow the Israeli usurpers -a defenseless oppressed people must always use homemade bombs against tanks, after all. They also need a lot of moral support from the West.
And that is why the CPC sponsored a peace pilgrimage to Bethlehem. Simply talking about the need to help their ideological brethren the Palestinians from the comfort of their safe Cambridge commune wasn’t enough. They had to see for themselves. So off they went, Jew and Christian alike, kindred spirits in their quest to validate their support for the oppressed Palestinians against the hawkish American-backed Israel.
They even issued important guidelines for their members to follow when entering the turf of their Palestinian brethren:
“Being openly gay or lesbian is outside the norms of Palestinian life…” (Translation: they kill gays and lesbians.)
“It is best that you not raise the issue of being gay or lesbian with Palestinians.” (Or they might kill you too.)
“It is best not to practice your Hebrew with Palestinians even if someone uses it with you.” (They might think you’re Israeli and kill you).
“It is better not to wear a kippah or yarmulke in Palestinian communities.” (This will clearly identify you as a Jew, and they kill Jews.)
“There are eyes and ears watching for collaborators.” (If Palestinians are seen chumming around with Jews they can be killed along with the Jews.)
“If you are given a kuffeya (traditional Palestinian headdress) to wear, put it on. It will help you blend in with the community.” (Then you won’t be killed for being perceived as a Jew.)
“(The kuffeya) communicates that you belong.” (And the Palestinians won’t kill you even if they know you’re a Jew.)
These guidelines were deemed necessary because these leftist pilgrims tend to be that which is loathed in the Arab-Muslim world that the Palestinians are an integral part of. The CPC members may be radical leftists, but they still emanate from the Jeffersonian democracy that is the United States. These American leftists are Western progressive ideologues, ACLU civil libertarians, socialists, egalitarians and Democrats.
They are Jews and Christians. They’re tolerant of other religions. Their members drink, engage in sex without marriage, and maybe even experimented with illicit drugs sometime in their youth. Some are gay and lesbian. Citizens of traditional Arab countries who engage in any of the above tend to end up in prison, exiled or dead.
All of which means that matter how hard the CPC crowd tries to show some ideological kinship with the Palestinians, it can never work. Which is why the Palestinians terror elite view them less as kindred brethren, and more as useful idiots.
It's amazing how we could make a very similar list for people visiting haredi communities. Closed-mindedness is close-mindedness, regardless of race or religion. It's just that many of us Jews are apologists for the ultra-orthodox. We romanticize their observance.
The left,
victims of a progressively worsening mental illness,
romanticise arab racism,
islamosupremecism,
enablers of islamofascist inspired ethnic cleansing of non-muslims from the middle east.
Eddie,
You make decent points of occassions...but please stop making up words.
Eddie,
You make decent points on occassion...but please stop making up words. It makes your arguments seem contrived and sophmoric.
David, I’m writing in response to your comments:
“Closed-mindedness is close-mindedness, regardless of race or religion.”
Unfortunately, the Palestinians are guided by a generalized closed-mindedness when it comes to Israel. Whether this is due to religion, ideology, their political leadership, or some combination I am not sure. You do not find the same mentality in Israel. When Israelis are polled the vast majority wants peace. When Palestinians are polled they want to “expel the Zionist entity.”
“It's amazing how we could make a very similar list for people visiting haredi communities.”
I don’t think the analogy with the Haredim is appropriate. I think there is big difference between prejudice (negative opinions about a particular group) and committing acts of terrorism.
The former is to be expected (even protected) in free societies. People will always find a reason to dislike each other. For whatever reason. Look at the relations between Mizrachim and Ashkenazim. Prejudice, while not pretty, is simply a part of human existence.
The latter, committing suicidal acts of violence to undermine the state, cannot be accepted by a free society or any society.
So when the Haredim start blowing themselves up in pizza joints and cafes in Gaza I will agree with you. Until then, the comparison is inapt.
All of which means that matter how hard the CPC crowd tries to show some ideological kinship with the Palestinians, it can never work. Which is why the Palestinians terror elite view them less as kindred brethren, and more as useful idiots.
Fair enough. My question then becomes, how useful are these useful idiots?
One can hope that they will be as effective in spreading Palestinian dogma, as they are in making Lenin popular again. But I wouldn't want to count on it.
Personally, I'd be interested in seeing what sort of flyer they'd need to distribute before sending their members to Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem, Netanya, Ashkelon, etc. --
"If you want to wear a kippa or yarmulke (or both!), go ahead. If you want to wear your Gay Pride T-shirt, don't worry; Jerusalem had its own Gay Pride parade last year. If you want to wear a keffiyeh, some people will glare at you, but they'll probably (rightly) assume that you're a tourist who doesn't know any better."
"If you want to join a heartfelt cause, Israel has the gamut, from animal rights to pro-drugs; there are even Israeli pro-Palestinian-terror sympathizers. This may provide refreshing variety to time spent with Palestinian activists, who only have the one cause... how boring."
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Daoud, which word is made up?
Islamofascism?
New Centrist,
I agree with you diferentiation between prejudice and acts or terrorism.
In this case, I was only referencing the bullet pointed list that was in the post. It references culteral norms, that in my opinion, mirror those in the haraedi community. Namely, cultural and social conservitism. There are many other issues that divide them for sure.
Interestingly though, there are groups of haredim, though small in comparision to what they used to be, that do not want Israel as a state to exist. My point was that we (often including myself), are quick to make exceptions for the ultra-orthodox.
One other point, you stated that
"The latter, committing suicidal acts of violence to undermine the state, cannot be accepted by a free society or any society."
It was just those sort of acts in America that forced of the colonial yoke off the British. Terrorist or "freedom fighter" often depends on what side you're on.
#1 David:
Huh? Even if it were true, what does it >have to do with what Tom Mountain wrote?- Many of the Haredim do not accept the State of Israel (apart from the money they receive for their institutions and family support) and a few (Neturei Karta) have even made common cause with the Islamo-fascists and the left and campaign with them against Israel.
- The rift between the Haredim and secular Israelis is quite severe. Yet, the most violent acts by the Haredim have been to burn bus shelters in their neighborhoods featuring images of bikini-clad women or throwing stones at cars on Shabbat. When's the last time you heard of a secular or non-Haredi religious Jew anywhere in the world praising, celebrating or romanticizing those actions? How do Haredi protests against secularism even remotely compare to the indiscrimate terror of blowing up buses, pizzerias, cafés, night clubs, Bat Mitzvah parties or seders, to name just a few examples of terror by Palestinian Arabs.
- You say the common thread is being close-minded? Where is there anything in the Haredi world to compare to the culture of hatred that is so rampant in the Arab world? Or actions that can compare to the lynching of the two reservists in Ramallah? Or the destruction of Joseph's Tomb? Or the murder of Shalhevet Pass?
O my brother Daoud. Habibi.Drawing any similarity between the insularity of Haredim and the determination of the Arabs to destroy the Jewish state and conduct genocide is fatuous and disingenuous. It's another example of Leftist lies.
Don't change the subject, which was about the peculiar alliance between the Left and the Jihadis. It's not about close-minded Haredim what you allege to be the larger Jewish community's being apologists for them. What a load of bullshit.
Go peddle your nonsense and propaganda somewhere else, Comrade David. We ain't buying it here.
Nap,
Nice work incorporating multiple lines of insults into your post. I see accusations of being part of the "Left" (don't know why it's capitalized, Another seems to imply I'm Arabic, not an insult by nature but that seems to be the intent. And the best is the communist jibe. These are all useful techniques for stopping a conversation.
Now that I've recognized your effort, I believe my point stands. There would be a similar list made for one someone who was visiting the haredi community. Cultural conservatism. Take from that point what you will.
Daoud, let us know when you get your panties in a knot over the demand that "sharia law" be the law of the land in the US, Canada, UK, as it is in saudi arabia, the islamofascist regime of iran.
Eddie,
You nicely added to Naps line of insults. You echoed his "let's use the arabic pronuciation of David" and sliped in a "panties in a knot"...a noble attempt at emasculation.
Dialouge would be much to difficult...let's stick to insults.
I wrote:
"The latter, committing suicidal acts of violence to undermine the state..."
David wrote:
"It was just those sort of acts in America that forced of the colonial yoke off the British."
Political violence and terrorism are not the same thing. Liberal theorists including John Locke recognized the right to use force against tyranny.
Terrorism is the intentional targeting of civilians and noncombatants by nonstate actors for political purposes. Those who argue otherwise are, in most cases, seeking to conflate the use of violence by state and nonstate actors (for example, Noam Chomsky’s critique of “state terror”).
The minutemen and other American revolutionaries were not suicide bombers. The minutemen and other American revolutionaries did not intentionally target civilians. They fought the British military.
Please see:
http://newcentrist.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/identifying-the-fourth-wave-of-terrorism/
In my opinion terrorism is an action, not an idiology. It is a means of inflicting fear on a population.
I agree that it is usally used by non-state entities. That being said, I think that many state entities use "terrorist" tecniques.
Maybe a better analogy would be the resitance of the Native Americans against the American settelers. Some certinly sideded with the British or French eventually, but they could be said to have used terrorist type teniques to try to shed a colononizing power. I think in the minds of many American settlers, they where "no-state entities" as well.
Yes, terrorism is obviously a tactic rather than an ideology. Where did I state otherwise?
I was simply pointing out the difference between political violence in general and terrorism in specific. By definition, states do not engage in terrorism. When armies intentionally target civilians, officers and soldiers can be charged with war crimes but not terrorism.
It may seem a difference of semantics but language is important. Sloppy language leads to the "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" nonsense and the notion that terrorism is simply a matter of "opinion".
BTW, the indigenous peoples of the Americas had a wide array of governmental forms ranging from tribe to state and everything in between.
There are many definitons of terrorism or terrorist. Webster's certinly not the only source for definitions, defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". In this sense it is a tecnique that is used, by a state or by the stateless.
I disagree that the statement I made "One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". This speaks to an individuals perspective, and pointing out that people's perspective shape how they use words and language and interpret the world is, I beleive, a valid point.
I put Native American's in quotes as "non-state entities" becuse of the past belief that they were savages and their cultural (and governmental)norms didn't conform to western standards. They weren't civilized in the western sense.