Încearcă evreii să profite de pe urma Holocaustului?

    42

    Aparent, asta cred mulţi dintre cei chestionaţi în mai multe ţări europene. Sondajul a fost realizat de Fundaţia Friedrich Erbert, fundaţie asociată Partidului Social Democrat din Germania. Rezultatele?

    Studiul – „Intoleranţă, prejudecată, discriminare: un studiu european” – a chestionat aproximativ 1.000 de oameni din Marea Britanie, Olanda, Italia, Portugalia, Ungaria, Polonia şi Franţa.

    Cercetătorii au întrebat subiecţii dacă sînt de acord cu afirmaţia „Evreii încearcă să profite de pe urma statului lor de victime ale erei natiste”. 72,2% dintre polonezi, 49,8% dintre germani, 68,1% dintre unguri au răspuns afirmativ.

    Poate cel mai remarcabil fapt dezvăluit de sondaj este cel aflat în momentul în care oamenilor li s-a cerut să răspundă declaraţiei „Israel duce un război de exterminare împotriva palestinienilor”, 63% dintre polonezii chestionoaţi şi 47,7% dintre germani au fost de acord.

    Puteţi citi mai multe aici.

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    42 COMENTARII

    1. DACA NU TRAIESTI LINGA EVREI NU POTI SA INTELEGI NICIODATA CUM E CU PALESTINIENII!!!!!!!!!DAR SA NU UITAM CA NU TOTI ARABII SUNT TERORISTI,DAR TOTI TERORISTII SUNT ARABI!!!!!!

    2. Oy vey!

      E de necrezut, cind totusi este stiut ca Hamasul este terorist, ca 73 din Gaza au votat cu ei, si chiar si Fatah a fost o organizatie terorista. Tot asa, cine e Hizballah, Siria.

    3. Egalarea simbolurilor din poza de la inceputul paginii, cred nici lui Isus nu i-ar face placere.

      Cred ca Europa ar trebui singura sa se sesizeze si nici macar sa nu puna probleme invers. Evreii ar trebui sa aiba dreptul „sa beneficieze” de marinimia Europei, care ar trebui sa simta nevoia to make amends, nu sa se exprime ca evreii „profita„. Dar termenul „evreu profitor” face parte din lexiconul antisemitilor. Asa ca chestionatilor nu le-a fost greu sa sa se indentifice cu intrebarea din sondaj.

      Daca imediat dupa Holocaust, au fost mai marinimosi, (de ex. votarea pentru infiintarea Israelului ca stat, sau acordarea de despagubiri din Germania )acum, dupa cum prea bine stim si asa cum sta si scris in lectura recomandata pe site, ei prefera (poate ajutati de elemente interesate si de antisemitismul inradacinat de veacuri) sa faca inversia. Ca sa scape de sentimentul de vinovatie, in loc sa faca the right thing, prefera sa rostogoleasca vina pe Israel, sa-l transforme in agresor, astfel eliberindu-se ei. Si putind in continuare sa neindreptateasca evreii, in acelasi timp, respirind usurati.

      E interesant ca la inceput cind am aparut pe site am scris ceva despre aceasta inversie, inca inainte sa citesc articolele respective despre inversie. De fapt inca nu citisem nimic de pe site. Intelelesem singura (pentru ca e atit de simplu sa tragi concluzii daca privesti realitatea si te folosesti de logica. De aceea nu inteleg refuzul stingistilor sa vada adevarul de sub nas).

      Pentru ca se potriveste f. bine la topicul de fata, voi recicla si copia acel pasaj pe care l-am scis sub „O noua Shoah” #32:

      E atit de groaznic si absurd ce se intimpla in Europa, de-a dreptul hidos. Cu atit mai mult cu cit provine de la mintile iluminate, intelectualii.

      Au gasit o formula extraordinar de rentabila – ura fata de evrei au transformat-o in ceva opus, contrar – numind-o umanism, pluralism, anti-rasism. Ce cinic – folosesc teorii antirasiste ca sa-si exercite cu fatarnicie rasismul fata de evrei si Israelieni Au gasit si o formula “cistigatoare” care sa le dea si scuza, pretextul, motivind prin idea ca Evreii sint vinovati si o merita. Aceeasi ura care a adus la Holocaust, imbraca astazi straie subtile si sofisticate avind ca justificatie asa-zisele teritorii “ocupate”, Palestiienii “nevinovati” pe care ii lezam noi. Au inversat rolurile dintre noi si Palestinieni si au rescris realitatea – au denumit ziua noapte si noaptea zi. Ceea ce au stiut sa faca f. bine de-alungul veacurilor, acum exceleaza in aceeasi directie. Prin tutela “umanismului”, isi implementeaza actele fasciste impotriva evreilor – boicoteaza Israelul, terorizeaza Israelienii cu darea lor in judecata si pedepsirea lor ulterioara pentru marele pacat ca au indraznit sa se apere impotriva teroristilor. Ce-i asta de fapt? Marcheaza o modalitate noua de a etala lozinca “Intarea Everilor interzisa” [Juden Raus] in tarilor Europene. Tot in asta consta si contramandarea participarii conferiantiarilor de la univeritati Israeliene. BINGO –> Aproape toate universitatile Israeliene sint de stinga. Deci pedeapsa colectiva pentru Israelieni, care de fapt la urma urmei sint evrei, nu?.Ca altfel ce-ar avea cu inocentii (in ochii Europenilor) naivi de la stinga?

    4. Sondajul trebuie luat cu un pic de sare. Nu este irelevant faptul ca a fost facut de o organizatie afiliata Partidului Social Democrat german, deci stingii politice, iar stinga nu este aliatul evreilor sau al Israelului. Din contra. Mai mult, nu trebuie uitat ca aceasta perceptie ostila evreilor si Israelului este in primul rind creata de presa de stinga si stingisti in general.

    5. Antisemitul mediu este, de fapt (asta scrie si AGlucksmann in „Discursul urii”) un neterminat, un ratat, omul esecurilor, la plural. Simtind nevoia sa-si justifice ratarile cumva in ochii altora si mai ales in ai sai proprii (e si o forma, da, de nebunie, antisemitismul), acest om va cauta mereu vinovati pentru propriile ratari. Si ii va gasi, bineinteles, oriunde: francmasonii, bubulii, si, foarte la indemana, evreii. AGlucksmann (culmea, un om de stanga declarat): antisemitul uraste evreul din cauza ca evreul incarneaza 3 principii: banul manuit in mod eficient (Rockefeller), sabia care te apara, fara a cuceri neaparat ce nu-i apartine (vezi statul Israel, care a avut de luptat cu aproape toti vecinii sai from day 1, si a invins), si stiinta+cultura (Freud, Einstein). Din acest unghi, evreul e inamicul perfect.
      Inca 2 povesti: prima, care m-a impresionat, este a parintilor lui AGlucksmann: se pare ca au emigrat in 38 in Israel (in fine, nu stiu cum se numea pe vremea aceea), cu cei doi frati mai mari ai lui, dupa care, in 40, vazand ca izbucnise razboiul, tatal lui s-a intors in Franta ca sa lupte in trupele maquis impotriva nemtilor. Sa te intorci „in gura lupului” ca sa lupti cu el, cred ca un asemenea om merita dat exemplu multoira care azi se dau mari razboinici din vorbe.
      A doua: am avut un coleg de facultate care ma poreclise Itzic, canta cantece legionare (din folclorul familiei lui, cica), in fine, de-astea, omul considera si el ca „evreii se folosesc de Holocaust ca sa……etc”. Si stiti cat de intreg era la minte? O sa va spun: mai deloc. Lua Zoloft, care, daca aveti curiozitatea sa cautati pe google, e unul din cele mai puternice tranchilizante, pentru ca era maniaco-depresiv. Cam asta-i treaba cu antisemitii.
      Cititi „Discursul urii”, sau orice altceva de Glucksmann („Prostia”, iarasi, e foarte buna), credeti-ma, merita.
      http://www.humanitas.ro/search/node/glucksmann+discursul+urii

    6. Sondajul publicat a fost facut la comanda SPD, un partid de stanga, partidul fostului Bundeskanzler Schröder, consilierul Gazpromului, etc etc. Asta ca sa nu uitam despre cine e vorba si de unde vin informatiile.
      Cum stim, partidele politice nu au de ce sa comande sondaje si sa le dea publicitatii, daca asta nu le convine dpdv tactic. Deci, acest sondaj trebuie privit drept ceea ce este, o actiune politica in interesul unui partid de stanga.
      Dupa cum se stie, stanga occidentala, de la care SPD nu face exceptie, este aparatoarea multiculturalismului, a tolerantei fata de „religia pacii”, sustine „cauza palestiniana”, toata vremea cere Israelului concesii, se ingrijoreaza de islamofobie, etc. Presa mainstream (msm) este dominata aproape in intregime de stanga, si stim foarte bine cu cata „obiectivitate” trateaza Israelul.
      Mai este si o dimensiune foarte practica: datorita acestei stangi, UE finanteaza cu banii nostri Autoritatea Palestiniana, care este legata de terorism. Stanga occidentala sus-mentionata are afinitati nenumarate cu Rusia, asa cum avea mai inainte cu URSS-ul, iar URSS-ul se afla la originea tuturor organizatiilor teroriste islamiste din lumea contemporana.
      Pe scurt, stanga nu e deloc nevinovata de toata atmosfera asta de nebunie agresiva creata in jurul Israelului, iar dpdv practic, aceasta nebunie are consecinte, din cauza ei mor oameni acum in Israel.
      Acum, din sondajul prezentat, nu rezulta nimic din toate astea. Ai impresia ca polonezii sunt 72% antisemiti, nu se stie de ce, probabil pt ca sunt catolici…
      Ceea ce vreau sa spun e ca sondajul mi se pare o tentativa de a muta vina care apasa in mod obiectiv asupra SPD si tovarasilor sai de aripa stanga, de a o transfera, zic, asupra altora. Emotionat de grija SPD-ului fata de evrei si Israel, uiti care e pozitia acestui partid si a stangii in aceasta problema, gandul te poarta, automat, spre alti suspecti, entitati nebuloase ca „dreapta”, „antisemitismul polonez”, etc.
      (Ma opresc asupra polonezilor mai mult, pt ca stiu mai bine cazul lor, si pentru ca in acest sondaj par sa stea cel mai rau la procente).
      Eu nu zic ca nu exista antisemitism „de dreapta” in Europa si in Polonia. Exista, e urat, e condamnabil, trebuie facut ceva in privinta lui, nici asta nu neg.
      Eu sustin insa ca el nu este nici pe departe la fel de periculos pentru Israel, cum este antisemitismul de stanga – din simplul motiv ca numai cel de stanga e conectat cu terorismul, cu ostilitatea organizatiilor internationale fata de Israel si cu propaganda antiisraeliana din msm.
      Diferenta de dimensiuni si de grad de amenintare este cam ca aceea dintre gripa A (H1N1) si SIDA – desi poti sa spui ca amandoua sunt boli virale, si ca nu e de dorit sa ai niciuna, totusi intre ele exista o mare diferenta de mortalitate. Daca nu poti sa faci diagnosticul diferential intre ele, si incerci sa le combati la gramada, asa, in general, nu ai nicio sansa sa actionezi eficient impotriva fiecareia.

      Eu sustin ca procentele consternante atinse la intrebarea privind Israelul si palestinienii sunt in intregime rezultatul propagandei de stanga.

      Cat despre procentele consternante de la intrebarea daca evreii „profita de statutul de victima’, cel putin in ce-i priveste pe polonezi, mai am o explicatie:

      In Polonia se remarca un grup foarte zgomotos si vizibil de persoane de stanga, care fac mare caz de originea lor evreiasca. Evident, evreii polonezi nu sunt reprezentati de acest grup, dar asta nu se vede neaparat cu ochiul liber.
      De ce? pentru ca presa e dominata de stanga, de moguli si mai ales de imperiul mediatic al Gazetei Wyborcza, al carei superfaimos reprezentant este Adam Michnik. Michnik insusi nu pierde nicio ocazie de a se mandri cu originea lui evreiasca, la fel si altii din jurul lui; ei sunt, de departe, mult mai mediatizati decat ceilalti evrei din Polonia. In acelasi timp, lumea din jurul lui Michnik si a Gazetei practica din abundenta acuzatia de antisemitism impotriva celor care au pareri diferite de ale lor. Biserica Catolica, dreapta, partidul PiS condus de fratii Kaczynski, polonezii catolici si conservatori, etc, sunt in permanenta in vizorul lor; ei stabilesc pentru fiecare eticheta ce trebuie lipita, ala e extremist, ala e moderat, ala e xenofob, ala e antisemit, etc.
      Dar si de partea dreptei se remarca personalitati de origine evreiasca, de exemplu Bronislaw Wildstein. Insa Wildstein nu face din aceasta origine un argument, nu sustine ca atacurile (nenumarate) de care a avut parte in viata sunt motivate de antisemitismul adversarilor sai fata de el.
      Pe de alta parte, mai exista un efect psihologic previzibil; daca un om care nu are nimic impotriva evreilor si stie ce nu le-a facut niciun rau, este stampilat ca fiind antisemit, el se enerveaza, se simte acuzat pe nedrept, si se poate intoarce impotriva evreilor tocmai din acest motiv. Acuzatia de antisemitism aruncata cu usurinta in toate partile, sau in mod colectiv (polonezii, catolicii) poate deveni ea insasi o sursa de antisemitism. Stanga e capabila de a cauta premeditat sa obtina aceasta reactie, exasperand un adversar prin acuzatia obsesiva de antisemitism, pentru a-l provoca sa spuna, la nervi, vreo prostie despre evrei si astfel sa se compromita. Daca respectivul e fraier si se lasa manipulat, devenind cu adevarat antisemit, stanga nu poate decat sa se bucure.
      Asa ca, daca intrebi polonezul de pe strada – care nu e neaparat cel mai subtil, riguros si grijuliu la nuante analist al detaliilor – daca e adevarat ca evreii fac caz de statutul lor de victima, el ce vreti sa raspunda? primul care ii vine in minte nu e Wildstein, e Michnik si gasca lui de la GW!

      Aici revenim la problema reprezentativitatii; persoanele care au origine evreiasca pot sa sustina tot felul de chestii, sa finanteze campania lui Obama, sa fie comunisti, inclusiv sa fie dusmani inraiti ai Israelului, ca Goldstone sau Chomski, sau chiar stangisti israelieni pro-arabi, (ca exista si asa ceva!), sau, dimpotriva, pot sa fie normali: persoane cu totul respectabile, oameni inteligenti, cu frica lui Dumnezeu, buni patrioti israelieni sau americani, romani, polonezi, etc.
      Cei de stanga sunt foarte mediatizati. Asta nu inseamna ca sunt reprezentativi pentru evrei si pentru Israel.
      De aceea, pentru mine, informatia ca un om este de origine evreiasca, nu e suficient de relevanta ca sa-mi pot face o parere morala sau politica despre acel om.
      Daca vreti un criteriu practic de clasificare politica, propun ca acela sa fie atitudinea respectivei persoane de origine evreiasca fata de cauza Israelului.
      Aici, ce vedem? Evreii de stanga de regula nu sustin Israelul.
      Michnik si Gazeta Wyborcza nu sustin Israelul; dimpotriva, despre Israel scriu ca toate celelalte organe msm din lume, ba poate chiar mai rau. In plus, Michnik si Gazeta sustin guvernul liberal al lui Tusk, super-servil fata de rusi si nemti, si deosebit de critic fata de Israel.
      Iar Lech Kazcynski, un conservator catolic, era un mare sustinator al cauzei Israelului, desi o lume intreaga a ramas convinsa ca era un nenorocit de antisemit (daca nu ma credeti ca a iubit si a ajutat din toate puterile lui Israelul, cautati pe google ce a scris Jerusalem Post la moartea lui, nu pun link-urile aici pt ca sunt prea multe).

      E in interesul aliantei iudeo-crestine sa intelegem bine aceasta strategie a stangii, de a-i eticheta drept antisemiti pe aceia care nu sunt, inclusiv pe prietenii Israelului, dovediti prin fapte.
      Printre evrei, stanga creaza astfel suspiciune fata de acesti prieteni, lipsind Israelul de posibili aliati, de care are atata nevoie.
      Printre ne-evrei, stanga creaza resentimente fata de evrei, cum ca acestia fac caz de statutul lor de victima, acuzandu-i pe nedrept pe ceilalti de antisemitism.

    7. Opinia lui Tony Judt

      Israel: The Alternative
      OCTOBER 23, 2003
      Tony Judt

      The Middle East peace process is finished. It did not die: it was killed. Mahmoud Abbas was undermined by the President of the Palestinian Authority and humiliated by the Prime Minister of Israel. His successor awaits a similar fate. Israel continues to mock its American patron, building illegal settlements in cynical disregard of the “road map.” The President of the United States of America has been reduced to a ventriloquist’s dummy, pitifully reciting the Israeli cabinet line: “It’s all Arafat’s fault.” Israelis themselves grimly await the next bomber. Palestinian Arabs, corralled into shrinking Bantustans, subsist on EU handouts. On the corpse-strewn landscape of the Fertile Crescent, Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat, and a handful of terrorists can all claim victory, and they do. Have we reached the end of the road? What is to be done?

      At the dawn of the twentieth century, in the twilight of the continental empires, Europe’s subject peoples dreamed of forming “nation-states,” territorial homelands where Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Armenians, and others might live free, masters of their own fate. When the Habsburg and Romanov empires collapsed after World War I, their leaders seized the opportunity. A flurry of new states emerged; and the first thing they did was set about privileging their national, “ethnic” majority—defined by language, or religion, or antiquity, or all three—at the expense of inconvenient local minorities, who were consigned to second-class status: permanently resident strangers in their own home.

      But one nationalist movement, Zionism, was frustrated in its ambitions. The dream of an appropriately sited Jewish national home in the middle of the defunct Turkish Empire had to wait upon the retreat of imperial Britain: a process that took three more decades and a second world war. And thus it was only in 1948 that a Jewish nation-state was established in formerly Ottoman Palestine. But the founders of the Jewish state had been influenced by the same concepts and categories as their fin-de-siècle contemporaries back in Warsaw, or Odessa, or Bucharest; not surprisingly, Israel’s ethno-religious self-definition, and its discrimination against internal “foreigners,” has always had more in common with, say, the practices of post-Habsburg Romania than either party might care to acknowledge.

      The problem with Israel, in short, is not—as is sometimes suggested—that it is a European “enclave” in the Arab world; but rather that it arrived too late. It has imported a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law. The very idea of a “Jewish state”—a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded—is rooted in another time and place. Israel, in short, is an anachronism.

      In one vital attribute, however, Israel is quite different from previous insecure, defensive microstates born of imperial collapse: it is a democracy. Hence its present dilemma. Thanks to its occupation of the lands conquered in 1967, Israel today faces three unattractive choices. It can dismantle the Jewish settlements in the territories, return to the 1967 state borders within which Jews constitute a clear majority, and thus remain both a Jewish state and a democracy, albeit one with a constitutionally anomalous community of second-class Arab citizens.

      Alternatively, Israel can continue to occupy “Samaria,” “Judea,” and Gaza, whose Arab population—added to that of present-day Israel—will become the demographic majority within five to eight years: in which case Israel will be either a Jewish state (with an ever-larger majority of unenfranchised non-Jews) or it will be a democracy. But logically it cannot be both.

      Or else Israel can keep control of the Occupied Territories but get rid of the overwhelming majority of the Arab population: either by forcible expulsion or else by starving them of land and livelihood, leaving them no option but to go into exile. In this way Israel could indeed remain both Jewish and at least formally democratic: but at the cost of becoming the first modern democracy to conduct full-scale ethnic cleansing as a state project, something which would condemn Israel forever to the status of an outlaw state, an international pariah.

      Anyone who supposes that this third option is unthinkable above all for a Jewish state has not been watching the steady accretion of settlements and land seizures in the West Bank over the past quarter-century, or listening to generals and politicians on the Israeli right, some of them currently in government. The middle ground of Israeli politics today is occupied by the Likud. Its major component is the late Menachem Begin’s Herut Party. Herut is the successor to Vladimir Jabotinsky’s interwar Revisionist Zionists, whose uncompromising indifference to legal and territorial niceties once attracted from left-leaning Zionists the epithet “fascist.” When one hears Israel’s deputy prime minister, Ehud Olmert, proudly insist that his country has not excluded the option of assassinating the elected president of the Palestinian Authority, it is clear that the label fits better than ever. Political murder is what fascists do.

      The situation of Israel is not desperate, but it may be close to hopeless. Suicide bombers will never bring down the Israeli state, and the Palestinians have no other weapons. There are indeed Arab radicals who will not rest until every Jew is pushed into the Mediterranean, but they represent no strategic threat to Israel, and the Israeli military knows it. What sensible Israelis fear much more than Hamas or the al-Aqsa Brigade is the steady emergence of an Arab majority in “Greater Israel,” and above all the erosion of the political culture and civic morale of their society. As the prominent Labor politician Avraham Burg recently wrote, “After two thousand years of struggle for survival, the reality of Israel is a colonial state, run by a corrupt clique which scorns and mocks law and civic morality.”1 Unless something changes, Israel in half a decade will be neither Jewish nor democratic.

      This is where the US enters the picture. Israel’s behavior has been a disaster for American foreign policy. With American support, Jerusalem has consistently and blatantly flouted UN resolutions requiring it to withdraw from land seized and occupied in war. Israel is the only Middle Eastern state known to possess genuine and lethal weapons of mass destruction. By turning a blind eye, the US has effectively scuttled its own increasingly frantic efforts to prevent such weapons from falling into the hands of other small and potentially belligerent states. Washington’s unconditional support for Israel even in spite of (silent) misgivings is the main reason why most of the rest of the world no longer credits our good faith.

      It is now tacitly conceded by those in a position to know that America’s reasons for going to war in Iraq were not necessarily those advertised at the time.2 For many in the current US administration, a major strategic consideration was the need to destabilize and then reconfigure the Middle East in a manner thought favorable to Israel. This story continues. We are now making belligerent noises toward Syria because Israeli intelligence has assured us that Iraqi weapons have been moved there—a claim for which there is no corroborating evidence from any other source. Syria backs Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad: sworn foes of Israel, to be sure, but hardly a significant international threat. However, Damascus has hitherto been providing the US with critical data on al-Qaeda. Like Iran, another longstanding target of Israeli wrath whom we are actively alienating, Syria is more use to the United States as a friend than an enemy. Which war are we fighting?

      On September 16, 2003, the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution asking Israel to desist from its threat to deport Yasser Arafat. Even American officials themselves recognize, off the record, that the resolution was reasonable and prudent, and that the increasingly wild pronouncements of Israel’s present leadership, by restoring Arafat’s standing in the Arab world, are a major impediment to peace. But the US blocked the resolution all the same, further undermining our credibility as an honest broker in the region. America’s friends and allies around the world are no longer surprised at such actions, but they are saddened and disappointed all the same.

      Israeli politicians have been actively contributing to their own difficulties for many years; why do we continue to aid and abet them in their mistakes? The US has tentatively sought in the past to pressure Israel by threatening to withhold from its annual aid package some of the money that goes to subsidizing West Bank settlers. But the last time this was attempted, during the Clinton administration, Jerusalem got around it by taking the money as “security expenditure.” Washington went along with the subterfuge, and of $10 billion of American aid over four years, between 1993 and 1997, less than $775 million was kept back. The settlement program went ahead unimpeded. Now we don’t even try to stop it.

      This reluctance to speak or act does no one any favors. It has also corroded American domestic debate. Rather than think straight about the Middle East, American politicians and pundits slander our European allies when they dissent, speak glibly and irresponsibly of resurgent anti-Semitism when Israel is criticized, and censoriously rebuke any public figure at home who tries to break from the consensus.

      But the crisis in the Middle East won’t go away. President Bush will probably be conspicuous by his absence from the fray for the coming year, having said just enough about the “road map” in June to placate Tony Blair. But sooner or later an American statesman is going to have to tell the truth to an Israeli prime minister and find a way to make him listen. Israeli liberals and moderate Palestinians have for two decades been thanklessly insisting that the only hope was for Israel to dismantle nearly all the settlements and return to the 1967 borders, in exchange for real Arab recognition of those frontiers and a stable, terrorist-free Palestinian state underwritten (and constrained) by Western and international agencies. This is still the conventional consensus, and it was once a just and possible solution.

      But I suspect that we are already too late for that. There are too many settlements, too many Jewish settlers, and too many Palestinians, and they all live together, albeit separated by barbed wire and pass laws. Whatever the “road map” says, the real map is the one on the ground, and that, as Israelis say, reflects facts. It may be that over a quarter of a million heavily armed and subsidized Jewish settlers would leave Arab Palestine voluntarily; but no one I know believes it will happen. Many of those settlers will die—and kill—rather than move. The last Israeli politician to shoot Jews in pursuit of state policy was David Ben-Gurion, who forcibly disarmed Begin’s illegal Irgun militia in 1948 and integrated it into the new Israel Defense Forces. Ariel Sharon is not Ben-Gurion.

      The time has come to think the unthinkable. The two-state solution—the core of the Oslo process and the present “road map”—is probably already doomed. With every passing year we are postponing an inevitable, harder choice that only the far right and far left have so far acknowledged, each for its own reasons. The true alternative facing the Middle East in coming years will be between an ethnically cleansed Greater Israel and a single, integrated, binational state of Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians. That is indeed how the hard-liners in Sharon’s cabinet see the choice; and that is why they anticipate the removal of the Arabs as the ineluctable condition for the survival of a Jewish state.

      But what if there were no place in the world today for a “Jewish state”? What if the binational solution were not just increasingly likely, but actually a desirable outcome? It is not such a very odd thought. Most of the readers of this essay live in pluralist states which have long since become multiethnic and multicultural. “Christian Europe,” pace M. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, is a dead letter; Western civilization today is a patchwork of colors and religions and languages, of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Indians, and many others—as any visitor to London or Paris or Geneva will know.4

      Israel itself is a multicultural society in all but name; yet it remains distinctive among democratic states in its resort to ethnoreligious criteria with which to denominate and rank its citizens. It is an oddity among modern nations not—as its more paranoid supporters assert—because it is a Jewish state and no one wants the Jews to have a state; but because it is a Jewish state in which one community—Jews—is set above others, in an age when that sort of state has no place.

      For many years, Israel had a special meaning for the Jewish people. After 1948 it took in hundreds of thousands of helpless survivors who had nowhere else to go; without Israel their condition would have been desperate in the extreme. Israel needed Jews, and Jews needed Israel. The circumstances of its birth have thus bound Israel’s identity inextricably to the Shoah, the German project to exterminate the Jews of Europe. As a result, all criticism of Israel is drawn ineluctably back to the memory of that project, something that Israel’s American apologists are shamefully quick to exploit. To find fault with the Jewish state is to think ill of Jews; even to imagine an alternative configuration in the Middle East is to indulge the moral equivalent of genocide.

      In the years after World War II, those many millions of Jews who did not live in Israel were often reassured by its very existence—whether they thought of it as an insurance policy against renascent anti-Semitism or simply a reminder to the world that Jews could and would fight back. Before there was a Jewish state, Jewish minorities in Christian societies would peer anxiously over their shoulders and keep a low profile; since 1948, they could walk tall. But in recent years, the situation has tragically reversed.

      Today, non-Israeli Jews feel themselves once again exposed to criticism and vulnerable to attack for things they didn’t do. But this time it is a Jewish state, not a Christian one, which is holding them hostage for its own actions. Diaspora Jews cannot influence Israeli policies, but they are implicitly identified with them, not least by Israel’s own insistent claims upon their allegiance. The behavior of a self-described Jewish state affects the way everyone else looks at Jews. The increased incidence of attacks on Jews in Europe and elsewhere is primarily attributable to misdirected efforts, often by young Muslims, to get back at Israel. The depressing truth is that Israel’s current behavior is not just bad for America, though it surely is. It is not even just bad for Israel itself, as many Israelis silently acknowledge. The depressing truth is that Israel today is bad for the Jews.

      In a world where nations and peoples increasingly intermingle and intermarry at will; where cultural and national impediments to communication have all but collapsed; where more and more of us have multiple elective identities and would feel falsely constrained if we had to answer to just one of them; in such a world Israel is truly an anachronism. And not just an anachronism but a dysfunctional one. In today’s “clash of cultures” between open, pluralist democracies and belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno-states, Israel actually risks falling into the wrong camp.

      To convert Israel from a Jewish state to a binational one would not be easy, though not quite as impossible as it sounds: the process has already begun de facto. But it would cause far less disruption to most Jews and Arabs than its religious and nationalist foes will claim. In any case, no one I know of has a better idea: anyone who genuinely supposes that the controversial electronic fence now being built will resolve matters has missed the last fifty years of history. The “fence”—actually an armored zone of ditches, fences, sensors, dirt roads (for tracking footprints), and a wall up to twenty-eight feet tall in places—occupies, divides, and steals Arab farmland; it will destroy villages, livelihoods, and whatever remains of Arab-Jewish community. It costs approximately $1 million per mile and will bring nothing but humiliation and discomfort to both sides. Like the Berlin Wall, it confirms the moral and institutional bankruptcy of the regime it is intended to protect.

      A binational state in the Middle East would require a brave and relentlessly engaged American leadership. The security of Jews and Arabs alike would need to be guaranteed by international force—though a legitimately constituted binational state would find it much easier policing militants of all kinds inside its borders than when they are free to infiltrate them from outside and can appeal to an angry, excluded constituency on both sides of the border.5 A binational state in the Middle East would require the emergence, among Jews and Arabs alike, of a new political class. The very idea is an unpromising mix of realism and utopia, hardly an auspicious place to begin. But the alternatives are far, far worse.

      http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2003/oct/23/israel-the-alternative/?page=1

    8. Omul Perla, abonat clasa intai la Inter Press Service. Sa ne dezmortim putin in gara Tony Judt.

      October, 2003

      Dear Professor Judt,

      Though I’m sure you weren’t wondering, I’ll begin by telling you that we had a pretty nice Shabbat here in Jerusalem. The weather was beautiful, we had a house full of guests, there was a wedding across the street that went way into the night. And nothing blew up. Kind of an idyllic day here in Jerusalem. For the most part.

      But not entirely. You see, I made the mistake of re-reading your recent piece in the New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671) before heading off to shul in the morning. Big mistake. You can imagine how distressing it must be for someone living here in Jerusalem to read an article in a journal as respectable as the New York Review of Books that declares the State of Israel an “insecure, defensive microstate born of imperial collapse,” that the idea of a Jewish state is a “late-nineteenth century separatist project” and that Israel, an “anachronism,” should be replaced by a bi-national State of Jews and Arabs, bringing the Zionist project to an end.

      Wow. That is one annoying piece of writing. Admittedly, you’re not the only intellectual suggesting that it’s time to declare the experiment called Israel a failure. A recent issue of The Nation has an article by Daniel Lazare saying more or less the same thing, and even Israelis like Meron Benvenisti have declared Zionism dead, agreeing with you that it’s time for Jews and Arabs to share one state before the river and the sea.

      So if others have said this already, why did your piece bother me so much? Some of it, of course, was the parts that were plain silly. You note that Ehud Olmert, Israel’s deputy prime minister, has insisted that Israel still has the option of killing Arafat, which, you say, reveals Zionism’s “fascist” elements. “Political murder is what fascists do,” you write. I’ll be sure to point that out to the American troops still hunting for Osama bin Laden. Or your suggestion that the real reason for the war on Iraq was to improve Israel’s strategic position in the Middle East. You really expect us to believe that the United States would demolish an entire country for Israel’s sake, at the expense of billions of dollars, and then quibble with us about where to put the security fence? To say that that’s counter-intuitive would be to put things mildly.

      But I can deal with the silly parts of your article. What is much harder for me is the not so subtle antisemitic underpinning of the whole argument. Now, I know how you’ll respond. You’ll either point to the fact that you yourself are Jewish (which, I suggest, has no bearing on whether the piece is antisemitic), or you’ll say, “There they go again. Any time anyone says anything negative about Israel, they reply, in some knee-jerk fashion, that it’s just antisemitism.” But you’ll be wrong if you say that. I agree with you that Israel could and should be doing more to promote some possibility of peace. And I don’t agree with everything that Ariel Sharon says or does. I wouldn’t compare him to the inventor of modern terrorism and the butcher of the Middle East, Yasir Arafat, as you do, but like you, I’m uncomfortable with many of Israel’s policies. No, you have a right to critique.

      So what’s antisemitic about your article, you want to know? It’s the fact that not so deep down, you just wish we Jews would disappear. No, of course you don’t say it that clearly. That’s no longer politically correct in the academic circles you inhabit. So you just hint at it. “In a world where nations and people increasingly intermingle and intermarry at will … where more and more of us have multiple elective identities and would feel falsely constrained if we had to answer to just one of them; in such a world, Israel is an anachronism.” But here’s the rub, Professor Judt. Many Jews (most, I suspect) don’t want to intermingle and intermarry at will. Of course, we have multiple identities, but we answer to one before the others. We take pride in the fact that Jews have survived for thousands of years. We believe that Jews have something to contribute (as do other cultures, obviously) to the world, and frankly, we don’t think of our Jewishness as an “elective identity.” To many of us it’s a gift, and a responsibility. We’re not around today because our ancestors walked away from their Jewish obligations, and we don’t plan to start walking away now.

      The real problem, you see, isn’t that Israel is an anachronism. It’s that for you, Judaism, or Jews, is an anachronism. We are so very annoying in our insistence that we don’t want to blend in completely. Now, when you compare us to Islam today, I think we’ve done a pretty admirable job of blending in. If Islam were to embrace modernity and Western culture the way that we have, the world would be a much better place. The World Trade Center would still be standing, the United States would not be in Iraq, there would be no American troops in Afghanistan, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be over, because rejectionist Palestinian leaders would have accepted the state that they were offered in both 1947 (by the United Nations) and in 2000 (by Ehud Barak’s government). If there’s any group you should be annoyed with for refusing to have “multiple identities,” it’s Islam, not Judaism.

      But, of course, it’s not surprising that you focus on Jews, for example, and not Muslims. The world (including some Jews) has a history of having a problem with the Jews’ identities. It would be hard to imagine a Jewish community more blended into its surrounding culture than German Jewry in the early 1930s. Yet they can’t tell you much about their lives, you see, because their history didn’t end particularly well. They went up smokestacks.

      Oh, no. I’ve slipped again. I know you don’t want to hear about the Holocaust. You’ve told us to drop it. “The circumstances of [Israel’s] birth have thus bound Israel’s identity inextricably to the Shoah, the German project to exterminate the Jews of Europe. As a result, all criticism of Israel is drawn ineluctably back to the memory of that project, something that Israel’s American apologists are shamefully quick to exploit.”

      Well, if mentioning the Shoah is shameful or exploitative, I’m guilty as charged. Since you’re a historian, though, I suggest that what’s shameful is not our mentioning the Shoah, but your subtle minimizing of its scope. Because you, more than almost anyone else, know much better. The Shoah wasn’t just Germany’s project. If I remember my European history correctly (but correct me if I’m wrong, because you’re the Professor of European History), there were quite a few other countries who joined in this “project.” (“Project?” My God! That’s what you call the genocidal attempt to wipe out the Jews? A “project”? How clinical can someone possibly get?)

      Nor was the target just “European Jewry.” Those are the Jews who were, indeed, destroyed. But Hitler had a grander plan. Surely, he didn’t plan for a “Museum of a Vanished Race” because he planned to leave non-European Jewry alive. When he was done, there were going to be no Jews left anywhere. It wasn’t about European Jewry, which would have been bad enough. It was about Jews everywhere. It was about eradicating Judaism, a “project” your one-state plan for the Middle East would actually further, but we’ll come back to that.

      Even those who fought the Axis powers weren’t exactly wild about the Jews. Roosevelt closed the borders of the United States, Canada didn’t let the Jews in, and the British also sealed the shores of Palestine. In that regard, you’re in good company when you express your distaste for the Jews, and I suspect you’ll have good company for a long time to come. This month, you’ve got the Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahatir Mohamad, who is annoyed with the Jews for ruling the world. But others will follow.

      The problem for Mahatir Mohamad, and for you, is that the Shoah and its tactics are no longer politically correct. The world frowns on ethnic cleansing these days (which is why you accuse Israel of being willing to do that, even though you know it’s absurd; we’ve long had the power and have never done anything of the sort, and anyone who knows anything about Israeli public opinion knows that it’s unthinkable to the vast majority of Israelis), so one has to come up subtly with other ways to end not just Zionism, but the Jewish people. And that’s where your article comes in. Let’s just end the Jewish state and put an end to the fighting. Sounds reasonable. But you know what many others, Jews included, haven’t yet figured out. The end of the Jewish state is the end of Judaism as we know it.

      Would there be some Jews left who would practice a several thousand-year-old religious tradition? Of course there would; you’re right. But the thriving, flourishing Judaism that the world knows today is a Judaism that can exist only with a Jewish state. How many novels are written in Hebrew outside of Israel? I’m not aware of a single one, but there are certainly very, very few. How significant is the production of Jewish art, or high culture, outside of Israel? Relatively speaking, there’s almost none. How many people would speak Hebrew — the language that allows access to Judaism’s critical and formative texts — if not for Israel? Very few, indeed.

      But Israel has the Jewish cultural productivity that it does because it is only in Israel that Jews make up the majority of the population, it is only in Israel where a Jewish consciousness is part of the rhythm of the society, its media, its artists, its women and men of letters. Where else, as Israelis debate whether or not to follow through on a prisoner exchange that would free Elchanan Tenenbaum in exchange for hundreds of terrorists (even though Tenenbaum now appears to have been captured when he traveled to Abu Dhabi for some illegal purpose), would even secular citizens offer their opinion about a possible prisoner of war trade by citing the case of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, the great Talmudic sage of the 13th century? The Maharam of Rothenburg, as he’s known, was also kidnapped, but when he heard that the Jewish community had raised the money for his ransom, he realized that if he were freed, other Jews would be similarly kidnapped, and he refused to allow the deal. He rotted in prison until his death. Many of us take pride in conversations like that, in dialogue in which the richness of Jewish history, law, and expression is often the foundation of our contemporary discourse. But only in a country that’s Jewish at its core will the radio waves be filled with the discussion of a 13th-century Talmudist as people opine on a current-affairs topic. It’s that sort of cultural richness which is unique to post-War Judaism; it’s that sort of cultural richness that only a Jewish culture in a Jewish state can provide. And it’s that cultural richness that you want to see eradicated.

      No, I understand. You’ll say that you have no objection to that cultural richness surviving. You just want the political and military battles to cease. Enough bloodshed. Let’s share the land, and then Jews can flourish without having to die in a never-ending conflict. But there are solutions to this conflict, though you deny them, that do not require dismantling our country. They’ll be hard to implement, true, but they’re not impossible. So why advocate doing away with us? Because, Professor Judt, you know in a bi-national state, Jews would almost immediately become a minority. And with time, a rather small minority. How well would we fare there? Well, let’s ask ourselves. How many Westerners do you see running to Egypt, to Saudi Arabia, to Jordan, to Syria, to Iraq, to Iran or to Lebanon (for starters) so that they can live in an environment in which they’ll have complete and unfettered access to cultural expression and seem to be flourishing? (Even Israeli Arabs overwhelmingly say that they wouldn’t move to Palestine when the state is created; they’d rather live in the Jewish state.) Those are the kinds of places that you suggest we re-create in order to permit the Jews to thrive? Surely you jest.

      And one final question, if you don’t mind. Why is it that when Ceausescu turns Romania into a living hell, no one suggests doing away with Romania? Or when Iraq menaces the world, the United States invades Iraq, not to destroy it, but to save it and return it to her people (with minimal success, I agree). When North Korea announces its arms proliferation program, the discussion is about how to contain North Korea; no one says that North Korea has no right to exist. Why do we hear claims that a country has no right to exist only when it comes to Israel? Doesn’t that strike you as odd?

      Sadly, though, it’s not that odd. Throughout your article, you keep reminding us that the world has changed. But your brave new world doesn’t seem all that brave to me, or all that new. The French still have a country of their own and a place to root their culture. And the same with the Germans, and the Swiss, and the English, and so on. No, the only culture that you think doesn’t need or deserve a place to have roots is Jewish culture. The only people threatened by your view of the world are the Jews. No one’s talking about doing away with France. Alas, the world hasn’t changed almost at all. That’s the real problem.

      Happily, though, reading your piece wasn’t the last thing that I did on Shabbat. When we got home from shul, the whole discussion of Elechanan Tenenbaum started again. Books flew off shelves, Jewish history suddenly came alive, and our kids avidly participated in the kind of discussion they could have only in a country where they have a right to believe that Jews should make distinctly Jewish decisions about the fates of other Jews. Not bad, given where the Jewish people was half a century ago. Then, at night, my wife and I went to the movies. We saw Costa-Gavras’s film, Amen. I know. More Holocaust. I apologize.

      As we waited for the movie to begin, we couldn’t help but notice the makeup of the crowd. Four native Israeli thirty-somethings in the row in front of us, some American retirees in the row behind us, and to our left, two elderly men speaking French. The movie, as you know, isn’t an easy one to watch. But as powerful as it was, perhaps the most moving thing was what we heard during the very few scenes that take place in the concentration camps. It was, obviously, silent in the theater, except for the sound of the film, and except for the sound of one of the French men weeping as he saw the place in which he had undoubtedly been. You watch that movie and the world’s refusal to care, you hear the sounds of this man sobbing, remembering God only knows what, and I must tell you, Professor Judt, that with all the problems that Israel has, and they are many, I walked out of the theater with renewed gratitude that we have this place, and like my fellow Israelis, I suspect, determined that we’ll never give it up. Never.

      Virtually every other major culture in the world has a home, Professor Judt. Almost everyone. Jews have learn-ed what happens when we don’t have one. We’ve been there, and we’re not going back. Everything about this place reminds us that we are home, and everything about our history reminds that we need this home.

      I’m sorry that you find us so bothersome. I’m sorry that the only way you can see ending this conflict is to do away with us. But we’re home, Professor Judt, and your transparent objections notwithstanding, we’re here to stay.

      Daniel Gordis is Vice President of the Mandel Foundation, Israel, and the author, most recently, of Home to Stay: One American Family’s Chronicle of Miracles and Struggles in Contemporary Israel (Random House / Three Rivers Press).

      What an extraordinary and bewildering piece by Tony Judt in the October 23, 2003 issue of the New York Review of Books! In an essay entitled, “Israel: The Alternative,” he argues that Israel should be converted “from a Jewish state to a bi-national state.”

      Now, Tony Judt is no minor character: he is director of the Remarque Institute at New York University, has published extensively in many highly reputed journals, writes regularly for the New York Review of Books, and has appeared on the well-regarded “Charlie Rose Show.” Nor does the New York Review of Books publish essays that are not in keeping with its own editorial opinions. Try publishing something in that magazine that has a conservative perspective! Those familiar with the New York Review will know that the published articles are in keeping with the perspectives of its editors. They will also know that the journal has extensive circulation among prominent intellectuals and that it serves to legitimize the arguments it publishes. So, one should take the essays printed in the Review with some seriousness. Often the pieces appearing there are expressions of the opinions that are circulating in a highly influential community. I, for one, take its essays seriously. I propose to take the Judt essay seriously.

      Judt writes, “It is an oddity among modern nations … because it is a Jewish state in which one community — Jews — is set above others, in an age when that sort of state has no place.” So, Judt would dissolve Israel because “one community — Jews — is set above others.”

      Now, several confusions are generated by that remark. To begin with, much of what he writes suggests that he would dissolve the Jewish state not for what it is now, a democracy, by Judt’s own account, but for what, he predicts, it will become in the future: “Israel can continue to occupy ‘Samaria,’ ‘Judea,’ and Gaza, whose Arab population — added to that of present-day Israel — will become the demographic majority within five to eight years: in which case Israel will be either a Jewish state (with an ever-larger majority of unenfranchised non-Jews), or it will be a democracy.” So, it is not what Israel is now, but what it will become, as Judt predicts it, that causes him to champion the elimination of the Jewish state now, as soon as possible. But what Israel will be in the future, and how it will deal with its demographics, remains to be seen. Yet, that’s the least of it.

      It seems to us that there are many states around the world “in which one community … is set above others,” but none of the same people who would end the Jewish state, indeed, few people I know, call for the dissolution of those states. Sometimes, reforms are called for, and most often the matter is just ignored, but if Jews have a state “in which one community, etc…,” then there is a vigorous call for its dissolution! Shall we bother to list all the states around the world that are dictatorships or monarchies, in which one or another ethnic group dominates and is “set above others”? Those states have a right to, and should, we might say, work out their problems, some of which are constitutional and/or endemic, but Israel has no right to exist and should be dissolved!

      Many who protest the abuse of Arabs by Israel claim to do so on humanitarian grounds, yet they do not so vehemently and vigorously protest the abuse and suppression, the rape and murder of Arabs by other Arabs, let alone the suppression, the murder and the forced exodus of Jews in many Arab countries (but that, of course, is a different matter). Are we to conclude then that the abuse, the suppression, and the suffering of peoples (in particular, of Arab populations) is not what’s vexing — it’s their suppression and abuse by Jews that’s intolerable? Tribes, clans, parties, and religious sects suppress and abuse other tribes, clans, and religious groups throughout the Middle East, indeed, throughout much of the world, but few conclude that the countries involved have no right to exist. Little protest by those who are so profoundly moved by the Palestinian plight! Little call by sensitive poets for the indiscriminate murder of Syrian or Algerian oppressors. Little demand for banning all Saudis or Iraqis from professional conferences. No call for the dissolution of their countries. No question over their right to exist! It would appear that Arab suffering or “second-hand” citizenship is not disturbing to those who hate Israel and would deny it the right to exist. It is not unhappiness over Arab deprivation and death that is unacceptable, but that this should be at the hand of Jews. (It will be noticed that I will not here question the facts, though I certainly do. Let them be even as the anti-Israeli would have them. It’s what follows that confuses us.)

      It might be added that many countries today exhibit the characteristics they have, the demographics they demonstrate, because of ethnic cleansing, e.g., Spain. Few call, as a consequence, for the dissolution of these countries. It should as well, I suppose, be added here that none of this is a defense of ethnic cleansing or of abusing Palestinians, whose plight should be of concern. Israel, like other states, also has thugs, rapists, murderers, and pimps.That is profoundly unfortunate and is of concern, but it does not follow that the state, therefore, has abdicated its right to exist. Israel’s right to exist should not depend upon its being better than any other country. It has, on the contrary, a right to be like other countries. Anything less is antisemitism.

      A classic Marxist argument is that nation-states are by their nature oppressive and, in particular by current standards, anomalous. Many Marxists I know despise Jewish nationalism because they despise nationalism.1 Tony Judt writes: “In a world where nations and peoples increasingly intermingle and intermarry at will; where cultural and national impediments to communication have all but collapsed; where more and more of us have multiple elective identities and would feel falsely constrained if we had to answer to just one of them; in such a world Israel is truly an anachronism.” Judt thus adds a globalist, internationalist argument into the mix. A variant of the argument is the rejection of Jewish identity and particularism for a cosmopolitan humanism and trans-ethnic, trans-national universalism.

      Now, I am not one to defend nationalism. But why do Marxists, who despise Jewish nationalism because it’s a nationalism, champion Palestinian nationalism? Tony Judt’s argument, as transcribed above, is applicable to most if not all nation-states. Yet, we don’t hear Judt calling for the dissolution of France or Germany, let alone China, Russia, or America. If nation-states are, indeed, instruments of oppression, dividing peoples — anachronisms, you might say — let us by all means dissolve them, eliminate artificial borders, and intermingle peoples. But why start with Israel and the Jews? Let’s dismantle all the other nation-states first, and then and only then, the Jewish state as well. After all, to dissolve the Jewish state first is to throw Jews back into a world of oppressive and divisive nation-states in which others, but not the Jews, will have homeland states — a world Jews have already known.2

      But, to put the matter somewhat differently, if “multiple elective identities” are most desirable, why isn’t that available to Jews or to Israelis, and why is it that only Israelis, let alone all Jews sympathetic to Israel, are “constrained … to answer to just one of them?” Why is association with Israel more “constraining” than being African-American, or French, or a parent? Why can’t being Jewish be one of my “multiple elective identities”? And why can’t one conceive of being Jewish to include a national identity?

      Notes Judt: “Western civilization today is a patchwork of colors and religions and languages, of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Indians, and many others….” Now, what is one to make of that? To begin with, “Christian Europe … is [not] a dead letter,” pace Judt. Just go there and see. For every mosque, for every synagogue — and most of these are empty — there are a hundred churches, there are cathedrals galore, countless monasteries, cloisters, convents, and religious festivals, fully attended and Christian in intent, tradition, and purpose. But that aside, Muslims, Arabs, Indians, Pakistanis, Black Africans living in France, England, and Germany continue to have Algeria or Egypt or India or Pakistan or Nigeria as a homeland, as a country to which they might return under certain conditions, another nation for which they entertain special, if divided, affinities and loyalties. It is only Jews, then, who are to be denied a homeland state. To argue that Jews living in “Western Civilization” without a Jewish state would be like Indians or Pakistanis living in London or Paris is to draw a false analogy, and is, at best, an argument that runs both ways, since, it might be proposed that the ability of the Indian or Pakistani to live peacefully in London or Paris coincides, perhaps decisively, with the fact that he or she also has a homeland elsewhere.

      Judt argues that if things continue in the direction they are going, Arabs in Israeli territories will soon outnumber Jews, and Israel will either cease being Jewish or cease being democratic. Therefore, he concludes, the nation should be converted into a bi-national state, whether, presumably, the Jews so wish the matter or not. (Of course, if Israel remains democratic, by Judt’s argument, the issue will take care of itself.) But if Israel becomes a non-Jewish, bi-national state, given Judt’s premise, Arabs will soon outnumber Jews, and the new, non-Jewish state will quickly become an Arab state with an Arab majority. Jews will, once again, be a minority in a non-Jewish state in a world without a Jewish state. But Jews have had two thousand years of that, and the experience, putting even the Holocaust aside, has not been a pleasant one. And if the new Arab majority becomes nationalistic, decides to engage in ethnic cleansing, or begins to oppress its minority (e.g., the Jews), or, indeed, decides to institute a Muslim theocracy, who will protect the Jewish minority? Tony Judt? Western liberals? Marxists? The European nations? The United Nations? Forget for a moment the world’s response to the plight of the Jews in Nazi Europe when they were being slaughtered by the millions. Consider, instead, Rwanda, Bosnia, Syria, Armenia, and even Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Why would any responsible leadership put the survival of its people at the mercy of “Western Civilization”?

      Judt writes glibly, “A bi-national state in the Middle East would require a brave and relentlessly engaged American leadership.” I guess even Judt doesn’t think much of European leadership. “The security of Jews and Arabs alike would need to be guaranteed by international force — though a legitimately constituted bi-national state would find it much easier policing militants of all kinds inside its borders than when they are free to infiltrate them from outside….” And why, one wonders, would “the security of Jews and Arabs … need to be guaranteed by international force” in “a legitimately constituted bi-national state”? Is it to “police” — whatever that means — the “militants” within its borders, something most countries handle without an “international force,” or is it concern that a majority will assault the minority, that a ruling party will abuse the security of some sector of the population, that the majority in the bi-national state (viz., the Arab majority)might embrace its militants instead of policing them? Then the Jewish minority can wait for the Western democracies to save them!

      Judt writes: “Today, non-Israeli Jews feel themselves once again exposed to criticism and vulnerable to attack for things they didn’t do…. But this time it is a Jewish state, not a Christian one, which is holding them hostage for its own actions…. The behavior of a self-described Jewish state affects the way everyone else looks at Jews…. The depressing truth is that Israel today is bad for the Jews.” But if non-Israeli Jews (even Israeli Jews) are “vulnerable to attack for things they didn’t do” … etc., isn’t that antisemitism? Should we attack all Muslims or Japanese living in America or Europe for what corresponding Muslim nations have done, or for what Japan did in World War II? How does Judt feel about banishing all Israelis from academic and scientific symposia?3 But instead of vigorously attacking the antisemitism and those who may harbor and nourish it, instead of muting its “misdirected efforts, often by Muslims,” Judt puts the blame squarely on what he regards as the cause of the animosity, namely, and eerily, the existence of a Jewish entity. His solution to the rise of antisemitism, familiarly, is to rid ourselves of the Jewish entity.4

      Judt maintains that it is “shameful” for Israeli apologists to invoke the Holocaust against “all criticism of Israel,” so I will skip over the Holocaust and simply refer to two thousand years of prejudice, mass murder, forced conversion, exile, pogroms, ghettoization, banishment, and exclusion. While no one wants to be an “apologist,” and one can, perhaps perversely, insist upon a distinction between “all criticism of Israel” and a call for its dissolution, it is not totally paranoid to suggest that even today, “[without] a Jewish state, Jewish minorities in Christian societies would peer anxiously over their shoulders” — sometimes with good reason. Judt might recall that a Jewish state was a dream of many Jews before the Shoah.

      Judt notes that many Jews thought of Israel “as an insurance policy against renascent antisemitism or simply a reminder to the world that Jews could and would fight back.” Yes, that is correct. A Jewish state extends automatic Jewish citizenship to Jews around the world and welcomes immigration. Would those rights still be available to all Jews everywhere if Israel were ruled by an Arab majority? Who can guarantee that? Ten, twenty, fifty years out? Rising antisemitism, even if caused by a desire of Jews to have a Jewish state, as well as calls for the dissolution of the Jewish state, must only reinforce Jewish concern for and commitment to a Jewish homeland.

      R. Ben is a professor of philosophy who lives in New York City and who writes under a number of different pseudonyms including R. Ben.

    9. Ce pledoarie dezgustatoare pentru un stat „bi-national”. Nici nu stiu daca merita sa imi pierd vremea raspunzand la un asemenea articol. Mai interesanta mi se pare ideea ca statul evreu incalca nu-stiu-ce lege nescrisa atunci cand infiinteaza, pe propriul teritoriu, noi asezari. Asta chiar e misto! Adica Israelul invinge in toate conflictele, isi infrange toti adversarii si i se cere sa isi auto-limiteze propria suveranitate pentru a acomoda sensibilitatile altora – acelora care doreau sa il distruga. De ce? Pentru ca asa vor stangistii „broadminded”.

      Jenant.

      Tare mult as vrea ca toti sustinatorii statului bi-national sa fie aruncati in groapa cu lei „palestiniana”. Sunt sigur ca niste atei multilateral terminati de tipul lor vor avea parte de un sfarsit glorios in Hamastan.

    10. Vlad,
      Tony Judt e departe de a fi un idiot util, sau ceva de genul asta; pe de alta parte ideea de stat bi-national e, intr-adevar, tembela, si utopica. Intrebarea mea e insa: nu cumva se incearca in momentul asta, prin toti acei „settlers” care se stie ca, intr-un fel, sunt trimisi la moarte, pentru ca ai lor „con-cetateni” palestinieni risca sa ii casapeasca, nu cimva se incearca si acolo, in felul asta, o forma bolnava de multi-culti? Intreb, nu dau cu parul.

    11. Liv

      Ziceam nu demult, apropo de Chomsky că a fost într-adevăr un geniu pe un anumit subiect strict științific, dar că în rest s-a dovedit o lichea. N-aș zice că a fost vreodată un idiot util sau inutil, căci în mod clar nu e idiot ca Al Gore sau alții (foarte recente luări de poziție par a denota că ia oleacă de distanță ceea ce e de apreciat la urma urmei). Nici Judt nu e un idiot, dar e „util”, nu am suficiente cunoștințe de psihiatrie, presupun că e un fel de monomaniac narcisist (pleonasm?) care se autoteleghidează în conformitate strictă cu softul autoimpus. La urma urmei ar trebui să facem apel la spiritul altui evreu celebru, Isaac Asimov, care schița unele mustoase scrieri despre roboțeii autoreproduși. Dacă însă l-aș întreba pe Radu Părpăuță din Tomești (lîngă Iași), mi-ar răspunde instantaneu că problema-i mult mai simplă – drobul de sare. Nu sarea în bucate, nici aia de pe rană, nici măcar aia sărată. Doar bolovanul mineral ce ilustrează prostia omenească… drept care e util să reconsiderăm termenul de idiot util/inutil.

    12. Nu mi-ati raspuns la intrebare: chiar se incearca un multi-culturalism, in Israel? Deduc ca raspunsul e „da”, right? Am rude acolo si mi se pare dramatic, pe termen lung.

    13. Liv
      Jumatate de israelieni sint politically correct, multiculturalisti, anti-Fascist-Israel etc.,
      Dar astia se impotrivesc de moarte la settlements. Deci nu e un proiect multiculturalist.

    14. Silvapro, Liv

      Pur și simplu n-are rost să ne împotmolim în discuții opintite cauzate de șopîrla strecurată de Șueta cu articolul lui Tony Judt, cu gestul elegant al aruncării propriei mîțe moarte în ograda vecinului, urmat de proptirea filosofică a deștiului în tîmplă: „Păi… nu v-am spus eu?”.

      De încercat se-ncearcă, dar stîngcăpățînaților din Israel trebuie că le vine greu să acomodeze idealurile despre bunătatea oamenilor „de pretutindeni” sub avalanșa de pietre, înjurături, amenințări, crime.

    15. Military Intelligence monitoring foreign left-wing organizations

      Military Intelligence is collecting information about left-wing organizations abroad that the army sees as aiming to delegitimize Israel, according to senior Israeli officials and Israel Defense Forces officers.

      The sources said MI’s research division created a department several months ago that is dedicated to monitoring left-wing groups and will work closely with government ministries. In recent weeks, the head of the new unit has been taking part in discussions in the Prime Minister’s Office about how to prepare for the possible arrival of a Gaza-bound flotilla in May.

    16. What a bunch of rubbish and gross lies constitute all this Tony Judt’s article! I think Vlad M. is right that it’s not worth the time and effort to adress it. Almost in every sentence we find more than one lie or misinterpretation. I’ll refer only to a few lies in the first part. Also because it’s not even worth to finish reading the article.

      „…Cinical disregard for the Maproad…”

      What about the cinical propaganda against Jews and Israel on the PA part? What about that that the Palestinians never respect any signed agreements, even during and after the Oslo period?
      They don’t even recognize Israel, until now. We do recognize the territories of the Palestinians, not yet as a state, the borders are not established yet, But that’s what we want to happen. At least we recognize their right to be there. They don’t recognize our right to be in Israel, not even the 1967 borders.

      Israel today faces three unattractive choices. It can dismantle the Jewish settlements in the territories, return to the 1967 state borders within which Jews constitute a clear majority, and thus remain both a Jewish state and a democracy, albeit one with a constitutionally anomalous community of second-class Arab citizens.

      .
      That’s exactly what we tried to accomplish all over the year. Barak and Olmert have already offered this over on a tray, embelished with roses too. Starting with this point, nobody sound in his mind, can ever mention anymore the „occupied territories”, maybe only if he wants to make a joke. Their refusal to terminate the conflict, means that it’s their own sick wish to remain „occupied”. They are obssessed with this „occupation”, and can’t let it go.
      The bold words above is a falsehood. They have all the rights. They don’t serve in the arny (3 whole difficult years, for many under risk for their life too), that’s why they get less help with the mortage. But in that they are equal too to the Jews that don’t serve in the army.
      Besides, the Israeli Arabs have the right to choose to contribute their share in an alternative service – it’s called Sherut Leumi (National Service), and it has nothing to do with the army. I personally know Arabs who accomplished this service and are entitled to the full mortage.

      Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat, and a handful of terrorists can all claim victory, and they do

      . What a wonderful company found Ariel Sharon in Judt’s article! I don’t know if to laugh or cry at this joke. Has Judt forgotten that Arik Sharon left Gaza? And that he evacuated for Hamastan’s benefit the villages around Gaza and uprooted the anguished Israelis?

      In a world where nations and people increasingly intermingle and intermarry at will

      . I can show you many sweet Jewish girls who married Sweet Arabs. Show me the sweet Arab girls who want to or who are permitted to marry a Jewish boy. They may get a prize for that from their sweet family: a sweet honor killing.

      Did anybody wonder how come Sueta always brings articles, links, citations, arguments from the Sitra Ahra? Just for the sake of argument? I don’t know. Maybe he wants to ensure an alternative for that the visitors with a floating opinion. Numai o parere.

      Mai de mult Sueta ne avertiza ca s-ar putea sa fim surprinsi de parerile lui in ceea ce priveste Israelul. Deci acest Tony Judt era marea surpriza (nesurprinzatoare)?

      Pentru cine inca n-a vazut, (si cred ca Sueta Teologica n-a intrat in Purim-Spiele-ul nostru) – iaca o parere despre motivele unor evrei dealde Judt:

    17. Pataphyl #15, Emil B. #17

      Scrisesem reactia mea inainte sa vad remarcile voastre. Asa s-a facut ca i-am dat drumul.

    18. Did anybody wonder how come Sueta always brings articles, links, citations, arguments from the Sitra Ahra? Just for the sake of argument? I don’t know. Maybe he wants to ensure an alternative for that the visitors with a floating opinion. Numai o parere.

      If you ask me, this guy – teologu’ desuet, is kinda hardcore leftist.

    19. Silvapro

      No problemo, erai prevenită totuși, „băieții” realmente știu cum să pună problema: neștiutorii de carte se-nfășoară în bandaje de dinamită, ceilalți în rulouri interminabile de citate și articole. Ambele rulouri temeinic legitimate științific: de inventatorul dinamitei (beneficiari – Arafat, Gore+Baciov, Barbarac, pace nobelizată lor), respectiv de chinezii inventatori ai hîrtiei, de Gutenberg cu tiparul și de Sir „Tim” Berners-Lee, pionierul www-ului. Muzica, logica, poezia, credința nu au inventatori academic recunoscuți. Deci sînt citate mai rar…

    20. doc

      kinda hardcore leftist

      în regulă, da’ de ce te simți obligat să te sesizezi? Zicea altu’: Lumea-i diversă. După aia a ajuns direct la înjurături. Și acela venise ca „apropiat”, dreapta care este etc. „O să fiți surprinși ce idei apropiate avem” blabla. Mai e mult glod de curs pe Bahlui River pînă să mă surprindă asemenea intelectualizme…

      Cui i-e clar i-e clar. Deci:

      If you ask me

      …eu nu! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

    21. Pataphyl,
      Ca de obicei ma dai gata cu your pun on words! 🙂 🙂

      Glume glume, dar uite ce serioasa e treaba asta:

      TERRORISM HEARING TESTIMONY IN ABSENTIA
      By Walid Shoebat, former Islamic Terrorist

      For the Record my name is Walid Shoebat, I used to be a radicalized Muslim willing to die for the cause of Allah until I converted to Christianity in 1994. I was involved in terror activity, a member of the PLO, was imprisoned in Jerusalem for three weeks where I was recruited to plant a bomb in Bethlehem in which thank God no one was injured. My Mother was an American and my father a Palestinian Arab. My parents sent me in 1978 to United States to study at the Loop College in Chicago Illinois. There I was recruited at a hotel “terror conference” by Jamal Said a founder of the IAP (Islamic Association of Palestine) and the Imam at one of the largest mosques in Chicago. The IAP was a forerunner to today’s Hamas terror organization and also to CAIR (Council for American Islamic relations). This was in the early 1980s when I was being trained for Jihad activities in the USA along with many other young foreign students and US citizens. The Imams are the prime recruiters for
      terrorism then as they are still today. The ‘terror conferences” are held all over the USA to this day, here is a link http://www.shoebat.com/videos/terrorInUSA.php to give a sample on video on one such terror conference which was held in 1989 in Kansas, over twelve years before 9/11 attacks.

      Jamal Said is still the Imam today of the Bridgeview Mosque in Chicago and based on my eye witness testimony he is a terrorist, funds terrorists and is a major player in the operations of the Jihadi movements in the USA, yet he is still free at large. He would today be the Islamic equivalent of a Godfather in the Mafia. I state the above so you know Congressman King with my background and firsthand knowledge of the issue. I speak to the American people as to warn and educate of the very great dangers, which are very under played both by our media and our political leaders.

      Now you have brief details of my background I would like to offer my expert opinion if you can call me an expert but may be an experienced former terrorist would be more appropriate.

      We in America focus on Al-Qaeda, yet it is not only Al-Qaeda but also other Islamic terror groups, yet our administration focuses on a narrow tunnel? Let’s look at some examples: Abu Mezer, during 2007, had similar intent to blow up a subway system. He was a member of Hamas, not Al-Qaeda. While Najibullah Zazi was Al-Qaeda, Shahzad was Taliban and Abu-Mezer was of Hamas, which one is a greater threat? All of these terrorists were influenced in one way or another by the Muslim Brotherhood, the cartel and mother umbrella of all terror organizations.

      Our policy as Al-Qaeda being the number one threat is an incorrect premise. All Islamist organizations should be a priority beginning with CAIR and ISNA (Islamic Association of North America). These promote the jihad terror agenda and responsible for radicalization along with the MSA (Muslim Students Association). The US University campuses are a major recruiting ground for terrorists.

      All terrorists are radicalized through undue influence by Islamist organizations as well from abroad and their local mosque. The US home grown terrorists Zazi and Shahzad traveled to Qatar and Pakistan in August 2008 in an attempt to reach Afghanistan. They intended to „conduct jihad against the America [the] occupier,” they said.

      We need to stop recognizing the legitimacy of Muslim pressure groups. Understand that these so-called moderate Muslims are proven to not what they present themselves to the media and the public, and are part and parcel of the Muslim Brotherhood apparatus to distract the public and mislead people on the issues of the radical Muslim agenda.

      Imam Rauf who has been given a level of respect by our government is a supporter of the Terrorists, he said in Arabic “People asked me right after the 9/11 attacks as to why do movements with political agendas carry [Islamic] religious names? Why call it ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ or ‘Hezbollah (Party of Allah)’ or ‘Hamas’ or ‘Islamic Resistance Movement’? I answer them this—that the trend towards Islamic law and justice begins in religious movements, because secularism had failed to deliver what the Muslim wants, which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      Imam Rauf also said “ The only law that the Muslim needs exists already is in the Koran and the Hadith.” From an article titled “Sharing The Essence Of Our Beliefs” by Feisal Abdul Rauf, Al-Ghad Newspaper in Jordan, 5/9/2009 http://www.alghad.com/?article=12635.

      While we can assume that Feisal Abdul Rauf will not participate in an explosive act, he sure supports organizations that trend towards what he calls “Islamic Law and Justice.” His words are more encouraging to the terrorists than they are to seeking a bridge to peace and harmony between Muslims and Non Muslim in the USA. Islamic leaders rhetoric and speech in the Arabic language needs to be closely monitored which can identify them as fomenters of hate and recruitment of terrorists.

      The current main stream Muslim organization that purports to act in the interests of our nation as loyal citizens is beyond a doubt, not the case. Statements worse than those of Imam Rauf, including direct support, financial and material to Islamic terrorists have been carried out by members of all the major Islamic organizations in America and are the purveyors of radicalism.

      Ghassan Elashi of CAIR is serving 65-year prison sentence for funneling over $12 million Holy Land Foundation to Hamas. Mousa Abu Marzook, a former CAIR official, 1995 designated by the U.S. government „terrorist and Hamas leader.” He now is a Hamas leader in Syria. Randall Royer, CAIR’s former civil rights coordinator, in 2004 began serving a 20-year prison sentence for aiding al-Qaida and the Taliban against American troops in Afghanistan and recruiting for Lashkar e-Taiba, the jihadist group responsible for the 2008 Mumbai jihad massacres. Bassem Khafagi, CAIR’s former community relations director, was arrested for involvement with the Islamic Assembly of North America, which was linked to al-Qaida. After pleading guilty to visa and bank fraud charges, Khafagi was deported. Rabih Haddad, a former CAIR fundraiser, was deported for his work with the Global Relief Foundation (which he co-founded), a terror-financing organization.

      The number one radical Islamic organization in the USA is CAIR and needs to be probed and shut down for sponsoring terror. Many peace-loving Muslims do support a probe of CAIR and the other major Islamic organizations, the ones that don’t are likely supporting the radical agenda. While the terrorists’ goal is to spread Sharia, the political Islamist activist creates radical Muslims, both of which have a goal to threaten our Constitution wanting to replace it with Sharia law. Both act simultaneously to eradicate our way of life.

      Congressman King:

      Jihad or what we define as Terrorism comes in three forms, Jihad by the pen, jihad by the sword and jihad by finance. When one is not in a position of military strength you use the pen or propaganda, if you have the military strength you use violence including terror acts and the finance is the money to fund both the propaganda and the terror. The major criticism of your hearing has come from CAIR and other major Muslim organizations and the reason is simple, is that your efforts may be a threat to exposing their real agenda.

      –Respectfully submitted by Walid Shoebat

    22. Hahaha, Tony Judt – linsat blogosferic de catre niste oameni care se declara de „dreapta” si filosemiti.

      L-am cunoscut personal pe profesorul Judt. Dincolo de ideile sale, omul era unul extraordinar. Este absolut inutila orice discutie cu Dvs. Mi-ati amintit de vorbele lui Anatol Vieru, „provincia este neputinta de a recunoaste valorile”.

      O lume fara Tony Judt

      Public aici, cu permisiunea sa, articolul lui Mircea Mihaies despre cel care a fost istoricul Tony Judt. Acum, cand nu mai este, cand sarcasmul sau seducator, intodeauna imblanzit de o unda de compasiune, a disparut in ceata infinita a marii taceri, ne dam seama cat de mult a contat Tony Judt, cat de singuri suntem fara el, fara curajul sau de a spune ceea ce crede, indiferent de reactiile unora sau altora. Multi l-au urat pentru ideile sale heterodoxe. El nu stia, nu putea sa urasca. Mi-a aratat odata cateva din scrisorile primite dupa publicarea articolului atat de controversat despre Romania. M-am ingrozit. El zambea. Au urmat alte controverse, alte atacuri. Isi amintea, nu ma indoiesc, de Hannah Arendt. A fost destinul lui Tony Judt sa treaca in lumea celor drepti la cinci decenii de la disparitia celui pe care l-a admirat netarmurit, autorul Ciumei si al Omului revoltat. Tony Judt a purtat cu demnitate ceea ce el a numit, pe urmele celor pe care i-a pretuit, povara responsabilitatii. Textul lui Mircea Mihaies va apare in revista Orizont.

      Tony Judt

      (1948 – 2010)

      de Mircea Mihaies

      A plecat dintre noi, după doi de suferinţe atroce, Tony Judt, unul din marii istorici de azi. Ne-am bucurat, câţiva timişoreni şi câţiva români, de prietenia şi de ajutorul său academic nepreţuite. Am reuşit, în octombrie 1998, să-l avem câteva zile invitat la Timişoara. Mai privesc şi acum fotografia aflată pe unul din pereţii redacţiei revistei Orizont, în care, zâmbitor şi fericit, Tony Judt e înconjurat de membrii grupului de cercetare „A Treia Europă.” Au fost zile fabuloase, al căror rezultat stă drept mărturie volumul Europa iluziilor, publicat în anul 2000 de Editura Polirom şi netradus deocamdată în engleză. Cu acelaşi prilej, Tony Judt a susţinut o conferinţă extraordinară la Colegiul Noua Europă, despre cele două mari rele ale secolului trecut, comunismul şi fascismul. L-am însoţit apoi, împreună cu Silviu Lupescu, într-o halucinantă deplasare la Chişinău, pe urmele propriei familii — una din bunicile lui era originară din zona Moldovei. În engleză, în franceză, în italiană (şi sunt sigur că, dacă ar fi fost nevoie, şi în română!) Tony Judt a strălucit în conversaţiile cu studenţii şi intelectualii de dincolo de Prut. N-am să uit niciodată plăcerea cu care am înfulecat „mâncările poftoase” pe parcursul acelor zile petrecute dincolo de Prut.

      Despre opera sa — în mare parte accesibilă în româneşte prin traducerile de la Polirom — au vorbit în aceste zile toate marile publicaţii ştiinţifice şi de informare ale lumii. De la cărţile despre stânga intelectual franceză, la opus magnum-ul Epoca postbelică. O istorie a Europei după 1945 , Tony Judt a lăsat o inegalabilă operă de gânditor politic şi istoric. Prietenii săi români, Vladimir Tismăneanu şi Mihai-Răzvan Ungureanu, au avut prilejul să scrie şi să spună lucruri definitorii despre el. Tuturor, ne lipseşte deja — şi ne-a lipsit în ultimii ani — înţelepciunea lui, felul abrupt, dar prietenos, în care-şi exprima dezacordul, precizia exprimării şi neobosita lui generozitate, râsul încântat atunci când descoperea un lucru nou. Călător neobosit, aflat parcă mereu pe urmele unei himere, Tony Judt a fost unul din cei mai fascinanţi „spectateurs engagés” ai tulburei şi tulburătoarei noastre epoci. Textele confesive, scrise nu ştiu când şi, mai ales, cum, publicate în ultimul an în The New York Review of Books, sunt un dar preţios, o mărturie plină de patetism şi luciditate a unui intelectual de hiper-calibru, dar care a fost şi — aleg dinadins aceste cuvinte demonetizate, dar care lui i se potrivesc ca puţinora alţii — un Mare Om. Alas, poor Tony…

      http://tismaneanu.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/o-lume-fara-tony-judt/

      http://www.polirom.ro/biblioteca-online/listare(02,pk,DESC).html

      Distinse doamne si domni de pe ILD.net, inainte de a pune etichete de idiot util, uitati-va in oglinda. Inainte de a sustine ceea ce sustineti, ginditi-va macar o secunda daca vietile evreilor care au fost macelariti la Itamar puteau fi salvate in vreun fel.

      Cind vad cum este macelarit blogosferic un om de la care am invatat atit de multe, nu imi ramine decit sa ma consider pe mine vinovat. Prostia mea – aceea de a-l aduce aici – este de vina pentru aceasta ignobila si rudimentara reactie. A fost ultima.

      Pentru genialul algoritimic-util Pataphyl,
      citeva secunde cu un om care stia sa traiasca in bunatate, a scris cele mai frumoase poezii, intr-un Iasi pe care l-am cunoscut si iubit si eu, si stia sa isi admire prietenii.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWZ4usqyiO4

      (Este inutil sa credeti ca are vreun sens publicarea acestui comentariu. L-am scris dintr-un fel de disperare. Si dintr-o nevoie personala de igiena sufleteasca. Nu il publicati, va rog ! Publicarea acestui comentariu ar stirni alte reactii ignobile ale altor macelari si ceea ce s-a petrecut mai sus a fost, oricum, prea mult!)

    23. Bugsy,
      In primul rind, vreau sa-ti spun ca ma bucur ca ai revenit.

      Buna chestia cu teacheru, dar ai deschis portita sa ti se aduca aminte despre parerile lui Roger Waters, si risti navalirea prin acea portita a unor articole luuuuuungi 🙂

    24. Liviu St Omer

      Tony Judt e departe de a fi un idiot util, sau ceva de genul asta

      Te las pe tine sa spui cum poate fi catalogata pledoaria de mai sus.

      ST

      Hahaha, Tony Judt – linsat blogosferic de catre niste oameni care se declara de “dreapta” si filosemiti.

      Hahaha, Tony Judt e „linsat blogosferic” de niste oameni care se declara de dreapta si filosemit! Why, certainly, my good man! doar a pune la indoiala Israelul este culmea inteligentei si a inaltei moralitati, dar a-i critica pe criticii evrei ai Israelului este antisemitism.

      Ce zice nea Judt, evreul simpatic atac de antisemitii ILD? Pai, un sir nesfarsit de prostii jignitoare, atat pentru evrei, cat si pentru aceia dintre noi care au suferit sub comunism. Zidul ridicat de evrei intre ei si iubitorii lor vecini arabo-musulmani (acei oameni care le asasineaza copiii, arunca in aer restaurante, isi invata plozii sa urasca evrei si fac melodii despre halci de carne jidanesti) „ocupa, divide si fura pamantul arab”; „asemenea Zidului Berlinului, el confirma falimentul moral si institutional al regimului pe care trebuie sa il protejeze.” A-ha. Dar noi avem o problema cu evreii. Misto.

      L-am cunoscut personal pe profesorul Judt. Dincolo de ideile sale, omul era unul extraordinar.

      „L-am cunoscut personal pe profesorul Sartre. Dincolo de ideile sale, omul era unul extraordinar.”
      „L-am cunoscut personal pe profesorul Marcuse. Dincolo de ideile sale, omul era unul extraordinar.”
      „L-am cunoscut personal pe profesorul Althusser. Dincolo de ideile sale, omul era unul extraordinar.”
      „L-am cunoscut personal pe profesorul Derrida. Dincolo de ideile sale, omul era unul extraordinar.”
      „L-am cunoscut personal pe profesorul Foucalt. Dincolo de ideile sale, omul era unul extraordinar.”
      „L-am cunoscut personal pe profesorul Adorno. Dincolo de ideile sale, omul era unul extraordinar.”
      „L-am cunoscut personal pe profesorul Fromm. Dincolo de ideile sale, omul era unul extraordinar.”
      „L-am cunoscut personal pe profesorul Chomsky. Dincolo de ideile sale, omul era unul extraordinar.”
      „L-am cunoscut personal pe profesorul Ayers. Dincolo de ideile sale, omul era unul extraordinar.”

      Distinse doamne si domni de pe ILD.net, inainte de a pune etichete de idiot util, uitati-va in oglinda. Inainte de a sustine ceea ce sustineti, ginditi-va macar o secunda daca vietile evreilor care au fost macelariti la Itamar puteau fi salvate in vreun fel.

      Da, hai sa ne gandim, mergand pe cararea facuta de stimatul domn Judt prin jungla sionismului: victimele de la Itamar ar fi fost salvate printr-un stat bi-national. Sau daca Israelul s-ar fi retras din teritoriile pe care le-a cucerit in urma atacului arab din 1967. Sau daca Israelul i-ar fi expulzat pe toti arabii din Iudeea. Am ratat vreo solutie judt-iana pentru „problema” Israelului, un stat – nu-i asa? – „anacronic”?

      Prostia mea – aceea de a-l aduce aici – este de vina pentru aceasta ignobila si rudimentara reactie. A fost ultima.

      (Este inutil sa credeti ca are vreun sens publicarea acestui comentariu. L-am scris dintr-un fel de disperare. Si dintr-o nevoie personala de igiena sufleteasca. Nu il publicati, va rog ! Publicarea acestui comentariu ar stirni alte reactii ignobile ale altor macelari si ceea ce s-a petrecut mai sus a fost, oricum, prea mult!)

      ST, ati postat un articol al lui Tony Judt pe un site pentru care sustinerea Israelului este, asemenea sustinerii statului roman, sfanta. Stiati prea bine cum va fi receptionat un material care compara zidul de protectie cu Zidul Berlinului, asa ca nu pricep surpriza ori indignarea. Articolul lui Judt ar trebui sa va faca sa rositi, intr-atat este de aberant si rau-intentionat.

      V-am aparat punctul de vedere cand l-am considerat corect, n-am zis mai nimic in momentul in care ati umblat cu ironii ieftine si m-am facut ca nu inteleg ca sunt acuzat de rasism in ceea ce il priveste pe Obama. Sunt obisnuit cu asemenea atitudini si am invatat sa trec peste ele cu zambetul pe buze. Sunt constient ca ideile pe care le apar nu vor castiga prea curand concursuri de popularitate, dar nu intelegeti ceva important: nu ma intereseaza sa fiu acceptat. Daca asta ar fi principala mea preocupare, as scrie la randu-mi despre cum Israelul este un stat apartheid. Astfel, as avea un viitor stralucit in media si in spatiul universitar, m-ati respecta si mi-ati posta articolele pe site-uri precum acesta.

      Doriti sa nu mai accesati ILD? N-aveti decat, sunteti liber sa o faceti, dar n-ar strica sa renuntati la teatralism. Va pune intr-o postura ridicola.

    25. Shalom Silvapro,

      stiu parerile lui Roger Waters, dar aici subiectul era …..teacheru (care era foarte tare si riguros la scoala – sau pe bloguri! si mielusel acasa).

    26. Bush’s Useful Idiots
      Tony Judt on the Strange Death of Liberal America

      In fairness, America’s bellicose intellectuals are not alone. In Europe, Adam Michnik, the hero of the Polish intellectual resistance to Communism, has become an outspoken admirer of the embarrassingly Islamophobic Oriana Fallaci; Václav Havel has joined the DC-based Committee on the Present Danger (a recycled Cold War-era organisation dedicated to rooting out Communists, now pledged to fighting ‘the threat posed by global radical Islamist and fascist terrorist movements’); André Glucksmann in Paris contributes agitated essays to Le Figaro (most recently on 8 August) lambasting ‘universal Jihad’, Iranian ‘lust for power’ and radical Islam’s strategy of ‘green subversion’. All three enthusiastically supported the invasion of Iraq.

      intre timp:

      CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This coalition between the Right and Israel, the evangelical right in the United States, is not founded on personal friendships or anything like that, or even values. It’s founded on some sort of weird, rightwing thing where you just high five each other there at the Western Wall and then that’s done, they’re trip.

      socialistii nu’si pot explica simpatia dreptei pentru Israel si o dau in hahaituri macabre la bancuri proaste Chris Matthews Laughs Hysterically When Guest Makes Anti-Semitic Remark

      vorbim de aceeasi stanga pro/multi-culti.
      paralela foarte buna a lui Imp intre chomsky si judt unde si eu il vad pe judt o copie fidela a lui chomsky.
      dar asta mi s’a parut faza zilei:

      (Este inutil sa credeti ca are vreun sens publicarea acestui comentariu. L-am scris dintr-un fel de disperare. Si dintr-o nevoie personala de igiena sufleteasca. Nu il publicati, va rog ! Publicarea acestui comentariu ar stirni alte reactii ignobile ale altor macelari si ceea ce s-a petrecut mai sus a fost, oricum, prea mult!)

      deci omu’ inainte de a apasa butonul ala mare pe care scrie ” TRIMITE COMENTARIU” se roaga de administratori sa nu ii publice comentariul..
      hahahaha, cre’ ca e ceva in legatura cu creieru’
      or smthg

    27. Mi-a placut mult de tot „Dincolo de ideile sale, omul era unul extraordinar”. E genul de expresie pe care o poti folosi in legatura cu aproape oricine.

    28. Sigur, chiar mai păros decît B(ursuc)omba cu hidrogen…

      Mai ales că are și urmași:

      …și companie:

      …deși treaba se mai schimbă:

    29. Dragi Colegi,

      In aceste momente de grea incercare, cand Sueta s-a suparat, si s-ar putea sa nu mai revina (decat peste cel mult o saptamana), sa incercam sa fim tari si sa nu ne lasam cufundati in depresie, sa mergem inainte, asa cum putem… snif, snif…

      Of. Cine stie daca si cand vom putea afla ce era cu ceatza deasa pe care o lasau invariabil comentariile Suetei, ceatza care inghitzea orice discutie, oricat de pasionanta… Ceatza! Era ea oare naturala sau artificiala? Poate ca nu vom descoperi prea curand, sau poate niciodata, asa cum, toutes proportions gardées, nici polonezii poate nu vor sti ce era cu ceatza de la Smolensk…
      Poate totusi, mai ales daca ceatza era artificiala, o sa revina, cetzos, sub alt nume, Taifasul de exemplu… Je dis n’importe quoi, incerc si eu sa va incurajez, nu pot sa va vad cu fetzele alea mahnite…

      Ce sa-i faci. Viata de blog are si bucurii si dureri. Iar maine va fi o noua zi, planeta va continua sa se invarta, sa se incalzeasca, sa se incretzeasca, fara sa-i pese ca Sueta a plecat de pe ILD…

    30. Anca, vorba lui Toma Caragiu: „Hai nu plînge-nu plînge!”

      E doar „vremea raporturilor de primăvară” cum scria un amic poet.
      Țăranu-și aruncă neglijent sămînța-n brazdă, gazdă, viezure, cîntînd voios: Je sème à tout vent.
      Vîntul bate pentru voi, dormiți liniștiți.
      Semănatul colhoznic cu copy/paste induce echilibru la cap și la coaste.
      În viață se-ntîmplă și ceață. Paiațe legate cu sfori și cu ață.

      Dar cînd dorești cu adevărat, poate-poate reușești:

    31. Bugsy,
      Sper c-ai inteles ca nu-ti aduceam nici un fel de critica. Nu era vorba de critica noastra. Era f. potrivit ce-ai pus. In afara de asta, chiar eu „cad in pacat” cu Pink Floyd. Imi place muzica lor de-atitia ani de zile si nu stiam de ideile lui Roger Waters pina cind a dat un concert in Israel in urma cu vreo doi ani, si a facut vilva cu declaratii nasoale, plus ca a stabilit concertul intr-un loc „semnificativ”, sa le cada bine si stingistilor si musulmanilor. Numai asa s-a induplecat.

      Mike Leigh in schimb, a contramandat de tot participarea lui la o festivitate initiata in cinstea lui, pe motivul ca nu pune piciorul intr-o tara fascista de apartheid. A scis o scrisoare f. urita care s-a publicat in catalogul retrospectivei care totusi s-a tinut in lipsa lui. Tot acolo s-a publicat si raspunsul la scrisoare, in care stingistii isi exprimau marea dezamigire dar si alinierea la opinia lui. Pacat, ca imi placea Secrets and lies.
      ————————————-
      Mersi celor care mi-au venit in ajutor si au schimbat clipul gresit care mi-a scapt..

    32. Perla cea mai tare:

      (Este inutil sa credeti ca are vreun sens publicarea acestui comentariu. L-am scris dintr-un fel de disperare. Si dintr-o nevoie personala de igiena sufleteasca. Nu il publicati, va rog ! Publicarea acestui comentariu ar stirni alte reactii ignobile ale altor macelari si ceea ce s-a petrecut mai sus a fost, oricum, prea mult!)

      Disonanta cognitiva… Venind de la acelasi si nu altul, care ridiculariza inchinatul la o persoana aproape ateista.

      Sa nu mai vorbim de perlele rare, citate de Dr. Pepper in #29, care erau nu numai absurde dar si rau voitoare. Nu zau, there is no „threat posed by global radical Islamist and fascist terrorist movements”. Niste mielusei draguti, acesti teroristi, iar noi fiind cei cruzi si islamofobi. De fapt nu sintem decit niste paranoici jalnici, nu-i asa?

      🙂 As avea o sugestie pentru webmaster -. sa ne pui numaidecit la dispozitie un icon in plus, prin care sa avem posibilitatea to high five each other on the site, as true rightists are supposed to….

    33. Silvapro, stai linistita, am inteles ce vroiai sa spui. Si eu „pacatuiesc” cu Pink Floyd (wish you were here, meddle, dark side of the moon – sunt albumele preferate)

    34. #40
      Sa fie inceputul unui nou val de Intifada? Din astea cu suicide-bombers?
      Ca in sud, cu kasamim, graduri etc. deja avem de ani de zile. Nu inteleg de ce nu se ia actiune la fiecare racheta. In Gaza sa stie ca vom fi f. „proportionate”. Mai mult sau mai ptin, in sensul cum aparea pe IDL intr-un articol cu nu stiu ce formula matematica. (cred ca era pe IDL).

      Mai demult, cind auzeam propozitia ca arabii nu inteleg altceva decit forta, mi se parea un slogan rasist. Dar se pare ca alternativa cealalta, cea cu indulgenta, da rezultate f. proaste.

    LĂSAȚI UN MESAJ

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here