|
vincentML -> RE: Helen Thomas (6/9/2010 3:28:20 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
I perceive something of a problem with that though V - in that it seems to me, and it might be just my impression, that these comments by Helen Thomas were so readily flavoured by many observers and accepted equally by others as being derived from a bias arising from her own ethnic heritage in a country neighbouring Israel that it should be incredible to think that the same bias should not be present in at least some of Jewish religion in the US, and perhaps even to the extent that any criticism of Israel - and here we may discount Ms Thomas' comments as being a particularly vicious example unsuited to the point - is jumped on and used as far as possible to label the commentator as anti-Semitic.
There is no question that some of the reaction against Helen Thomas included reference to her Lebonese heritage. I heard those comments, E. A few of the responses I received in my email were way more viscious and emotional than Helen's comments. I found them even more reprehensible.
It is also true that the antisemetic card is played inappropriately in defense, just as the race card, the feminist card, and the antigay card are so employed. When that happens it is proper for a shout out against it. People carry a lot of emotional baggage into discourse, and it has to be sorted out. Sometimes representatives of the offended group are sincere in defending with cries of prejudice; sometimes they are deliberately disingenuous and merely employing a tactic.
It disturbs me to see my own tribe honor the enslaver Christopher Columbus with an annual parade in New York City but there is yet no arguing with their misguided sense of ethnic pride. It is beyond reason.
So yes, many American Jews are very emotional and biased in defending Israel. But their bias is based upon a long history of existential threat that has become focused on that tiny patch of land.
quote:
It cannot be that some US citizens are ascribed bias whilst others may escape such a charge, dependent on which notional foreign loyalty may be ascribed to them. This is itself should raise questions as to the interests of Jewish citizens which are far from helpful either in resisting the ridiculous anti-Semitism that is found from time to time, or in any sensible and reasonable discussion of Israeli policy whether one might support or condemn that policy in whole or in part.
When it comes to making policy decisions the only bias that should matter would be that which dictates our own national self-interest and what is the proper ethical and moral posture for the nation to have in international affairs. In any "sensible and reasonable discussion" that would be the case. However, in a pluralistic society that is utopian purity, and unlikely achievable. Issues are resolved by politics not persuasion. There are forces of history that go beyond straight forward reasoning. For better or worse, we have to understand the existential threat Jews have confronted these past two thousand years. It is part of the equation. I would say the same if we were discussing a topic of concern to African-Americans or Native-Americans, who carry with them the stark memory of their own historical catastrophe. Just as women bring with them to any discussion the long history of patriarchal suppression. History is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. It cannot be ignored.
quote:
I would argue that such bias, and even divided loyalties in some instances, should be acknowledged as a factor but not necessarily proposed to be - except in instances of demonstrable treason - cause for concern in particular when I would hope we all should wish to hold a sensible and reasonable debate towards the resolution of foreign policy issues and most especially that concerning the Palestinians and Israelis. This will prove impossible if, notwithstanding the prejudices that exist, one man contributing may be disregarded on account of his background without consideration of his contribution whilst the other may be acknowledged and his contribution valued for the same reason and that reason not only overlooked but suppressed.
The dynamic is far more complicated than you perceive. It is not an academic debate nor a contest in a court room; the resolution or non-resolution of such issues is a drama of raw emotion born of a long history of asymetrical power applied to the powerless and so decisions are the result of clashing political forces engaged in hopefully non-violent revolution.... at least on our shores.
The establishment and defense of Israel is a revolutionary act. Your comment above with regard to the "the ridiculous anti-Semitism that is found from time to time.." misses the magnitude of the central issue by a wide margin. The Jews are reacting to two thousand years of persecution that began with John 8: 42-47, and which they perceive to continue today, and so yes they are extra sensitive to acts they may think, rightly or wrongly, are antisemetic.
Having said that, let me address again the question of loyalty. American Jews (with whom I have spoken) seem to have an attitude of dual citizenship, as being members of two nations to whom they are devoted to varying degrees. Not Israel and the United States, but Jewishness and the United States. So, they may have conflicted interests from time to time and they will vote to benefit Israel which is vested with their Jewishness but there should be no doubt as to their loyalty to the United States. Their fathers and brothers have fought and died for us in our way too many wars. We have played the disloyalty card against groups of people in the past with terrible consequences. I would hate to see it again.
|
|
|
|
