cramer@SUN.COM (08/24/86)
My recent description of Gore Vidal's noxious essay in the 120th anniversary edition of the "Nation" as "blatantly anti-semitic" seems to have thrown Larry Campbell into an anti-zionist tizzy. He writes > Here we have yet another case of the inability of so many people to > distinguish Jews from Zionists. Yes, Gore Vidal (and Alexander > Cockburn, and I, if you care) disdain Zionism. But Zionism is not > the same as Judaism. Cramer, like so many Zionists, figuratively > waves the red flag of the holocaust at anyone who dares question > Zionism, or the policies of the Israeli government. Fortunately, > there are writers like Vidal and Cockburn who don't instantly fall > apologetically to the ground every time this well-worn bit of > innuendo is trotted out. Let's look at this fun-filled paragraph bit by bit. "The inability of so many people to distinguish Jews from Zionists... Zionism is not the same as Judaisim": Here Campbell presumes to tell Jews what they are, and what they believe. Fortunately, the American Jewish community, which is virtually entirely pro-Zionist, understands the centrality of Israel to the Jewish religion, not being as ignorant of Judaism as Mr. Campbell. Did you know, for example, that a religious Jew prays *three times a day* for the restoration of the Jewish homeland? Or that he says, in grace prayers *after every meal*, "rebuild Jerusalem, the holy city, speedily in our days"? Do you recall the "I am a Zionist" buttons that were distributed in the vast majority of American synagogues after the UN passed the notorious "Zionism is racism" resolution? To quote Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, I do not bring you a new idea but an ancient one... it is as old as our people who never ceased, even in the periods of bitterest suffering, to meditate upon it. This idea is the establishment of the Jewish State. "Cramer, like so many Zionists, figuratively waves the red flag of the holocaust at anyone who dares question Zionism, or the policies of the Israeli government": I'm glad that Mr. Campbell is at least able to differentiate between support for Zionism and support for all the policies of the Israeli government. Being a Zionist implies endorsement of the notion of a homeland for the Jewish people, not unwavering support for every policy made by every Israeli goverment. The idea of knee-jerk support by Zionists for every Israeli policy is a myth - I, for one, have never met a Zionist who does not disagree with some policy of the Israeli goverment. Similarly, I have never met a supporter of the US who does not quarrel with some policy of its' government. Now, on to "waving the red flag of the holocaust": This is a revealing remark. In the posting which seems to have so unbalanced our friend, I said *nothing* about the Holocaust. Why does Mr. Campbell bring up this *Jewish* tragedy? After all, he has already told us that "Zionism is not the same as Judaism." Peculiar. "Fortunately, there are writers like Vidal and Cockburn who don't instantly fall apologetically to the ground every time this well-worn bit of innuendo is trotted out": How about the imagery here? - writers falling to the ground before the decieving Je.. I mean Zionists. Actually, I rather wish that Mr. Vidal was a bit more circumspect in his anti-semitism. I don't particulary enjoy reading in mass circulation magazines that American Jews are in America in order to "make propaganda and raise money for Israel" while their "predatory" co-religionists in the Middle East are "busy stealing another peoples' land in the name of an alien theocracy." Or that American Jews constitute an "Israeli Fifth Column." Or that "significantly, the one yiddish word that has gained universal acceptance in this country is chutzpah [nerve]." Anti-Zionism is an unusual movement. Of all the peoples in the world, it finds the Jews uniquely undeserving of a state. Of all the injustices in the world, it focuses solely on those present in the Jewish state, the only democracy in the Middle East. Martin Luther King, Jr. may have been on to something when he said "when people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews." -------
campbell@maynard.UUCP (09/03/86)
Apologies for the length of this; those uninterested in truth in reporting can skip it. Summary: Cramer misquotes and misconstrues Gore Vidal's article, and I correct his mistakes. I wonder if he actually read the article, or if he only read some out-of-context quotes published in an anti-Vidal flame somewhere. cramer@sun.com writes: >Here Campbell presumes to tell Jews what they are, and what they >believe. Fortunately, the American Jewish community, which is >virtually entirely pro-Zionist, understands the centrality of Israel >to the Jewish religion, not being as ignorant of Judaism as Mr. >Campbell. Did you know, for example, that a religious Jew prays >*three times a day* for the restoration of the Jewish homeland? Or >that he says, in grace prayers *after every meal*, "rebuild >Jerusalem, the holy city, speedily in our days"? ... No, I didn't know that. Lots of religions include formulaic and outmoded jargon in their worship that no one really believes or examines. It's been a long time since I've been to communion, but the mumbo-jumbo goes something like "Drink of my blood and eat of my flesh" -- you're supposed to be eating the body of Christ. And yet no one seriously believes that Christians practice symbolic ritual cannibalism. Also, for what it's worth, most Jews I know (even the Zionist ones) don't pray three times a day for *anything*, and also eat ham and sausage. If you're talking about Orthodox Jews, I could believe you, but they're essentially a crank minority, about as central to American politics as the Amish or the Mennonites. >Now, on to "waving the red flag of the holocaust": This is a >revealing remark. In the posting which seems to have so unbalanced >our friend, I said *nothing* about the Holocaust. Why does Mr. >Campbell bring up this *Jewish* tragedy? After all, he has already >told us that "Zionism is not the same as Judaism." Peculiar. I brought it up because it is often (perhaps not in this case though) implicitly stated whenever the emotionally-charged phrase "anti-Semitism" is used. The corollary goes like this: Anti-Semite => Nazi => holocaust. [Aside: why does "Semite" mean "One of a people of Caucasian stock comprising chiefly Jews and Arabs but in ancient times also including Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, and others of the eastern Mediterranean area", while "anti-Semitic" means "anti-Jew"? The dictionary would make Rabbi Kahane an anti-Semite.] OK, here come some wildly out-of-context quotes I must laboriously clarify -- the way Cramer excerpts them makes them seem anti-Semitic while they're really anti-Midge Decter and Norman Podhoretz (and their other right-wing cohorts). > ... I don't >particulary enjoy reading in mass circulation magazines that American >Jews are in America in order to "make propaganda and raise money for >Israel" ... Vidal didn't say "Jews are in America in order to..."; he said "Yet he and Midge stay on among us, in order to...". He was referring specifically to Midge Decter and Norman Podhoretz. His larger point was that Podhoretz and the American Jewish Committee have ...moved from those liberal positions traditionally occupied by American Jews (and me) to the far right of American politics. The reason for that is simple. In order to get Treasury money for Israel (last year $3 billion), pro-Israel lobbyists must see to it that America's "the Russians are coming" squads are in place so that they can continue to frighten the American people into spending enormous sums for "defense", which also means the support of Israel in its never-ending wars against just about everyone. > ...while their "predatory" co-religionists in the Middle East >are "busy stealing another peoples' land in the name of an alien >theocracy." ... "Co-religionists" is Cramer's term, not Vidal's. Here's the actual section in question (explanatory comments in [] are mine): We [the U.S.] stole other people's land [California, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Philippines]. We murdered many of the inhabitants. We imposed our religion -- and rule -- on the survivors. General Grant was ashamed of what we did to Mexico, and so am I. Mark Twain was ashamed of what we did in the Philippines, and so am I. Midge is not because in the Middle East another predatory people is busy stealing other people's land in the name of an alien theocracy. She is a propagandist for these predators (paid for?), and that is what this nonsense is all about. >Or that American Jews constitute an "Israeli Fifth Column." He never said that. The two sentences containing the phrase "fifth column" are: The Lunts of the right wing (Israeli Fifth Column Division), they [Decter and Podhoretz] are now, in their old age, more and more like refugees from a Woody Allen film: 'The Purple Prose of West End Avenue'. and But then, like most of our Israeli fifth columnists, Midge isn't much interested in what the _goyim_ were up to before Ellis Island. He is specifically talking about the Jewish/Zionist right wing, not "American Jews" as a whole. In case that's not clear, here's another quote: Since spades may not be called spades in freedom's land, let me spell it all out. In order to get military and economic support for Israel, a small number of American Jews, who should know better, have made common cause with every sort of reactionary and anti-Semitic group in the United States, from the corridors of the Pentagon to the TV studios of the evangelical Jesus-Christers. >Anti-Zionism is an unusual movement. Of all the peoples in the >world, it finds the Jews uniquely undeserving of a state. First, Anti-Zionism is not a "movement". It is not particularly organized, at least not in the U.S., while Zionism is clearly a well-organized movement -- heck, it's got a state! Now, if Anti-Zionism finds Jews "uniquely undeserving" of a state, then I assume Zionists find that Jews "deserve" a state. Well, then. Do Catholics "deserve" a state? Shall we restore the Holy Roman Empire? Do Moslems "deserve" a state? Shall we restore the Ottoman Empire? What makes Jews so unique in all this? As far as I can see, it's because they have the only religion that thinks it deserves a state. Somehow I thought that this was the twentieth century, and that theocracy was an outmoded concept. Frighteningly, Israel and Iran are proving me wrong. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846 -------
bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (09/03/86)
From: cramer@SUN.COM >Fortunately, the American Jewish community, which is >virtually entirely pro-Zionist... That's quite a statement, I don't believe that. There are (at least) two significant groups who are not pro-Zionist (at least not in any sense that is being used here.) 1. A segment of the Orthodox who believe that the return to Israel will occur upon the coming of the Messiah. I was raised by people who, although sympathetic to Israel for political reasons (read: fear) were deeply troubled by this contradiction. 2. The traditional leftist Jewish community who deeply questions the validity of the current Israeli state and the methods by which it came into being (note, of course there are Zionist leftists, many in the Israeli Kibbutz movement.) If I remember correctly (it's been a while) the Jewish leftist newspaper Freiheit expresses these feelings as editorial policy. At any rate, just looking for an example. I certainly have known many such people in my life. I don't believe these people are insignificant, just perhaps in Mr. Cramer's experience as neither group tends to be socially affable with Jews they fundamentally disagree with. Perhaps he will claim this was adequately covered by his use of the word "virtually". I don't think so. If he had said the "majority" I would have to agree, but I believe the point I make is important as the press etc seems to believe in this unanimity also. It t'aint necessarily so. -Barry Shein, Boston University -------
matt@AMSAA.ARPA (09/21/86)
Larry Campbell writes: >Now, if Anti-Zionism finds Jews "uniquely undeserving" of a state, >then I assume Zionists find that Jews "deserve" a state. Well, then. >Do Catholics "deserve" a state? Shall we restore the Holy Roman >Empire? Do Moslems "deserve" a state? Shall we restore the Ottoman >Empire? What makes Jews so unique in all this? As far as I can see, >it's because they have the only religion that thinks it deserves a >state. Somehow I thought that this was the twentieth century, and >that theocracy was an outmoded concept. Frighteningly, Israel and >Iran are proving me wrong. Yes, Catholics deserve a state, and they have several -- start with Spain. Yes, Moslems deserve a state, and they have several, most of them more tolerant than, say, Algeria, where the law says you can't *become* a citizen unless you're a Moslem, and more tolerant than Jordan and Saudi Arabia, where Jews are flat out forbidden to live. Saying that the Jews deserve a state is not the same as saying that that state is, has to be, or even should be, a "theocracy" like Iran (religion: Shiite Islam) or the Soviet Union (religion: Marxism-Leninism). Check out the constitutions of the European states of Christendom, including Great Britain, and see how many have state religions. Check out the constitutions of the Arab states and see how many have state religions, although they are not absolutist theocracies like Iran. Here in America, we have built the United States as a place for people who don't want a state religion, by including the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in our fundamental law. That doesn't mean that we should impose our structure on Catholics, Protestants, or Jews who want state religions in their countries. -- Matt Rosenblatt -------