Philip Weiss Exiled
American Conservative published an interesting article by Philip Weiss, who was pushed out of The Observer after it was purchased by Jared Kushner, a Chabad supporter.
Weiss writes,
My writing was becoming increasingly anti-Zionist. I visited Israel for the first time last summer, and in the West Bank, I met a South African who told me conditions were worse there than they had been under apartheid. When I got back, I posted a photograph of Arabs forced to worship outside the Damascus Gate to the Old City of Jerusalem because of heightened Israeli security, and a reader of my blog launched an “investigationâ€? and called the photographer, evidently thinking I’d doctored the image.I knew that Zionists were lobbying The Observer, writing to my editor and the new owner. Peter once said he got more e-mail about me than anything else in the paper. One of these e-mails, copied to me, said there was a “cancer on The Observer.â€? That was mild. Others commented as “Phil Weissâ€? and purported to confess my bitterness over bad book reviews I’d gotten or said they had loved having sex with my Christian mother-in-law. One wrote that he wanted to “cut off your head and s–t down your neck.â€?
One day Peter mentioned that the new owner had passed along one of these complaints and reminded him that the pro-Israel community was one he cared about. Peter said that he defended me, though he asked, “You’re not a Holocaust denier, are you?� “Of course not,� I said. “Good, I thought so.�
Ugly stuff, suspecting an anti-Zionist of Holocaust denial . But Weiss came late to this game, and has important gaps in his knowledge that are disturbing. He conflates Chabad with “the hassidim,� and presents their position on the West Bank as normative of Chassidim, when it is a minority Chassidic viewpoint.
Still, some of his ideas, while hardly original, are not expressed frequently, and are not popular public discussion points.
“The Jewish community had defined Jewishness as attachment to Israel, and it was not coming to grips with the effect of that attachment on the Arab world or the United States.�
Yeah, well…I worry about that also.
26 comments
His piece is way too long in the first place. Hard to follow his train of thought.
Also I don’t put much credence in those who intermarry and then want to rant against Israel, and the Jewish community.
A lot of self-serving publicity in there. He’s a hero, he educated himself with the tools provided genetically by his scholar father, he was generating tons of traffic, he’s the source for truth and justice, etc.
Oh, and he visited Israel ONCE for 4 months and a South African told him THE TRUTH.
Gimme a break.
When you write fairly and with integrity, people argue with you on the same lines. Those who don’t aren’t worth your time. I mean, the guy has no clue in that piece about the divisions in Israel among the Orthodox and we’re supposed to buy that he knows the rest of the material well enough that he doesn’t deserve criticism for anti-Israel writings? Are we supposed to buy that he knows enough to compose articles that question Jewish view on things when we know that these often conflict with his own views as dictated by his own experience of assimilation.
by the way, he breaks the confidence of a private discussion with his editor, which is pretty low. But we also learn that he wasn’t fired and the problem was that he wanted money to keep the blog going and they didn’t feel it was warranted. Is there a possibility that business reasons intervened and not just politics? We won’t know because Weiss wants to tell us about the politics, but blogs don’t generate a ton of money, even ones for the Observer written by anti-Zionists.
Forgive the grammar and punctuation there, I was in a hurry.
When you write fairly and with integrity, people argue with you on the same lines.
I happen to disagree. I have been becoming more and more “non-Zionist” in the past few years. My connection to Israel, the state, land, and people is very personal; it is based in my knowledge of what is going on. I have been to Israel three times now (once for 6 months and the other two were “birthright” type things and no I didn’t cheat) and I know people there. I cannot and will not say I am an expert in anyway shape or form.
But when I try to have an intellectual and non-Zionist conversation or even a conversation that is perceived to be non-Zionist in nature I am shunned by many in the Jewish community.
themiddle I think you are wrong. Evidence to this can be found all over the web. All you need to do is find a Reform Jew talking about anything and then you will find people calling him out for being a heretic.
P
POLJ, I write on a site where plenty of people have said mean things to Reform and Conservative Jews, just as some of us have said mean things about Orthodox Jews and Haredim in particular. We all get insulted and criticized by those with differing views. Although Kelsey will tell you that he got a hard time from me and others when he was perceived as anti-Zionist, as opposed to non-Zionist, he also got a debate. A real debate.
I go to sites where Zionists are automatically vilified as racists, thieves, murdererds and more. So what? I maintain my integrity and debate them.
I’m tired of all the whining about name-calling and “muzzling.” The fact is that Juan Cole, Walt & Mearsheimer, Jimmy Carter and every Hizbullah and Hamas spokesmen get all the media attention they seek or need. Look at how much attention the Finkelstein tenure issue is getting. Take a look at the frequency with which Israel is criticized in the mainstream media and then take a look at the Internet, replete with discussions not only about Israel and its supporters but Jews and their power. I’m talking about run of the mill sites (usually of the Left), not about neo-Nazi sites.
If you speak as a non-Zionist and are critical of Israel, expect to be debated and sometimes heatedly. So what? Many people perceive this as a life and death issue, an issue of honor, an issue of Jewish values, etc. Articulate and defend your positions in such debates. If you can. If you can’t, when the other side is debating strongly but reasonably, then perhaps you should reconsider your views.
Stanley, Philip Weiss argues that,
http://www.philipweiss.org/mon.....s_a_j.html
TM wrote,
“Look at how much attention the Finkelstein tenure issue is getting.”
I think we all saw that reaction coming, no? Also, Deshowitz’s big fat mouth is never helpful to these situations. Never.
I heard some one make a good point yesterday. They say it’s not racist, it’s a “seperation wall” do you know how to say seperation in afrikaans? apartheid.
I think his name was Ed Peck. Decent speaker.
Kelsey, you must have meant Finkelstein’s big fat mouth. He’s the one who challenged Dershowitz, not the other way around. Also, Dershowitz was invited by the DePaul faculty to submit his opinion on Finkelstein’s scholarship, he didn’t send it on his own. Finkelstein sowed his own seeds of doom. Well-deserved doom.
Ed peck is wonderful but he hasn’t been afraid to go shopping or into a restaurant or put his kids on public transportation because they might get blown up. The fact is that pre-security barrier there were far more successful attacks on Israeli civilians than now.
Mohammed,
I see no reason why Israel would want to control the West Bank. Do you? If not, why not have a separation fence under the circumstances?
TM, you wrote,
“Kelsey, you must have meant Finkelstein’s big fat mouth. He’s the one who challenged Dershowitz, not the other way around.”
Right. Because he knew it would help him to have a fight with Dershowitz.
Philip Weiss is an ignoramus, and that’s not ad hominem. He simply doesn’t know shit, and he’s been writing from a proud POV of stupidity on these topics for almost a decade now (by my count; maybe longer).
ps: There are few things worse than ignoramuses with persecution complexes. It’s ugly when it comes from self-appointed “leaders” of the Jewish community, and it’s ugly when it comes from the other end of the spectrum, e.g., histrionic whiners like Weiss.
dk
I am for a seperation fence between Mexico and the US. :- )
If “israel” ended its occupation of enough palestinian land to make a viable state and then made a seperation fence, it wouldn’t be enough for me but it would be a semi defensible position.
giving them bantustans with limited autonomy, a sort of judenrat, is not. As long as they keep the PA population dependent on the israeli economy to survive, cutting them off is unconscionable.
what would you say to someone who moved into your house, evicted you from most of it, and finally, generously, decided to give you back one bathroom with “limited autonomy” i.e you can flush but you can’t decide who comes in and out, and then walls you into the bathroom?
mohammed,
Clearly the West Bank situation is unacceptable for the long-term. But I don’t think this is really disputed by most Israelis.
“If “israelâ€? ended its occupation of enough palestinian land to make a viable state and then made a seperation fence, it wouldn’t be enough for me but it would be a semi defensible position.”
What’s with the scare quotes? Israel has been a state recognized by the UN for almost 60 years.
“giving them bantustans with limited autonomy, a sort of judenrat, is not.”
Wow, you got your South Africa and Nazi pseudo-parallels into one sentence. Impressive!
“As long as they keep the PA population dependent on the israeli economy to survive, cutting them off is unconscionable.”
They “cut them off” because every time “they” allowed “them” to come into Israel, they’d get suicide bombing and suicide bombing attempts. There is nothing unconscionable about security.
“what would you say to someone who moved into your house, evicted you from most of it, and finally, generously, decided to give you back one bathroom with “limited autonomyâ€? i.e you can flush but you can’t decide who comes in and out, and then walls you into the bathroom?”
I’d say, Wow, rewriting history. What would you say if I were promised something but was then forced to compromise and compromise until all I was offered was 10% of that something? Still, twice (1937,1947) I agreed to take that 10% and to live in peace. The other side, on the other hand, refused to accommodate and compromise and used violence and then war to try to keep even my tiny little 10%. Sadly for “them,” they lost in their attempt and I ended up with about 12%. Then, one day, I was attacked again, with the intent of destroying me and taking even away my 12%. Again, I prevailed and this time ended up with 17%. An important lesson at that point is that every time I wanted to talk about peace, somebody started a war with me and every time I removed myself from the midst of my enemy, attacks on my civilians increased dramatically. But still, I keep telling my enemy that for a real peace, I’m willing to give up about a third of what I had won with the precious blood of my soldiers after the enemy attacked. Instead, the enemy tries to maintain the status quo in order to continue to fight. The enemy won’t call me by my, rejects my history, tells antisemitic stories about me and prefers to refer to me in hateful terms and to ignore that I’m a state, implying strongly that they have no intention of compromising. Ever. I’d say that if the enemy thinks he’s in the bathroom, it’s because he put himself there and he’d be wise to look in the bathroom’s mirror.
TM
I don’t work for the UN
Thank you
Yes, collectively starving a million people for your “security” is unconscionable.
Your analogy is great, it just leaves out a few things. Like the fact that the guy that promised you the thing wasn’t the owner. The person “attacking you” trying to get back his thing was.
The palestinians were the indigenous people and a large majority in the land.
The promise was for a “homeland” not a state, and was not meant to deprive the palestinians of their rights. Have you ever read the white paper?
We should face the fact that there is insufficient land for both people’s. They are going to have to get Jordan and Egypt to kick in some land around Gaza area if they ever stop fighting amongst themselves.
Which White Paper?
Yes.
The promise in 1917 was a promise made with “declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations.” Tell me what those aspirations are, Mohammed.
Anyway, in the 1922 White Paper, the British, which had already given away a huge portion of Palestine to become Transjordan on the basis of a conflicting promise to Hussein some years before, do not reinterpret Balfour. They actually hedge their bets and come out sounding very vague because they don’t wish to abrogate their committment to a “national home” but suddenly add provisions limiting immigration of Jews without any provisions for limiting immigration of Arabs. Furthermore, they then took the step of appointing as Arab leader a fervent anti-Jewish leader, Haj Amin al Husseini. Nothing in that negates the idea of a state.
The British were also given a mandate by the League of Nations to guarantee “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country” and “secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home.”
By the way, I do apologize because I wrote my previous comment very late but I didn’t mean 17%, I meant 23%. Transjordan, now Jordan, sits on 77% of Mandatory Palestine.
Anyway, you can define “homeland” in any way you wish, the British promised a national home in sympathy with Zionist aspirations. Sounds to me like a state. The world agreed. We even have Arab leaders who agreed at the time.
As for ownership, you’re wrong. The owner was indeed the owner because he had vanquished the previous owner, the Ottomans. The local Arabs (they were “Palestinians” to the same degree Jews who lived there were “Palestinians”) owned 30% of the land west of the Jordan. The Jews bought much of that land and ended up with about 7.5% of the land by 1948 (which constituted 20% of the arable land). The Arab share had become smaller because they were selling, at exorbitant prices to the Jews. We can also safely assume the Jews would have continued to buy land if the Arabs hadn’t attacked in 1948.
As for depriving the Arabs of their rights, that was never the intent of Zionism. EVER. Zionism intended to establish a democratic state on the Jewish people’s historic homeland with a majority of Jews. Even those on the forefront of fighting the Arabs - who by the way took the initiative in attacking the Jews of Mandatory Palestine even when the Jews were a small minority - such as Jabotinsky, strongly advocated for and stipulated that democratic rule was the only desirable way to create a state. This approach can be seen in black and white in an assurance from the Zionist Congress to the British as relayed publicly in the 1922 White Paper. This approach would be restated again in Israel’s Declaration of Independence in 1948.
Nobody, and I mean nobody on the Jewish side wanted to curtail any Arab rights. Buy land? Yes. Bring over immigrants? Yes. Design the infrastructure for a state governed by Jews? Yes. But deprive Arabs of their rights? Absolutely not. If it hadn’t been for Arab attacks on Jews which forced the Jewish community to establish means of defending itself, the history of this conflict would have been very different.
If the Palestinians were deprived of any rights, it was the British who did it, as they did to the Jewish community and prospective immigrants. If the Palestinians subsequently lost a great deal, they can also view themselves with anger for being violently hostile to the Jewish community back when it was a small minority and then throughout the 30 years from Balfour to the UN Partition Plan of 1947. By the way, this pattern repeated itself in 1948 and in 1967. The Arabs, including the local Arabs, attack and then end up losing the war and land. Then they complain about the loss of land and the unfairness and the ill-treatment.
As for collectively “starving” a million people, speak to the Palestinian terrorists. Before the orgy of suicide bombings, Gaza Palestinians enjoyed a standard of living, even under Israeli occupation, double that of Egyptian citizens. Once they began campaigning with bombs, guns and terrorists, they found themselves cut off. They are welcome to ask the Egyptians for help now if they are hungry (which they aren’t because the UN has UNRWA there and the international community has given and continues to give billions to the Palestinians). Do you think the Palestinians would be cut off from entering Israel as they are if they hadn’t fired 3500 rockets into Israel after Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza?
standard zionist crap.
britain was a colonial power, not the native people.
they had no right to be there, much less to give it away to a bunch of east european jews.
the zionist regime is just an extension of british colonialism.
the white paper clearly states that england viewed its obligation to create a national homeland as FULFILLED by 1939 and had no intention of creating a jewish state
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/ava.....wh1939.htm
“no one wnated to deprive them of their rights, ever.
you mean their right to own land. how about their right to self determination?
any group, anywhere, that comes into a country as a minority with the explicit intention of taking over and creating a majority, especially if they don’t feel themselves bound by rule of law, would be viewed as hostile by the people living there. and treated accordingly.
I would have like to quote parts of the white paper, and I can give you quotes from here till tomorrow of what zionist leaders said about how they were planning on dealing with the arabs to create their state, but that would make this post too long.
collectively starving a million people in the name of national security is insane and immoral.
and blaming the victim is just the frosting on the cake.
This is an example, the Arabs have never come to terms with their being an Israel. The basic question was, should there be a Jewish homeland, as there is for so many others peoples?
And where to make this? if not for the ancestral homeland and where there was always a continuous Jewish commnuties?
The Palestinians, have simply been used and abused by their own people who let them live in squalor in refugee camps, when they have their oil money to help them.
And look at now how the Palestinians cannot live in peace amongst themselves, I bet they will beg the Israelis to come back and provide control.
If you want to declare that Israel should not exist Mohamed, I do not consider you welcome on a Pro Jewish website as this one.
You can ignore the sins of the Arab side, of Jordan, Egypt and Syria trying to destroy the tiny state of Israel, you can fool people who did not live through this, but you do not fool me, and
if it were up to me I would ban you for being a hate mongerer.
Ignore that but blame Israel first and always. You add nothing positive to this world and I urge DK to ban your ID.
Standard anti-Israel lies.
You didn’t like that my response about the ‘22 White Paper proved you wrong so you shifted to the ‘39 Paper. Oh! You see, that Paper followed a 3 year uprising by the Arabs that placed a great deal of pressure on the British. However, the British offered to partition the non-Jordanian part of Palestine in 1937 between the Jews and the Arabs. The Jews said yes. Of course. And the Arabs said no. Of course. Two more years of attacks on the British by the Arabs and they came up with their “new” White Paper.
That doesn’t change what was said in 1917, what was said in 1922 and what was said by the League of Nations in 1922. Britain was simply another occupier of the land after the Ottomans and had no less or more right to it as the land’s conquerors, which is what the Ottomans had been a couple of centuries earlier. Nobody said a peep about the Ottomans (Muslim rule over the lands is kosher, you see). As noted, the Arabs didn’t own even a third of the land, and the area was sparsely populated, as photos and the Ottoman census will attest.
As for the Arabs’ self-determination, how is that taken away in a democracy? And later, how is that taken away in a partition arrangement? BS excuses. At the very least acknowledge the “self-determination enjoyed by Jordan over 77% of what was promised to the Jews.
It’s also BS to ignore the fact that many Arabs arrived inside Palestine as immigrants after the arrival of the British and the Jews. UNWRA determines who is a refugee and their standard was anybody who had lived in Mandatory Palestine since 1946 was considered a refugee. Somehow, the UN relates that in 1948 it counted 360,000 refugees but one year later UNWRA counted 700,000 refugees. Even if one doesn’t believe in Joan Peters’ numbers, there is evidence that many Arabs immigrated to the newly prospering region. Are they more of the place than the Jews who arrived at the same time?
And finally, as for colonialism, with all due respect, my ancestors lived in Jerusalem and wrote the Bible there (I know because the Dead Sea Scrolls are 2200-2000 years old) in the same languages used by secular and religious Jews in Israel today long before the Arab nation came to dwell there. Whether you like it or not, Hebron is a biblical city, Jerusalem is a biblical city, Tiberias and Tzfat have been around as centers for Jews just as long as the other two towns. Our ancient culture, maintained over centuries in a diaspora, comes from this area.
If you don’t like East European Jews, focus on the 50% of Israel’s population that came over from Arab nations. There were Yemenite Jews moving to Israel before the Second Aliyah from Russia. There was also a consistent Jewish presence in that land despite all of the wars for over 2500 years.
You don’t approve because it pisses you off that Zionists came in peace, wanted to buy land and work it, wanted to develop a democratic state, and after being attacked incessantly overcame their enemy and handed them losses? Speak to the Arabs about that. Had they chosen a different path, there would have been two states living side by side for many decades now, with the Jews receiving a measly 10-12% of the area originally allotted to them. You don’t like that it was alloted to them by the British and the League of Nations? Speak to Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and all of the other states whose modern borders were determined by the very same colonial powers.
Oh wait, they’re not Jews and they’re not democracies and they didn’t give the Palestinians in their midst full citizen rights like the Israelis have. So, of course, you’d rather focus on Israel. After all, what can you do about Saudi dictatorial regimes, their Muslim only roads and their separation fence?
mohammed and TM,
You and mohammed will not agree on the macro issues of the Zionist Entity, and would prefer you do not hash them out on this blog, but rather, TM and mohammed, please restrict yourselves to micro issues. The day you two find any common ground on Israel generally is the day the Mashiach has come, and we all go back.
I realize this is an area of intense passion and contention, but The Kvetcher is not the place for it. This is a non-Zionist blog, and only concerned with Israel issues when they directly intersect with Diaspora issues, or when the haredim do something really retarded. Again, this is not to say these aren’t important issues. This is to say that they aren’t my area of expertise, and I do seek a Jewish discussion outside of a medinah focus.
Yeah, sure, whatever, it’s just that after EV’s comments, there was nothing left to say about Philip Weiss.
PS, instead of waiting for the mashiach, you could just go to Israel now. The secular Jews have accelerated things a bit…
TM
looks like you get the last word.
I still have what to say and I’m still bored enough to say it but I’ll respect DKs request.
But you obviously haven’t read the statement of the League of Nations OR the ‘22 white paper.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/ava.....lmanda.htm
from the preamble “it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”
see article 25
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/ava.....wh1922.htm
It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
Neither prove me wrong in any way.
Weiss wasn’t pushed out because he was anti-Zionist. Weiss left of his own free accord because they wouldn’t pay him to blog.
Meretz USA covers it here:
http://meretzusa.blogspot.com/.....s-all.html
Mohammed is being a sneaky dude.
Leave a Comment