False Dichotomies

I had a horrible feeling that it might happen. There had been some speculation that Evra might refuse to shake Suarez’s hand, but nobody seriously entertained the possibility that Suarez would be the one to deliver the snub. I guess they didn’t know Suarez so well. It was gruesome to watch, so gruesome that I could barely watch the super-slow replays. By half-time, though, I had a further thought: whatever else one might say about Suarez, you can’t deny that he’s got balls. Read more

The critical consensus declaring Shame to be a classic is to be welcomed, but it comes at the expense of an elementary error about the film. Almost every critic has reduced it to a film “about” a sex addict, as if there is no more to it than that. But sex addiction is not the cause of Brandon Sullivan’s problems. It is a symptom of them, one of many symptoms, the one with the most obvious cinematic potential, but the film is still “about” much more. Indeed, it is about nothing less than the failure of liberal democracy, with its deification of individual rights, to address the fundamental problem of human loneliness. Read more

The best – and kindest – way to describe Richard Silverstein is that he’s silly. Very silly indeed. He sincerely believes that his blog makes an important contribution to world peace, so important that he regularly asks readers to give him money. After a frustrating first few years as a blogger, while he tried to find a bigger audience, most respectable publications realised that he was silly and wouldn’t have anything to do with him. Then he realised that he could reinvent himself as a ‘whistle-blower’, publishing stories that wouldn’t pass the Israeli military censors. This got him the attention he craved, including one or two profiles in the Israeli media. Some of his exposes were accurate; many were not. In assessing his sources, he seems to go by the principle that if it seems to be bad for Israel then it must be true. Needless to say, this isn’t necessarily the way to go if you want to be taken seriously. Read more

Everyone knows that the Jews control Hollywood. Everyone also knows that Jews are ‘Israel-firsters’. Which means that those who are not ‘Israel-firsters’ are going to have a tough time making it in the movie industry. Take Tilda Swinton. Even falsedi’s resident film critic, the Highbury Gaon, said that We Need to Talk About Kevin was brilliant. Never mind that the ‘Hollywood Reporter’ has a perfectly reasonable explanation for why she hasn’t been nominated for the Oscars (as George Orwell might have put it, just because it’s nominated for the Oscars it doesn’t mean that it’s good, and vice-versa). The reason she wasn’t nominated for the Oscars was because she once wore a Palestine scarf in ‘British Vogue’. Because the Jews control Hollywood. And the Jews are Israel-firsters. And because Israel-firsters are so committed to the cause that they won’t let a brilliant and deserving actress be nominated for the Oscars. And of course wearing a Palestine scarf means that Swinton must be the most deserving of the ‘Best Actress’ gong.

No  more evidence required. You can count on less than one hand the number of times I’ve called out anti-Zionists for anti-Semitism on this site, but if the allegation insinuated by Phil Weiss isn’t anti-Semitic, then nothing is. Unless, of course, he has more evidence that he’d like to share.

PS I am Love came out before the appearance in Vogue, and she wasn’t nominated for that either.

PPS Steven Spielberg wasn’t nominated for War Horse. Any keffiyehs in his closet?

One of the more curious aspects of left-wing discourse concerning Israel is the tendency to take something which would be perfectly normal in other countries, and to use it as a stick with which to beat Israel and its people. In the case of Lisa Goldman’s recent article on +972, this includes Israelis expressing concern about the results of the Egyptian elections. This is in response to a short piece by Larry Derfner, in which he admits that, had he had known what the results of the elections would have been, he would not have supported the revolutionaries. Read more

One reader responded to my article admitting my preference for Zionism over universal liberalism by applauding me for my intellectual honesty. It would be good if anti-Zionists could respond in kind. A case in point of their dishonesty is provided by Muhammed Jabali’s “On democracy: There’s nothing ‘Left’ about the Zionist left” on the +972 blog.

The final paragraph is key: “That’s why there is nothing “left” about the “Zionist left.” And there’s a clear connection between voting for Tzipi Livni or Shelly Yachimovich, and supporting a Price Tag crime. The difference is encapsulated by your stance on the Altalena Affair: it is an internal discussion within the colonial forces. Whether colonization should be carried out with by more or less force, and whether it should consider international law or not. There is nothing in all of that to help you produce your social democratic identity in a shared space.” Read more

“In his article “How is Zionism different from other forms of nationalism?” Sean Lee argues that Israel is an “ethno-religious democracy” that must be opposed by universal liberals. I accept that there is a fundamental incompatibility between universal liberalism and Zionism, although I don’t agree that the gaps are as vast as they’re often made out to be. Leaving that aside, though, let’s work on the assumption that the continued existence of a Jewish State is irreconcilable with universal liberal values.

The raison d’être of the State of Israel is the defense and advancement of the Jewish people. For a Zionist, when universal liberal values conflict with this raison d’être, the latter must prevail. Though these conflicts do exist, they are not terribly widespread. Even Lee acknowledges that “Many of the inequalities…are not unique to Israel. If we look at education rates of young Arabs in France or Hispanics and Blacks in the US, we’ll find similar inequalities in situation and even opportunity [sic]. Likewise, for infrastructure.” He goes on to claim that what singles Israel out are its inequalities of citizenship, but doesn’t really go into specifics, aside from the poorly chosen example of military service. In choosing that example, he ignores the ongoing efforts to encourage more Israeli-Palestinians to do national service (efforts which have been predictably opposed by anti-Zionists).” Read the rest at +972 blog.

This is an open letter from Nic Schlagman in response to a letter by Aron Adler last week that was circulated widely around the Jewish world.

Dear Aron,
I take comfort from reading your kind and heartfelt words about your experiences patrolling the Egyptian border, and your feelings on the importance of offering dignified refuge to those who have suffered as we suffered.

Like you I am an oleh, although from the UK, l and have been living in Israel for 6 years now. Many of my friends do the same reserve duty on the border, and show the same kindness and compassion to those they find stumbling out from the night, often injured, from the nightmare of their past life and their journey to Israel.

My involvement in this story begins when they arrive in Tel Aviv. For the past 3 years I have been involved in running shelters for pregnant women, single mothers, and children, first as Shelter Manager and then as Humanitarian Coordinator for the African Refugee Development Center. I do this partly in honor of the people who assisted my grandparents and great grandparents when they arrived in the UK, just before the Holocaust swallowed up those who stayed behind. Read more

The ever vigilant Phil Weiss brings us news that the Nakba has finally made it to the pages of the New York Review of Books, in the form of a critical review of David Grossman’s latest novel, To the End of the Land, by Patricia Storace. Weiss highlights “three devastating excerpts of the review.” First, Storace objects to Grossman not pointing out that “Ein Kerem [where the protagonists of the novel live] was once Ain Karim, a Palestinian village whose inhabitants were driven out in 1948…Ora’s stone house with arched windows and decorative floor tiles must surely be one of the Palestinian villas….the neighbourhood is little more than a name and a décor. Without its historical or social setting, we cannot fully grasp what living there might mean. We sense oppressively that we are being told one story to distract from others.” It is a strange, overwrought complaint. Storace does know that Ein Kerem was once Ain Karim; presumably other readers know this too, maybe even some Israeli ones. Surely she does not expect an author to spell out every last bit of historical background for his reader? A novel is not a work of history. And maybe Ein Kerem’s past as Ain Karim is more potent when left unmentioned. Read more