Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Flickr
Friendfeed
Last.fm
LinkedIn
MySpace
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Twitter
Vimeo
YouTube
What I’ve Been Up To Lately
- dumbest article on jewish identity i've read so far this year http://su.pr/2Vcr4X 10 hrs ago
- rushkoff on colbert moved to july 15 1 day ago
- is drinking the #moonfruit juice 1 day ago
- More updates...
In part two of this series, responding to Bill Levinson’s egregious smear against Barack Obama, I address Levinson’s contention that,
Obama belongs to a church whose pastor said that “white America” got its “wake up call” after 9/11, and that Israel occupies Palestinian land illegally. Jeremiah Wright also compared the United States to Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The same church has a “non-negotiable commitment to Africa.” [...] Obama’s church also gave an award to the vicious anti-Semite and racist Louis Farrakhan, although it must be said that Obama distanced himself from Farrakhan.
Afrocentrism: No worse than Judeocentrism
In March of last year, when allegations of racism first arose against Barack Obama’s long-time pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr., I took pro-Israel blogger Anne Lieberman to task for perpetuating this baseless slander. Bill Levinson has read my post on the subject, which thoroughly demolishes the claim. But whereas he continues to insist upon the truthfulness of the charge, I will rehash my original remarks.
Levinson’s claim that Wright, who has recently retired from the Trinity United Church, is racist, is predicated primarily on the “12 precepts and covenantal principles” of the church, which are:
- Commitment to God
- Commitment to the Black Community
- Commitment to the Black Family
- Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
- Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
- Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
- Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
- Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
- Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
- Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
- Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
- Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
I challenge Jewish readers to substitute the word “Black” for “Jewish” in this list, while keeping in mind the fact that antisemites routinely accuse Jews of “Jewish supremacism” for espousing and upholding a credo practically indistinguishable from the one above. It should go without saying that being committed to your community, taking pride in your heritage, and upholding your tradition’s values is hardly a statement of racial superiority. Thus, just as we would not accept the charge that this doctrine is “supremacist” were it leveled against Jews, we should not accept the charge when it is leveled against the Black community.
Continuing in this vein, Levinson seems to take great umbrage with Trinty United Church’s expression of its “non-negotiable commitment to Africa.” Levinson asks with incredulity, “Don’t most Christian churches have non-negotiable commitments to the teachings of Jesus, along with the equality of all human beings regardless of race or ethnicity?” Yet substitute the word “Africa” for “Israel” and it’s a whole other ball game. If a Jewish candidate for public office were to be called out for being a member of a synagogue that professed a “non-negotiable commitment to Israel” — as most American synagogues do — Levinson and his ilk would be crying antisemitism and proclaiming the right of all American Jews to express their spiritual and social commitment to Israel. Why, then, is it unacceptable for African Americans to express their commitment to Africa?
By Levinson’s line of reasoning, I must wonder who is truly the supremacist here. If one believes that Jews have a right to express a commitment to their heritage and their people, wherever they reside globally, but that Blacks do not, is that not racist?
Zionism is not racism, but Israel is a racist state
I must regrettably confess, that by its very nature as Jewish state, it is necessary that the State of Israel disenfranchise and displace non-Jews, limiting the scope of their civil and political rights, as well as their territorial dominance, in order insure a physical and political Jewish majority. It is for this reason especially that the Israeli government has not annexed the West Bank and Gaza, whereas the demographic shift resulting from absorbing millions of Palestinians would result in the loss of a Jewish majority. Likewise, it is for this reason, that Israel has been promoting Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem and other areas over the Green Line which it does intend to annex and keep within Israel’s permanent borders. Because the policies of displacement and disenfranchisement are predicated upon an individual’s ethnic identity, such policies cannot escape characterization as racist.
It is no secret that discrimination against Arabs in Israel is widespread. Even the US State Department has acknowledged “institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country’s Arab citizens.” For example, just this past year, the Knesset voted to deny the sale and leasing of land by the Israeli government (which owns the majority of the land in the state) to Arab citizens. Again, this right has been denied to Arabs solely on the basis of their ethnic identity. While the Israeli Supreme Court has routinely stricken down such laws, deeming them racist, such laws continue to be passed, year after year. In turn, the Supreme Court has been consistently portrayed by Israeli officials and civilians as being “radically Leftist” and out-of-touch with the public sentiment.
Indeed, anti-Arab racism is not just in the heart of the government, but in the hearts of the Israeli people as well. A 2006 survey showed that 68% of Israelis refuse to live in the same buildings as Arabs, while 41% percent believe that public facilities in Israel, including restrooms and parks, ought to be segregated.
Though one may certainly disagree with Wright’s characterization of Zionism — a political movement that seeks the self-determination of the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland — as racist, and while it is certainly true that Israeli sentiments towards Arabs have been shaped by roughly 100 years of violent conflict, one cannot deny that the policies of the State of Israel and the beliefs of a sizable portion of the Israeli population are racist.
Should Wright, then, be faulted for stating the obvious? If he is to be accused of antisemitism for stating this position, should Bush’s State Department not then also be accused of the same? Should fault not, instead, lie with Israel, for its failure to respect the rights of its Arab citizens, as well as the rights of those whom it occupies?
Can we simply not own up to the fact that it is true — that Israel is a racist state — and work diligently as Jews passionately committed to the survival of Israel to resolve these issues? Is it not glaringly evident at this point in history that averting these issues — instead, labeling those who identify them as “antisemites” — has not only imperiled Israel’s credibility and its standing among the nations, but has jeopardized the credibility of Israel’s supporters in diaspora as well?
Have we not had enough of this tired game already?
Wright and Obama share a faith, not a brain
As Bill was gracious enough to note in his smear, “It must be said that Obama distanced himself from Farrakhan.”
Indeed. From the horse’s mouth:
I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.
In fact, this is not the only issue upon which Obama and his pastor have had differences. As Obama has stated repeatedly in the past, “Like a member of my own family, there are things he says at times with which I deeply disagree.”
Wright himself has acknowledged their differences on political issues, early on expressing a worry that his own political positions would be mistaken for Obama’s. In March of last year, Wright told PBS:
He can’t afford the Jewish support to wane or start questioning his allegiance to the state of Israel because I’m saying the position we’ve taken in terms of Palestinians is wrong, and I think we need to revisit that. Just that kind of statement would cause negative repercussions in some quarters. [...] I don’t want to hurt him.
On this matter, I identify greatly. In my lifetime, I have had numerous rabbis whom I have cherished dearly as spiritual mentors — men who have been profound inspirations in my life, who have loved me, taught me, and guided me, and whom, in turn, I love and honor to this day. Yet none of them have been perfect, and there have been many issues upon which we’ve disagreed, whether on the particulars of a given halakha, or on exceptionally more difficult issues, such as how Judaism regards women, homosexuals, non-Jews, or the occupation of the Palestinian territories. I cannot imagine having to renounce my appreciation for these individuals or the gifts they have given me, simply because it would be politically expedient to do so. To force Obama into such a position is unjust. To tarnish his credibility because he refuses to renounce his spiritual mentor, despite his willingness to renounce some of his pastor’s views, is simply shameful.
Could you imagine if Bill Clinton was forced, during his presidency, to renounce his appreciation for the Lubavitcher Rebbe, whom he awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, because the Rebbe opposed withdrawl from the Occupied Territories — a political position which ran contrary to the official positions of the US government?
Can one not be inspired in his faith by another without being accused of adopting the other’s politics?
Bill Levinson’s hypocrisy
As I noted in my previous report, John McCain backtracked on previous statements about Rev. Jerry Falwell’s “intolerance,” going so far as to deliver the 2006 commencement address at Falwell’s Liberty University. McCain has even hired one of Falwell’s key staffers to head up his communications strategy. This despite the fact that Falwell had publicly remarked that the Antichrist is Jewish and, a year before his death in 2007, that Jews cannot go to heaven without accepting Jesus Christ as their savior.
McCain has also been deepening his relationship with Pastor John Hagee, a Christian Evangelical whose best-selling book purports that the Jews must all return to Israel in order for the Apocalypse to commence, at which time the Jews will all be converted to Christianity or killed. Hagee has also claimed that Jews are responsible for antisemitism because of their “rebellion” against God, and that the Holocaust was God’s way of forcing the Jews to move to Israel (as a means, of course, to their firey, cataclysmic end). He has likewise made various statements against the Catholic Church, and claimed that Hurricane Katrina was a punishment from God for the sinfulness of New Orleans’ residents.
So where are the smears against John McCain for his coddling of religious antisemites? How come Bill Levinson has no harsh words for him?
Could it be because Bill Levinson is an adherent of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose Jewish Defense League was initially founded to violently defend the Jewish community presence in Black neighborhoods?
As Winged Hussar, Levinson has made over 180 contributions to the website of the Jewish Task Force, which prides itself as “the official website of Jews Against Obama.” JTF’s website prominently features the JDL logo as its “favorite icon,” features countless teachings by Rabbi Kahane, and praises Kahanist militant leaders such as Noam Federman, whom the Israeli government believes to be the mastermind behind several terrorist acts committed by Jewish religious extremists against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
The Jewish Defense League and its offshoots Kach, Kahane Chai, the Hatikvah Center and others have all been regarded as violent terrorist organizations by the United States government, which has jailed several Kahanist leaders in connection with bomb plots against Russian and Arab targets. The Israeli government itself banned Rabbi Kahane’s political party from the Knesset, labeling it a hate group and ultimately outlawing the group all together in 1994, following the perpetration of the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. Ever since, the state has been engaged in violent confrontation with Kahane’s remaining supporters.
With this in mind, should the Jewish community really be taking advice about Barack Obama from a fanatically anti-Muslim supporter of convicted terrorists? A man who sees only that about Barack Obama which fits his hysterical, hate-filled worldview?
I think not.
Next: MoveOn. Previously: Al Sharpton.
Re: “Afrocentrism is no worse than Judeocentrism”
(1) Africa is a continent and, in the context in which it is used, a race. Judaism is a religion (shared set of beliefs).
(2) Re: “I challenge Jewish readers to substitute the word “Black” for “Jewish” in this list.” If one were to do that, I would have an immediate problem (for starters) with item #11, noting that we pledge allegiance to the United States in this country, not to leaders of any race or religion.
(3) Re: “I challenge Jewish readers to substitute the word “Black” for “Jewish” in this list.” Substitute “White” for “Black” and see how it sounds. On the other hand, I would not have a problem with substituting “Christian” for “Black,” e.g. “Personal commitment to embracement of the Christian Value System” in most of the statements, #11 again being an obvious exception.
Re: “Zionism is not racism, but Israel is a racist state”
The truth is that many Arab Muslims and Christians are Israeli citizens who can vote and hold office in the Knesset. Legislation to deny the sale of land to Arab-Israeli citizens is indeed racist but, as you yourself point out, the Israeli Supreme Court strikes it down routinely. Now, how much luck to you think a Christian, or especially a Jew, would have in buying land (or even residing openly) in Saudi Arabia, Hamas-controlled Gaza, or Syria?
If some Israelis have something against Arabs, it might have something to do with the fact that Arab nations started or provoked four wars in the space of 25 years (1948 to 1973), and that persons of Arab identity are currently firing rockets at Israel during a truce. Israel’s record here is in fact better than ours, noting that we imprisoned citizens of Japanese ethnicity when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, had the Arabs not started or provoked the first three of those wars, the Palestinians (formerly Egyptians and Jordanians) would not be under “occupation.”
Re: “Wright and Obama share a faith, not a brain”
Mobius, I reiterate that you have my respect for standing up to me. You seem to be the best that Obama’s supporters have, noting that NJDC has yet to lift a hand. This argument is the strongest you are likely to present (noting that MoveOn.org is indefensible), and I have to take it seriously.
If Jeremiah Wright’s racist views and unsavory associations (Farrakhan) came to light only after Obama joined the church, I could see a strong case for Obama not walking away from the man who had performed his marriage. Most of us have friends who have used racist language (at which point we probably look to one side with embarrassment and pretend not to hear), but we accept their private faults as the price of the relationship. On the other hand, Obama joined TUCC in 1988, about four years after Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan visited Moammar Khadafy. I think he knew the nature of the church he was joining.
Furthermore, TUCC is now running YouTube videos at its “About” page that link to faith.barackobama.com. That is, this church is now linking itself to Obama the Presidential Candidate. Shouldn’t Obama tell Wright that he shouldn’t be doing this?
Re: “Bill Levinson’s Hypocrisy,” aka “Mobius Paints Himself Into a Corner”
“Fanatically anti-Muslim supporter of convicted terrorists” is wishful thinking as opposed to an accurate statement.
(1) I am the person who proposed the term “Islamic supremacist” (to a Muslim what a white supremacist is to a Caucasian) to make a very clear distinction between evildoers who use Islam to justify their actions versus decent Muslims.
(2) The JDL (of which I am not a member, nor do I agree with the ideology of Kahane or Noam Federman, whom I just looked up on Google) is not on any list of foreign terrorist organizations. jtf.org and jdl.org are in fact allowed to be hosted by U.S. service providers.
(3) I am indeed supportive of jtf.org’s efforts to campaign against Obama, but a very substantial number of the entries you cite me as making at that forum disagree with and condemn intolerant statements that others have made (like saying that Obama should not be President because he is a Muslimnot true, and not a disqualifier if he were). Perhaps you just forgot to mention this, but you could register there yourself and argue with the same people with whom I often take issue.
If we go by the standards you have just tried to establish, though, EVERYONE who posted to MoveOn.org’s Action Forum is an anti-Semite, Catholic-hater, and/or 9/11 conspiracy theorist because others posted that kind of material. (Remember, I am arguing that MoveOn’s exercise of editorial control in favor of the hate speech reflects on MoveOn itself, not Action Forum members who posted non-hateful material to the same venue or, in a few cases, actually took issue with the hate speech.)
I would also hesitate to make ad hominem attacks like “Should the Jewish community really be taking advice about Barack Obama from a fanatically anti-Muslim supporter of convicted terrorists?” (accusations I have disposed of quite handily) on the same page in which you go on record as saying that “Israel is a racist state.” “Israel is a racist state” is as extreme at one end of the spectrum as some of the material I have seen (and disagreed with) at jtf.org is at the other.
Hagee’s “Hurricane Katrina was a punishment from God for the sinfulness of New Orleans’ residents” is as reprehensible as Jeremiah Wright’s statement that “white America” got its “wake up call” on 9/11, and I am not going to defend it for an instant. From what I have seen on IsraPundit, though, Hagee has changed his positions considerably.
I obviously don’t agree with Falwell that everyone who does not believe in Jesus is going to Hell, but this statement can hardly be regarded as anti-Semitic. It was not directed against Jews in particular, but at all non-Christians. You do realize that, as “a committed Christian” (Obama’s own words at faith.barackobama.com) Obama may easily share Falwell’s theology.
People have a right to ownership of the labels they have been assigned by others, and to redefine them as they see fit. Black Liberation Theology, as I understand it, has its own distinct theology and ways of faithfulness that are actually closer to Jewish theology than to white main-line protestant theology. Like Judaism, it is a faith that is inalienably tied to community, culture, and tradition, and a real experience of exile and Diaspora life, so that the land from which they have been exiled takes on the same kind of symbolic meaning as it does for us. In this regard Blackness is not in anyway in the same category as “whiteness” as we might define “whiteness.” Nor does “Africa” have the same meaning as “Europe” or “Asia” or even “Africa” in a normal everyday sense of the word. Just as “Jerusalem” means much more than just the present earthly Jerusalem to us.
“(3) Re: “I challenge Jewish readers to substitute the word “Black” for “Jewish” in this list.” Substitute “White” for “Black” and see how it sounds. ”
As a teacher at an 80% black high school, I am so tired of hearing this ignorant argument. “Replace white with black and now it sounds like David Duke or the KKK.” All of a sudden, Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglass are made to look like some cheap white supremacist.
The problem with this argument is that “Black Power”, or other often criticized notions of empowering people of color, are intended to help people who are in need of that help, to give a voice to the voiceless, and to give power to the otherwise powerless. If there is anything I have learned being in the black community it is that powerlessness and frustration are so deeply ingrained that it pervades all aspects of life and community. To stand up and say you stand with people of color and commit to supporting the strength of the black community, family, education, etc is to say that you refuse to accept the current state of things.
To make this same argument in a white power vein instead seeks to reinforce the hierarchy which places others underfoot. What’s so hard to understand?
I just thought it might be worth pointing out that on the banner on the jts website, it appears that Kahane’s index finger is approximately 2 feet long.
Daniel Ueda wrote,
“The problem with this argument is that “Black Power”, or other often criticized notions of empowering people of color, are intended to help people who are in need of that help, to give a voice to the voiceless, and to give power to the otherwise powerless.”
How would this sound for a statement of values for a church in a Black community?
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Community
3. Commitment to the Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Protestant Work Ethic*
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Community
9. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Community Institutions
10. Personal commitment to embracement of the Christian Value System.
* TUCC is, as I understand, a Protestant denomination.
I think I have just rewritten TUCC’s value statement to eliminate all racism while maintaining the overall effect.
You’re missing the point Bill. Oppressed people need systems to help them, not everyone, but them, become empowered. All oppressed groups require such systems. Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Women, and others have such systems. It’s not racist to have such a system.
in fact, the argument for why jews have managed to survive for 2000 years in exile is because we’re very self-centered and “keep it in the family” so to speak. i recall reading an article a couple years back that examined black attitudes towards jews, and one of the biggest things that blacks identified as admiring about jews was that we “stick together.” they didn’t think it was racist — they said, “we need to be more like that so we can pull ourselves up.”
i just think bill’s racist against blacks and muslims. it’s the only thing that can explain his obsession and his absolute inability to listen to reason. it’s like his brain is totally stultified.
i don’t even know if it’s worth continuing in this series. but i will be writing my defense of moveon one night soon.
Daniel Ueda wrote,
“Oppressed people need systems to help them, not everyone, but them, become empowered. ” A church in a predominantly Black neighborhood with the value system I just rewrote for TUCC would have exactly that effect without being racist.
Mobius wrote,
“i just think bill’s racist against blacks and muslims.” I am no more against “black people” by condemning Farrakhan and Sharpton, and Obama for empowering them, then I am against “white people” for denouncing David Duke (KKK), Tom Metzger (White Aryan Resistance) and Don Black (Stormfront) as racist demagogues who appeal to the absolute dregs of society.
It is in fact the opposite of racist to hold black people to exactly the standards of behavior we expect from white people. It is racist and demeaning to hold them to lesser standards, e.g. by overlooking or downplaying racist or anti-Semitic behavior that would be totally unacceptable from a white person (e.g. Don Imus). In fact, the things Sharpton and Farrakhan have said are a lot worse than what Imus said.
Tim Russert, who was later joined in this effort by Hillary Clinton, had to press Obama on the Farrakhan issue three times before he would use the word “reject” in conjunction with his endorsement. How long do you think a Republican would have lasted had he equivocated in any way about a similar endorsement from David Duke or Tom Metzger?
You will note, by the way, that I have held Ron Paul to exactly the same standard. I personally demanded that he reject the endorsement of the Stormfront White Nationalist Community (I think I put a screenshot of my message to his campaign on IsraPundit) and then denounced him as “Ron Paul 1488″ when he didn’t. The numbers are white supremacist code for The Fourteen Words and Heil Hitler, and are commonly used by Stormfront types. I will continue to refer to him in that manner until he says unequivocally that he does not want Stormfront’s support.
As for Muslims or, more precisely, Islamic supremacists, it is not racist to condemn behavioral choices like flying airplanes into buildings, cutting off people’s heads, stoning women to death, killing gay people over their sexual orientation (Gaza under Palestinian control), and setting off nail bombs. I am indeed prejudiced against misogyny, domestic violence as sanctioned by Islamic supremacists, mindless violence toward people of other religions, female genital mutilation, amputation of limbs, and similar practices. Aren’t you?
“i don’t even know if it’s worth continuing in this series. but i will be writing my defense of moveon one night soon.” i.e. Mobius now wonders if he can really defend MoveOn.org. I don’t think Daniel Webster, who (according to legend) got a man out of a contract with the Devil could do that, so no one will blame Mobius if he backs down on this.
The Chinese feel the same way. The kids and adults talk about it all the time when I teach over there. They want to model their entire lives after the Jewish people. Admittedly it’s partly because they hold a stereotype that Jewish people are all good with money. I’ve met Mobius and know that’s not true.
grrrrr
You don’t get racism Bill. All I want is for you to accept this point and continue on with your ideological madness: When an oppressed group speaks about empowering themselves and focusing on the strength of their respective organizations, their efforts merely seek to level the playing field. However, when a group in power speaks on the same topic, they instead seek to maintain dominance. This is the essential difference between white power and black power. Please take this piece of knowledge in and understand it thoroughly.
Moving on,
Black people in my school and neighborhood (Crown Heights) discuss the fact that jewish people set up organizations that act to support their own communities, something the Black Panthers attempted to do and Sharpton’s network also attempts to do, and they admire it, but at the same time they feel, since it occurs in neighborhoods that they occupy, it is in direct opposition to their own well-being. That is where the friction comes from, unwarranted or not. It is not about racism, it is about many things, jealousy perhaps, resentment maybe, but not racism.
I’ve had this conversation many times with various people of color and am always on the side defending the actions of Jewish people and the Jewish community (students always assume I’m Jewish because the only white people they see in their neighborhoods are jewish).
The difference here is that I understand why Jewish people in my community are focused on empowering themselves and supporting their well-being, but I also understand why a Black organization would do the same.
Are you really so naive that you refuse to accept this?
oh and that description of Mulsims proves Mobius’ point.
By the way, what’s a Islamic Supremacist? And is there such thing as a Judaic Supremacist?
/facepalm
Daniel,
My description of Islamic supremacists (not “Muslims”) is accurate. The people who flew those planes into the Twin Towers were not chanting “Shma Yisrael,” “Jesus Saves,” or “Hare Krishna.” An Islamic supremacist is to a Muslim what a white supremacist is to a Caucasian. All white supremacists are Caucasians, but very few Caucasians are white supremacists.
There is a big difference between Black people seeking to empower themselves (or people in a white neighborhood trying to improve their community) and destroying another person’s life and/or business because they don’t like his skin color or religious identity–which is what Sharpton & Co. did to Freddy’s Fashion Mart. If we make excuses for Sharpton and his followers, we may as well also make excuses for the KKK.
The people who flew the planes into the twin towers were people who actually believed what they said they believed.
Instead of making up terms, why can’t you just say that Islam is bad, false, entirely man-made, and it plagiarizes Jewish and Christian mythology. Did your “supremacists” set fire to embassies over cartoons? The problem with Islam isn’t some sort of “supremacist” minority, it is with the dogma/ideology/teachings of islam itself.