The Ausralian Council of Churches seem to have caught the bug - as described by Henry Benjamin in J-wire here..

The Council media release included the following:

“During its 7th triennial Forum last week, the National Council of Churches in Australia (NCCA) announced it will continue to add its voice to the call for an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestine and condemning all acts of terrorism. In solidarity with Palestinian Christians, the NCCA asks its member Churches and the wider Australian community to consider a boycott of goods produced by Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Rev Tara Curlewis, General Secretary of the NCCA said “We are asking the member Churches of the NCCA to consider boycotting particular goods produced in Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It is hoped that such actions will liberate the people from an experience of injustice to one where a just and definitive peace may be reached.”

ECAJ President Robert Goot’s responding letter (see the article) included:

“We are astounded that despite a long-standing dialogue partnership between our two organisations, and between our organisation and many of your constituents, you nevertheless saw fit to pass the above-mentioned resolution without giving us any notice whatsoever that you were proposing to do so, and without at least giving our community an opportunity to be heard on the matter as a part of your deliberations. It would defy credulity to suggest that these omissions were merely an oversight on your part.  As recently as last month we exchanged correspondence with your President, the Most Reverend Michael Putney, in which we provided a detailed critique of a similar resolution which had been passed by Queensland Churches Together (again, without the slightest attempt having been made by them to hear the other side of the argument).  At your written invitation, one of the ECAJ’s Vice Presidents, Dr Anita Shroot, attended the NCCA Forum on 10 July 2010 to convey a message of goodwill to our Christian friends on behalf of our organisation and the Jewish community. With the appearance at your forum of a representative of the Jewish community fresh in your memory, how could it not have occurred to you before passing the resolution in question to let us know what you were proposing to do and to give us an opportunity to be heard?  Elementary fairness demanded no less.  Try to imagine your own feelings if the situation had been reversed.

That brings me to the text of the resolution.  I note that, inter alia, it calls on member churches of the NCCA to “consider” boycotting certain Israeli products.  Asking people to “consider” an issue usually means asking them to weigh arguments both for and against a particular viewpoint.  We therefore assume that you are encouraging member churches also to hear arguments against a boycott, and not only arguments in favour.  In an article published yesterday, world-renowned Biblical scholar, Professor Amy-Jill Levine (see here), characterised the Kairos document, on which your resolution is expressly based, as “a failure of moral witness”.  I would add that your resolution’s simplistic call for “an immediate end to the blockade” of Gaza, if implemented, would result in a renewal of weapons shipments to Gaza into the hands of Hamas which is committed to the destruction of Israel and the further shedding of blood, which will be on the hands of those who urge such a policy.  Tara, we feel that we have been badly let down by people we have long thought of as our friends. The NCCA’s unthinking and ill-considered resolution has revived painful memories for Jews in Australia of earlier times in Europe when Churches allowed themselves to be swept up in the tide of popular prejudices against the Jewish people. I now formally request an opportunity to present a detailed critique of the resolution to the Executive of the NCCA and look forward to your early reply.” 

While the reply from Robert Goot is a good one, one wonders how interested the Council truly is in dialogue.

The Australian Christians Supporting Israel organisation has its own salient perspective on the Council’s machinations.

The arguments follow in line with our recent posting of “Madness in some Methodists”  where the Jewish Board of Deputies of Britain poked huge holes through the anti-Israel position.

The Council of Churches also bring to mind a posting a while back here when we discussed what it means to be a hypocrite or as Bob Marley says, Dip for diplomatic, ‘Yp for hypocratic.

David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, and Senior Associate of St Antony’s College, Oxford University, has written an excellent article here addressed to the chorus of compulsive critics of Israel. 

It includes the lines : “Your narrative is pre-cooked, airtight and impervious to reason. It’s filled with a hatred of Israel that eludes logical explanation, a blindness that shuts out any contrary evidence.
For you, Israel can do no right other than to close up shop and call it quits, while the Palestinians, your hallowed victims on a pedestal, can do no wrong.  Strikingly, all this is done in the name of such vaunted values as democracy, legitimacy and an end to occupation.”

The article is worth reading; The CCC - chorus of compulsive critics - tie in well with the LLL (Leftist Islamist Alliance), the barrage of which has unfortunately influenced many LL (latte liberals).  Also, the DDD of inappropriate criticism of Israel - double standards, demonization and delegitimisation.

Professor Irwin Cotler gave the Annual Gandel Oration earlier tonight (21st July) in Sydney. 

In the introduction to his superb talk,  Prof Cotler stated that he was particularly pleased to be in Sydney , the home of the late Professor Julius Stone, who  was one of his legal mentors, and a giant in the field of international law.

While traditional or classical anti-Semitism (AS) denied rights of Jews to live normal lives in their community, the new form of AS is a global, virulent and potential lethal attempt to deny the Jewish people the right to live as an equal member of the nations.  While new AS is initially directed more at groups than the individual Jew,  it will, however, also lead to attacks on the individual.

In 2002, Eli Weisel  identified the urgent danger that AS posed, in a way that he had not felt since 1945.  But it never disappeared, and Jean Paul Sartre said that if the Jew did not exist, antisemites would have to invent him.  Cotler further noted that AS cannot be fought or won by Jews alone.

As he focused on the new AS, Cotler noted that there are not yet good indicators and measures, in contrast to those available for classical or traditional AS.  Cotler identified 6 indices drawn from international law and able to be understood in academic terms, not just viscerally.

Genocidal antisemitism – this is the most lethal – a toxic convergence of AS with state sanctioned incitement to genocide.

This is exemplified by Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric and underpinned by the Iranian pursuit of the atom bomb.  The goal of wiping Israel off the map is buttressed by support such as “As the Imam says” , descriptions of Israel as a cancerous tumour, and denial of the Holocaust with an attempt to create a new one.   Hamas and Hezbollah also have genocidal objectives, supported by religious fatwas akin to Salman Rushdie.  The sanctions are against Jews, and an execution writ against a people; the Jewish nation being the only one to which the threat of genocide is directed.

Political antisemitism

This denies Israel right to exist to start with, a denial of self determination that is accorded to other nations.

Ideological or Racialist antisemitism

Laundered under the protective cover of the struggle against racism , this form of AS is pernicious. Durban 1 was a horrific and Orwellian example of this approach where Israel is seen as the new antiChrist

Many like Cotler who attended Durban 1 in 2001 were psychologically scarred by the aggression they witnessed, including the cries that the” struggle against racism in the 21^st century is to dismantle the Jewish state, which is  apartheid and Nazi.”  What hypocrisy!  And what an insult to those who indeed helped dismantle apartheid in South Africa!   This ideologic approach posits that Israel is a crime against humanity and that there is a moral responsibility to destroy it.

Legalised antisemitism

AS is conducted under protective cover of the UN, with decision making in the Human Rights Council being a mockery;  of the first 33 resolutions, 26 were against Israel, and not one against Sudan, Iran.   Since there is a permanent agenda against Israel (item 7) for every meeting of this council, Israel is indicted using this “lawfare” even before the meeting begins.

Globalisation of Boycotts

It began in the UK, and has spread to include academics and trade unions.  In practice, it singles out Israel and its supporters for demonization.  On student campuses, Israel is often seen as “the poster child for the poisoner of the wells.”  For students who want to identify with campus culture, it is often anti-Israel, and building a coalition with other groups can be difficult. Cotler powerfully asked -  who are the real racists?  It is up to academics to see that free speech is not just reserved  for the haters, but also to prevent intimidation of Jews and other supporters of Israel.

Old- new Protocols of the Elders of Zion

While it has been well established that the original Protocols was a Tsarist forgery, the idea  has been reenergized, with Jews accused of being responsible for all things evil - the Danish cartoons, the Popes criticism of Islam, Darfur,  Sept 11^th, spreading AIDS and Swine Flu among Palestinians.  The Swedish journalist accusation of Israelis stealing organs is just one example of a lie with long legs

In concluding, Cotler suggested that a new template needs to be developed to combat the new AS. He provided several legal approaches to combat the new AS.  He noted that Genocide occurred not because of the machinery but because of state sanctioned culture of hate. To combat that, there is an annual commemoration of the Holocaust in Canada parliament, teaching people to be custodians of memory.  He encouraged Australia to join an International task force on education related to the Holocaust. 

Cotler acknowledged the Holocaust survivors who showed the moral capacity to move forward despite the evil they had witnessed.  Just as we can’t afford to be silent about Darfur, we need to point out that the new antisemitism is also  an assault against the values that we care about.  

Cotler is truly a giant on the world stage in the identification of, and fight against the new Antisemitism. 

I am reading a fascinating and timely book - Jewcentricity - by Adam Garfinkle.  The subtitle is “why the Jews are praised, blamed, and used to explain just about everything.”

The primary thesis is that Jewcentricity is about exaggeration and distortion. 

Garfinkle writes that “it is about the various roles Jews are imagined to play on the world stage that they do not, in fact, actually play.  Some of this imagining is done by Jews, but most of it is done by non-Jews.  Some of these roles are imagined to be benign, even transcendently wonderful.  Some are imagined to be malign, even cosmically evil.”  

While cautioning that we should ourselves be careful not to exaggerate, since it is not a universal phenomenon, Garfinkle describes 4 main types (as a 2×2 matrix).

“First there are non-Jews who obsess over Jews in a negative way, irrationally blaming Jews for everything they dislike and fear.  These are the antisemites.

Second, there are non-Jews who obsess over Jews in a positive way.  These philo-Semites today populate the ranks of millenarian and evangelical Christians in the United States and abroad, for example, but they are found in other forms, as well, in a range of expressions.

Third are Jews who obsess positively over themselves.  Some Jews distort the idea of the Chosen People into a form of religious chauvanism offensive to non-Jews and to a lot of their fellow-Jews, too.

Finally there are “self-hating” or “self-loathing” Jews,  Jews who obsess over the fact that they are Jews who would rather not be.  Some go to considerable lengths to distance themselves from being identified as Jews.  Others identify themselves as Jews but exert themselves to defame everything commonly associated with Jews, Jewishness and Judaism.”

Later Garfinkle states “By “self-hating Jews”, I mean those who identify themselves as Jews, but who take sharply adversarial positions on virtually all matters of concern to the Jewish community”.  Garfinkle identifies 3 related but different phenomena that may be hard to distinguish: self hatred, renegadism and the behaviour of the parvenu.  The self-hater is neurotic.  The Jewish renegade can also be self-hating, but is not necessarily so; either way, his behaviour towards Jews is active and public, while genuine self-hatred usually takes quietist forms.  The parvenu seeks to ingratiate himself with select circles of non-Jews, and thinks that anti-Jewish gestures and behaviour will help in that. This too, can involve self-hatred, but it need not - it can be merely selfish and venal.”

Garfinkle discusses the craving of Jews for acceptance, and the fear of some that they would be accused of dual loyalty.  He adds “The same is true for some Jewish intellectuals in Europe, except that the community they care about is far smaller - the left-wing, postmodernist academic-intellectual sanctum they see as their real home, and which they will do virtually anything to remain a part of. “ 

Interestingly, Garfinkle notes that “The craving of such Jews for acceptance into their desired ideological circles intensifed after 9/11 when the undertone of European mutterings over Islamist terrorism quickly turned to blame Israel (read: the Jews) for all their problems. “The number of Jews in Europe (and some American Jews who study Europe as a specialty” who have gone out of their way to publically dissociate themselves from and denounce Israel is impressive.” ..

Further “These and other anti-Zionist Jews have been hailed in much of Europe as brave and honorable “dissident” Jews, the “authentic” voice of Judaism.  They enable European anti-Semites to argue that they do not hate Jews, only Zionists”.

“The artifice of dividing “authentic” Jewish dissidents from other Jews is nothing new either, particularly in Europe”. When Jews were rootless, stateless, beleagured, and in distress, they “proved” the Church’s curse on them.  When they stood up and reestablished themselves on their own terms, they posed a theological problem.  The contemporary Europeans leftist enthronement of anti-Zionist “dissident” Jews represents exactly the same phenomenon in secular form: Jews who define and pursue their own interests pose an ideological problem.”

The book discusses the Mearsheimer, Walt   Israel lobby debate, arguing that the accusation is nothing new, even though it is very Jewcentric.

In keeping with the theme of Jewcentricity being an exaggeration and distortion, I liked the quote from Daniel Schorr “All news is an exaggeration of life”

Garfinkle has written several articles related to his book here and  here and a good interview with him is here.   In the interview he makes a lot of sense with his comment that “The widespread belief in Europe and, to a lesser degree, here in the United States that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the be-all and end-all of every problem throughout the Middle East and even beyond, and that Israel must bear the brunt of its solution, is a residual effect of Jews having been the most prominent “other” in European history. This belief is false, and can lead to ineffective and even counterproductive policies.”

The book is well worth reading.  Garfinkle is editor of the “American Interest” which is linked to on the right.

Some years ago, a Serbian friend complained to me about how the Main Stream Media continued to beat up on Serbia while ignoring Bosnian offences -  during the war situation there at the time.

Even though Israel typically gets “star” billing in Press distortions, it was vaguely comforting for me to realise that Israel is not unique.

This was reinforced when I read that the LA times had published a probably fictitious account of a U.S. bombing during the early phase of the Iraq war that relied on a pro-Iraqi stringer to accuse the U.S. of killing women and children.  The investigation of the press distortion is shown here  I liked one of the comments from a letter writer … 

The LA Times has been practicing this kind of Journalism in the Israel-Palestinian conflict for years, so I was prepared for it when the Iraq war began. Given the reliance on stringers and translators with their own agendas, all news from this region should have a warning label on it (like cigarettes)– WARNING–the quotes and reports from this region are regularly unreliable, often propaganda, and nearly always exaggerated.

Although it comes as no surprise, it IS worth noting that, last week, in front of 100,000 cheering people in the centre of Gaza, Ismael Haniyeh declared that the ultimate solution for Hamas was not the total liberation of the Gaza strip or a Palestinian state.  It was the liberation of all of Palestine.

Ari Shavit from Haaretz wrote a sobering but clear account of Haniyeh’s speech and its implications - which is worth reading here.

Twelve years ago, Shavit had an interesting perspective on the Peace Now movement and its wild antagonism against Benjamin Netanyahu during his first stint as Israeli Prime Minister.  Richard Levin praises Shavit in his book “The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege” (p404).  Levin writes .. “In December 1997, Ariv Shavit … broke rank with his colleagues in the peace camp to critique their vilifying of Netanyahu.  In his irony-laden piece (which is reproduced here) Shavit contrasts the Israeli left’s hatred of Netanyahu with its enthusiasm for Rabin and Peres’s governments.  That enthusiasm, Shavit notes, ignored those governments’ undemocratic and heavy-handed methods, which the Left ought to have abhorred, because Rabin and Peres had wielded such method in the service of “peace”.   Of the peace camp, Shavit stated “We fooled ourselves with illusions”  however Levin added that “Shavit’s was a rare voice of self-criticism and moderation among Israel’s Oslo enthusiasts, especially among those cadres of enthusiasts that comprised the largest part of the nation’s elites”

Twelve years on from Shavit’s 1997 article,  one would hope that less Israelis and their supporters “fool themselves”.  However, Israel is still a country under siege, and ideas that concessions and withdrawals are all that is required for peace remain delusions.

And for anyone who needs a reminder, Haniyeh has just provided one in his speech.   Of course, if a newspaper editor doesn’t want people to be reminded of Hamas’s intentions, he/she won’t print it!   For those who are deluded that peace will come if only Israel makes more concessions, it doesn’t matter what is printed. 

So what are Delusions?  They are irrational beliefs, held with a high level of conviction, that are highly resistant to change even when the delusional person is exposed to forms of proof that contradict the belief. Treatment is not always successful. Medication may work and cognitive therapy has shown promise where “the therapist tries to capitalise on any doubt the individual has about the delusions; then attempts to develop a joint effort with the sufferer to generate alternative explanations, assisting the client in checking the evidence…  Prognosis is related to the level of conviction regarding the delusions and the openness the person has for allowing information that contradicts the delusion.  

Another psychiatrist who references Levin and tries to understand the world is found here.  Levin’s book is reviewed here and other Middle East examples of the Oslo Syndrome are described here.

Shavit is certainly worth reading,  and also worth listening to, in this wide-ranging interview.

Arthur Koestler, while watching the famous 1973 Rekjavic Chess Tournament between Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky, coined the term “Mimophant” to describe Fischer - a creature sensitive as a mimosa about his own feelings, and equipped with an elephant’s hide about everyone else’s.

(photo: The sensitive Mimosa Pudica folds its leaves when exposed to touch or heat, as shown in action.)

Stephen Koch discusses the term mimophant in a review of Arthur Koestler.

Alan Dershowitz sees a parallel for the mimophant with the Israel bashers whose underlying motif is Free Speech for Me but not for Thee.  As he states, “If you’re against Israel …then they want you to have complete freedom to speak against the Jewish state (as they certainly should and do). If, on the other hand, you’re perceived as pro-Israel (or pro-American, for that matter), then suddenly you have no right to free speech.”

While the Israel basher would like to have free reign, they reject any criticism of their ideas. 

In reply to one Israel critic, Dershowitz writes

“Freedom of speech to criticize Israel and the US is alive and well at Harvard and most other universities. Matory need not “tremble in fear” of anything except his pernicious opinions being rebutted in the marketplace of ideas.  Freedom of speech to criticize Palestinian extremism is however in short supply at many American and European universities.  Jewish students do actually “tremble in fear” of offending anti-Israel professors who have the power to downgrade and negatively recommend them.  This is an issue that deserves serious attention in the real world of academia, rather than in Matory’s ersatz world of topsy-turvy newspeak.”

Anyone for a cooler sort of mimosa?

Since Richard Goldstone announced his team Gaza report with great fanfare, he has been ubiquitous, popping up everywhere on radio and TV, and writing articles with great frequency - a global star. 

While listening to an internet broadcast of him answering questions on a telephone hook-up with 50-100 U.S. Rabbis (you can find it on the internet), it struck me how pompous, ponderous and utterly sure of himself he is.  Although distortions, inaccuracies and weaknesses of the report and its compilers have been pointed out repeatedly, they count for nothing against Goldstone’s supreme self-confidence.  And the damage that his distorted report has done to Israel in the hands of the usual Israel-haters, is just water off Goldstone’s back.

Fortunately, Leo Rosten in The Joys of Yiddish has relevant insights to the problem.  This is what he has to say  …

Mench (Mensh) From German, Mensch “person”

1. A human being. “After all, he is a mensh, not an animal” … (that first definition is fairly broad and non-specific, let’s not go that far.)

2. An upright, honorable, decent person. “Come on, act like a mensh!”

3. Someone of consequence; someone to admire and emulate; someone of noble character. “Now there is a real mensh!”

It is hard to convey the special sense of respect, dignity, approbation, that can be conveyed by calling someone “a real mensh!”

As a child, I often heard it said: “The finest thing you can say about a man is that he is a mensh! Jewish children often hear the admonition: “Behave like a mensh!” or “Be a mensh!”  This use of the word is uniquely Yiddish in its overtones.

The most withering comment one might make on someone’s character or conduct is: “He is not (did not act like) a mensh.”

To be a mensh has nothing to do with success, wealth, status.  A judge can be a zhlob; a millionaire can be a momzer; a professor can be a shlemiel, a doctor a klutz, a lawyer a bulvon.  The key to being “a real mensh” is nothing less than - character: rectitude, dignity, a sense of what is right, responsible, decorous.  Many a poor man, many an ignorant man, is a mensh.”

………..

Well put, Leo Rosten… and with shades of a Lloyd Bentsen put down of Dan Quayle ….

“Richard Goldstone, you’re no Mensh! 

… Wouldn’t a placard saying just that be a nice touch at one of his no-doubt numerous upcoming performances.. not for Goldstone’s benefit, but for others to ponder.

A good article by a former Justice Minister of Israel, showing the deficiencies of the Goldstone process.

When one reads some of the anti-Israel writings, a “search for meaning” , can take different directions. The psychological one is quite helpful.. especially the defence mechanism of “denial of reality”.  Dr Sanity sheds light on “denial” in her Sept 1 column. 

Dr Sanity begins with the observation that “denial is an “equal opportunity” defense mechanism engaged in by all human beings; it is an involuntary, built-in psychic response designed to protect an individual from precipitously having to face unwanted, unacceptable or threatening feelings, thoughts or behavior. The mind simply blocks out reality and truth–and sees what it wants to see or become blind to reality. [ie if the individual sees something that portrays Israel in a positive light - denial is the way to go!]

She then asks “What happens when psychological denial ceases to be unconscious and becomes a deliberate, willful, and consciously evil behavior– in spite of all the accumulated evidence of its malignant impact on real people in the real world?  At that point we can safely assume that we are no longer dealing with a purely defensive structure in the psyche; we are dealing with aggressive, unadulterated sociopathy.

Dr Sanity postulates that “under the pervasive influence of postmodern philosophy and rhetoric, the ethical and social standards of the community have, unfortunately, been slowly evolving and eroding.  In western culture, ethical and moral standards used to be anchored to the real world (i.e., to reality); but in the postmodern wilderness …. ethics and morality are relative and “anchored” to feelings and whim.” 

Besides denial, distortion and projection are also psychological ploys used to attack Israel - although Dr Sanity focuses more on the leftist use of these ploys in the U.S.

Her insights into postmodernism are also worth reading,  including her reference to Frank Lentricchia, a Duke University literary critic, who opined that “Postmodernism seeks not to find the foundation or conditions of truth but to exercise power for the purpose of social change.”

Denial, Tenial, Tennille

R’ Munk wrote that King David was careful not to engage in any battle unless it was justified,for only then could victory be assured.According to the midrash, he offered peace to the nations before waging war. Talmud Yerushalmi warned that “if Israel is guilty of shedding innocent blood it will not deserve to defeat its enemies”(Sanhedrin 1:1).

The expression “you will capture its captivity” ends the first sentence of this parasha. R’ Munk interprets this to mean that the ultimate battle facing human beings is their struggle between their good and evil inclinations. If man is honestly willing to go out to war and use all his power to fight his personal enemies then G-d “will deliver them into your hand”.

The main doctrine of the Israel Defence Forces includes the desire to avoid war by political means and a credible deterrent, to be defensive on the strategic level, and have no territorial ambitions,to have very low casualty rates and to prevent escalation. A code of conduct was drafted in 1992 which is a combination of international law, Israeli law, Jewish heritage and the IDF’s own traditional ethical code. In 2004,a code of conduct was developed, emphasising the right behaviour where soldiers are operating in a civilian population. There are 11 rules such as; anyone who surrenders cannot be attacked, pillaging is absolutely illegal, proper respect must be shown for religious sites and artefacts, as well as the requirement to report all violations of the code.

For further discussion on the IDF code of conduct and ethical issues see the IDF website, Wickipedia, Ethical dilemmas in fighting terrorism, asymmetric warfare, Kasher on Gaza War