Sometimes, we all need a bit of light relief. The Sensible Jew therefore salutes Antony Loewenstein for providing us with a very silly blog piece about Israel.
Mr. Loewenstein begins with a horrifying description of some bad amateur theatrics in which Israeli leaders at a Birthright programme play the part of Palestinians and then try to justify the occupation. Who would have thought such a violation were possible?
Mr. Loewenstein claims that this is as far as the students came to speaking to an actual Palestinian. Perhaps this is so. As far as we know, Birthright is an extremely brief programme (10 days), and is dedicated to forging a connection between young North American Jewish people and Israel.
Expecting this 10 day trip to include equal air-play for the Naqba is just ridiculous. Of all the issues surrounding Israel/Palestine one could reasonably get worked up about, this is an odd one. None of the students are forcibly taken to Israel. If they are interested in the issues surrounding Palestine, there is no one preventing them from exploring them.
Really, it’s similar to criticising the Christian pilgrims who visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for not spending more time volunteering at immigrant absorption centres.
Loewenstein relates the above horror to the equally appalling display of (supposedly) 100,000 Jews marching in New York to celebrate 100 years since Tel Aviv’s establishment. Firstly, why does he assume all 100,000 were Jews? There are plenty of Christian Zionists in America, and it seems odd that Loewenstein uses this particular word, and not the more accurate, “Zionist” to describe the participants.
Loewenstein seems to assume that we will understand his misgivings about such a demonstration, that we will instinctively resile from the presence of Gilad Shalit’s parents, and the lack of mention of any of Israel’s Arab population.
Small problem: unless one is au fait with the culture of the anti-Zionists, it’s very difficult to understand what the problem is with the demonstration itself, or with the presence of Gilad Shalit’s parents. Tel Aviv is great city and certainly worth celebrating.
But Loewenstein really reveals his lack of familiarity with very basic Israeli demography when he criticises the lack of a mention of Israeli Arabs. Firstly, Tel Aviv is a city that was built from scratch by the Zionists, and was not originally an Arab locale. Secondly, Israeli Arabs in the area live in Jaffa, Lod, and Ramle, NOT in Tel Aviv. Why then does omitting mention of Israeli Arabs constitute such a grievous act? We suspect this is actually an error on Loewenstein’s part that may be due to his lack of familiarity with Israel.
Loewenstein writes:
“The event was thoroughly disheartening . Young Jews and old, colourful floats, countless Israeli and American flags, fans with the tag line, “I’m an IDF fan” (in support of Friends of the Israel Defence Forces, pictured right with the author) and t-shirts advertising Israeli airline El-Al. Flyers were distributed celebrating kosher food, the hardline Zionist group Stand With Us and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Some marchers carried small signs with a picture of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and the words, “Have you seen Gilad Shalit?” New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer marched down the road alongside friends waving signs with his name.”
The SJ ladies consider themselves reasonably intelligent; however, we have read the above paragraph over and over looking for the heinous desecrations that have so stirred Mr. Loewenstein. The reality is, that when a person bases his/her career on an ideology, and only associates with people who concur with him/her on all matters, such a person tends to become intellectually lazy.
Loewenstein sees no reason to explain what so offends him about people caring about Shalit’s welfare, being El Al fans, or liking Kosher food. He just assumes that we are nodding our heads in agreement with him, having imbibed identical semiotic and ideological cues that render real analysis unnecessary.
Of course, no one on the extremes of the Israel/Palestine debate can write a piece without mentioning the, “P” word at least once. We wonder, when Congolese or Sudanese or Burmese or Chinese or anyone else is killed or threatened, do we call these acts, “pogroms?”
It seems only Jews and Palestinians can suffer from them, so really, “pogrom” is not a useful term for describing an event, but is rather a signpost for a certain style of emotive argument that is often very light on reason or evidence.
There’s more rambling before Mr. Loewenstein arrives at an interesting conclusion. He contends that Naturei Karta may comprise some silly religious types, and he may be a rational atheist, but Mr. Loewenstein and NK do share a common cause and he respects them deeply for this.
Loewenstein does provide a caveat, but a very weak one, that Naturei Karta may be a bit of a worry because they jumped at the opportunity to assist President Ahmedinejad with his Holocaust Denial Festival. But because their anti-Zionism is so firm, he feels able to over-look this small foible.
Keeping this sort of company not only says something about Loewentein’s judgement, it also demonstrates that he is so keen to find people to reinforce his worldview – as opposed to seeking new knowledge and information – that he will put aside any moral qualms.
His approach to historicity mirrors that of NK: Holocaust denial is merely a detail.
Tomorrow on the blog:
. An update on our leaders’ response to the anti-Indian violence
. Responding to two very silly articles: Bendle and Rabkin
Related posts:
Aah, this piece really does reveal where the ladies of TSJ stand and their lack of intellectual rigor and dare one say it, intellectual honesty.
I took the time to go to the link on Mondoweiss [a respected and widely read blog in the USA - and around the world] and one can readily see that TSJ are prepared to misrepresent what Loewenstein has written. Heavens knows why – other than to be seen as smarty-pants? Just two examples. It is said by TSJ that Loewenstein keeps company with the NK. The Loewenstein posting says no such thing, nor does it even hint at it. I read the piece as no more than Loewenstein having “found” these men at the Rally and then having engaged in conversation with them.
Secondly, all that Loewenstein says is that he “empathised” with the Rabbi’s “humanity”. Does TSJ have a problem with that? Interestingly, Loewenstein on his blog has a link to Rabbi Sid Schwarz writing in NY’s The Jewish Week expressing his concern about the Rally:
“Then a band launched into a rousing rendition of Am Yisrael Chai. I spent more than 25 years as an activist for Soviet Jewry. This was our theme song signaling solidarity both with the history of our people and with all those oppressed Jews in the world whose cause we championed. A group of young men in their 20’s with kippot and tziztzit were right in front of me dancing in a frenzy. But they alternated the verse that meant “the people of Israel lives” with “all the Arabs must die.” It rhymed with the Hebrew. Given the way all joined in, it was clear that this was not the first time it was sung”.
I suspect that the ladies of TSJ would see nothing wrong with the song? We won’t even start talking about blatant racism…….. I can just see the banner headline were Palestinians to sing such a song calling for the death of Israelis as they paraded down Fifth Ave!!!!!
You ladies at TSJ [who continue to remain anonymous - and "hide in coward's castle" by happily criticing others but not allowing them to "have a go at you"] will have to nail your colours to the mast as to what the objective of this blog is. Not without significance I note that the response which you said you would make to Michael Brull and my comments [see the posting on 27 May last] remain unanswered.
Your credibility in this blog “venture” of yours – just a little “fun” thing on the side? – is very much on the line.
Support this comment
0
That sound you hear is my sides splitting from laughter. Someone who calls him or herself Gustavm and fails to reveal their full name takes the Sensible Jew to task for doing the same.
Loewenstein’s various analyses of anything to do with Israel and the Palestinians has revealed him as being intellectually dishonest and lazy time and again. He won’t tolerate comments on his blog that criticise his entries; when other blogs point out Loewenstein’s various mistakes, he’ll quietly fix his blog but not tell others he’s done so, thereby breaking blogging etiquette and his book on Israel is so full of mistakes, it had to be pulped and rereleased by its publisher (though it still contained errors thereafter…)
When the Sensible Jew decided to salute Loewenstein – a fabulous title, I must say – it merely chose his latest rant. It could have picked one at random and come up with many of the same observations. Loewenstein is famous for only one reason: he’s a Jew that criticises Israel and the various Jewish powers-that-be so overreacted to his commentary that he became a darling of the loony left.
If the Jewish groups and high profile individuals would only learn to ignore him, he’d go the way of all those other people whose names I can’t recall anymore.
Support this comment
0
I’m with you. I say, people who care should concentrate on pointing out his factual errors but not enter into debate with him. That way, his credibility will be lessened over time. This guy takes great delight in doing just that, and I take great delight in reading him.
A point Loewenstein raised – a point I hesitate to admit that perhaps was needed to be raised – was that not all Australian Jews agreed with the AIJACs and SZCs of this world. But there is a nice way of doing it, and an annoyingly whiny way of doing it. To claim again and again that anyone who criticises Israel is immediately slammed as anti-Semitic by the community’s leadership is pure bunk and Loewenstein knows it. I believe the Sensible Jew has a good approach to the issue. Though I also believe if you want to rally the troops behind you in order to change the way the Jewish community’s various bodies act and react, you will have to lose the anonymity at some stage.
Or perhaps this blog is designed to inspire someone else to take up the mantle..?
Support this comment
0
Loewenstein’s comment about the Birthright participants not speaking to a genuine Palestinian is hilarious coming from him. In the 13 days that Loewenstein spent in Israel for his one and only visit, he spent almost all his time in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, thus speaking ONLY with Palestinians. No, I lie. He did speak with me when I hosted him over the weekend; that was when I discovered how little he knows about Israel, Jewish history and the Middle East.
Since then, he has shown no advance in his knowledge, but only in the prejudice and blinkered hatred he exhibits to anything Jewish. All this demonstrrates an embittered and lonely person, uncomfortable in the body he inhabits and the background he desperately tries to disown.
Support this comment
0
Sadducee, while Faygale may be making an ad hominem attack, our abuse policy is necessarily as broad as possible so that we can avoid censoring people.
There are so few places for Australian Jews to speak openly. When such openness is encouraged, ugly things will always pop up. There will always be the temptation to attack the personal, and some will succumb. But the abuse has to be overt and/or potentially defamatory before we will begin deletions or bannings.
Support this comment
0
I remember reading Loewensteins cousin Ron Green’s Letter in the AJN immediately after Loewenstein released his ‘My Israel question’ Book. Ron revealed that the so called expert on Israel stayed with him for 2 weeks in a Tel Aviv suburb on his first ever trip to Israel, and only visited Arab Israel towns and only interviewed Arab Israelies and far left wing Israelis for the [ so called ] research for his book.[ he knew this because each night Loewenstein would discuss at dinner where he went and who he spoke to] Ron found out only later his cousin didn’t come to do any research he only came to Israel in case anyone bothered to ask him has he ever been there.
It shows you how much Macquarie University Academics detest Israel by engaging self hating Jew Loewenstein to their Middle east Studies department a Guy who didn’t even know Tzpi Livni was a woman and who believes Tel Aviv was previously a Arab city..
It’s hard to understand why so called intelligent people like Richter QC and Publisher Louise Adler are huge fans of Loewenstein and support his group of dissident anti Zionist Jews but it also shows you how little they know about the Middle east History and politics.
Support this comment
0
SJ – you really should step in here – Faygale calling someone, regardless of their views, a self-hating Jew is not classified as ad hominem attacks?
Support this comment
0
Sadduceee If Loewenstein wasn’t born Jewish he wouldn’t be considered anti s emetic?
I suggest you spend a few hours and read his blogs if you didn’t know who it was you would ask who is this anti Semite.
Loewensetin uses the fact that he was born to Jewish parents as his weapon to vilify Jews and Israelis and is only invited on University boards invited to to speak and contribute to ABC, SBC and Fairfax so often because there is nothing better than Jew attacking the Zionists.
Loewenstein describes himself as a anti Zionist Jew which is his prerogative but he like TOben and many many others like Toben is obsessed with Jews.
Support this comment
0
Hi Sadducee. We agree that comparisons with Toben are ridiculous, and they certainly constitute gutter discourse. The thing is, in order to make space for the widest possible catchment for opinion, we have to make space for the silly, the unpalatable, and the trashy. The moment we perceive, however, that such discourse is becoming dominant and actually discourages informed comment, we will take action. That hasn’t happened yet, and intelligent opinion – yours is a great example – really does seem to drown out the more feeble mutterings.
Support this comment
0
SJ – your site your call on this. I have to say though that Faygale comparing the guy to Toben (presumably the Holocaust denier?) is really getting into the gutter of discourse in my opinion.
Support this comment
0
Rather than trying to silence Faygale, or dismiss his comments as “ad hominem attacks” or “trashy”, why not point out where you think he is mistaken (especially regarding Antony)?
He has made some interesting points, backed up by Ron Green, and by censoring his opinions (regardless of whether SJ or anyone else agrees with them or not) you would be undermining the raison d’etre of this blog.
In other words, play the ball, not the man.
Support this comment
0
Rather than trying to silence Faygale, or dismiss his comments as “ad hominem attacks” or “trashy”, why not point out where you think he is mistaken (especially regarding Antony)?
Nu, I’m waiting what in particular have I said about Loewenstein that you are offended by or I am wrong?
Faygale
Support this comment
0
ABM
Certainly. I have called into question Faygale’s comparison of Loewenstein with Toben.
Loewenstein is known for writing a contentious work critical of Israel and similar articles of questionable quality on his website and has been published in the mainstream media. As he is Jewish, he has a natural interest, like many other Jews, in matters related to Jews so it is not strange that he would write about them.
Toben is the founder of the Adelaide Institute, a site dedicated to Holocaust denial/revisionism and the distribution of hate speech and literature, particularly, but not exclusively focussed on Jews. He is a major player in that playground and hasn’t had his denial literature published in the mainstream media. Toben is not Jewish and there is no reasonable explanation for his hostility/antipathy. Hence I find it strange that he would dedicate so much time to writing about Jews.
I think any reasonable person can clearly see that the comparison is absurd.
I am however open minded to others views – if you can point out that Loewenstein’s work is similar to Tobens I’ll examine it fairly.
Support this comment
0
Where is the discussion about the impact on Australian Jewry and in particular the weasel words in response by the so-called Zionist leadership and self appointed experts in AIJAC?
As a Jewish Australian who care greatly for both the future of Israel and the legitimate national aspirations of Palestinians I strongly endorse the views expressed by the US President in Cairo. His words represent a sea change in approach to a conflict that has festered for so long that many of us have despaired of the possibility of finding a path to a resolution. His words articulate both the main elements of the conflict and a way forward to hope when he stated that:
*
These are bold words that must lead to bold action. An opportunity has arisen unlike any other in the last 15 years. I would call on the rest of the Jewish community to accept and embrace a new path. I call on Jews to speak with the Australian government to use its good offices to encourage all the parties to the conflict to reject the failed policies that have prevailed till now and grasp the possibilities of a new beginning.
Support this comment
0
Gustavm, you’re right. We did promise to deal with issues relating to discourse on Israel/Palestine in a post, and we will. Because the debate is ongoing, and is not of the moment, we have given priority to “breaking” stories. We will, however, get to that post eventually.
Support this comment
0
Hi Elder of Zion, and welcome. In the great names competition, you’d have to be a front-runner!
Thank you for your comment here. You articulated much of what we believe about Loewenstein and his supporters. It’s interesting you mention that we could have picked any number of his pieces and torn them up quite easily: indeed, that very thought occurred to us as we were reading his blog. We chose that particular entry because it was his most recent, and because he had linked to our site in that article (regarding our post on StandWithUS). We felt we should return the favour.
In general, we agree that he shouldn’t be given too much oxygen. We believe that getting overly excited, as some of our leaders have, by his often puerile analyses, is counterproductive. But Mr. Loewenstein does have a following of sorts, and many are unaware of just how intellectually lazy it is. We feel it’s necessary, on occasion, to point that out.
Support this comment
0
Hi again, Elder of Z. We’ll definitely give that link a read.
And you are absolutely right about serious and concrete change coming from a non-anonymous source. The writer at the SJ understands this and has no intention of being a public Jewish face or a communal leader. Her collaborator, Yvonne Fein, however, has now gone public. Their first hope was to establish a site on which all political views in the Australian Jewish community could get an airing in the comments section. Secondly, they hope to provide some new ideas and analysis that haven’t yet been in the public domain.
If these things lead to something more substantive – and less anonymous – that would be great.
Support this comment
0
Hi Ron and welcome. That Antony, by an accident of birth, happens to be a Jew does not automatically imbue him with knowledge, insight or understanding of Israel or Jews. Every word he writes or utters betrays a shocking ignorance that he does not seem in any hurry to rectify.
Support this comment
0
Dzyngier, you are very, very close to getting yourself deleted. Let me explain why: Firstly, you open your comment with what we can only describe as appalling inattention to the most obvious detail: half the posts on this blog are about the problematic nature of AIJAC. That you comment before even having a cursory glance at what’s here is ridiculuous and completely detracts from anything else you might have to say.
Secondly, our blog is not a place for you to cut and paste your petititions or whatever that piece is. We don’t care what your political inclinations are.
Do it again, and you’ll be summarily deleted.
Support this comment
0