O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.
8 For since I spake, I cried out, I cried violence and spoil; because the word of the Lord was made a reproach unto me, and a derision, daily.
9 Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.
10 For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side. Report, say they, and we will report it. All my familiars watched for my halting, saying, Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge on him.
Trump May Recognize Jerusalem As Israel's Capital — What Could It Mean?
December 04, 2017
Tourists view the skyline of Jerusalem in this 2000 file photo. (AP)
President Trump may this week recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and perhaps move the U.S. embassy there. We're looking at the ramifications on the Israel-Palestine peace process and elsewhere.
Josef Federman, AP bureau chief for Israel and the Palestinian territories. (@joseffederman)
Khalil Shikaki, professor of political science and the director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. (@KShikaki)
Steven Simon, visiting professor of history at Amherst College and former United States National Security Council senior director of the Middle East and North Africa under presidents Obama and Clinton.
Trump’s son-in-law and Middle East peace envoy Jared Kushner told the Saban Forum on Sunday the president is close to a decision on whether to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital but has yet to make up his mind."
Turkey threatened to cut ties with Israel, the Palestinians warned they would halt contacts with their U.S. counterparts — and key Washington ally Saudi Arabia spoke out strongly against such a possible step."
ABC News: What's At Stake If The U.S. Recognizes Jerusalem As Israel's Capital — "By law, President Trump must decide today whether to sign a waiver that would delay a move of the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv by another six months, State Department officials told ABC News. He has already signed the waiver once. Now he is faced with a choice between sticking to his campaign promises or taking the more diplomatic route of his predecessors."
Since the founding of Israel, no American president has said the United States recognizes Jerusalem as its capital. This week, Donald Trump could change that. We don’t know. Previous presidents have acknowledged Palestinian claims on the city and said make it part of a final settlement. There are signals President Trump may move anyway. The repercussions could be wide. Jared Kushner is in the thick of it. Maybe the Saudis too. This hour, On Point: The Trump White House and the fate of Jerusalem. --Tom Ashbrook
Trump Considers Moving U.S. Embassy In Israel To Jerusalem
November 30, 2017
A man walks past the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel, in 2013. (Ariel Schalit/AP)
President Trump is "actively considering when and how" to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, according to Vice President Mike Pence. The announcement was made on Tuesday at an event marking the 70th anniversary of the United Nations vote to aid in the creation of the state of Israel.
As with pretty much everything else he touches, Donald Trump has created chaos among the Jewish right …. New York’s Lee Zeldin, the only Jewish GOP Congressman, also endorsed Trump’s remarks that “there is evidence that the violence came from multiple groups and multiple sides.” It’s why [David] Horowitz’s FrontPage is excommunicating the hapless Ron Radosh, insisting that by criticizing ex-Trump adviser Steve Bannon, he has returned to his “Communist…roots.”
The personalized, political cold war is not doubt also why it took three days for Benjamin Netanyahu—a pretender to the crown of ”leader of the Jews” if ever there was one—to say anything about Charlottesville. And even then, it wasn’t much: a single tweet that never once mentioned Trump. Netanyahu didn’t even bother to use up all 140 characters. Nor did he respond to the enormous wave of criticism that he received in Israel from all sides when the even more right-wing Naftali Bennet complained of Trump, saying: “The leaders of the U.S. must condemn and denounce the displays of anti-Semitism.” Instead—and forgive me if this sounds familiar—he left it to his son to do the dirty work of signaling his true calculations and reassuring what remains of his political base. Young Yair Netanyahu explained that the Nazis shouting “Jews will not replace us” in Charlottesville “belong to the past. Their breed is dying out. However the thugs of Antifa and BLM who hate my country (and America too in my view) just as much are getting stronger and stronger and becoming super dominant in American universities and public life.”
Just as Moses said of God, “He visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children (Exodus 34:7), so too shall we suffer for the sins and misjudgments of pro-Trump Jewish conservatives for generations to come.
Eric Alterman, The Hareds They Share: Contempt for liberals drives the pro-Trump Jewish right.
Avraham Burg’s The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From Its Ashes (2008) exposes that Zionism is confining American Jewry mentally in the power of Hitler and the Nazis. Burg writes that it seems that more than six decades after his death, Hitler retains his influence over American Jews. Vulnerability can be felt in the most impressive community the Jews have ever built, a Jewry more glorious than those of Babel and Spain, even more so than German Jewry that existed between the time of Mendelssohn and the Shoah. The potential is there for Jews to change the world for the better, if they only free themselves from the Nazi shackles.
Courageous Israel is a mini-America in the “Wild East.” It faithfully represents the American spirit in a region that is very much in need of salvation. In Israel you find frontiers and pioneers with vision just like the early American West. Israel plays the cowboy, and the Jews of America provide the strategic support that compels every U.S. administration to support Israel. In turn, Israel supports the administration that supported the Jewish organizations that support Israel that support them. What is wrong with mutual back-scratching?
“Good for Israel” means different things to the Jewish masses and to their leaders. It seems that instinctively, millions of Jews understand that a White house that is good for Israel should not necessarily do everything that Israel that Israel requests, but rather do what Israel needs. Furthermore, an ordinary Jew, though he is affected by his family’s memories and suffering for their traumas, wants his children to grow in a healthy society. He would rather integrate into a multicultural society and look forward to the future than linger, holding on to the past. He would want to preserve solidarity with the government, reducing its involvement to a minimum.
American Jews seek solutions both as members of the Jewish faith and as partners in the building of the American nation. The one-issue strategy does not address these goals as it deals with Israel and nothing else. Yet every time a strategic reevaluation concerning Israel is called for, the silencing voices are heard: Shoah, pogroms, self-hating Jews. Again anti-Semitism, swastikas, and Hitler decide the debate on Jewish identity and an opportunity for dialogue dies before it even begins.
NETANYAHU THE GREAT
Burg charges that Binyamin Netanyahu is an expert propagandist. All Netanyahu’s enemies are super enemies. Propaganda tell Jew and Israelis that they await total destruction or salvation, with nothing in between. Burg begins Chapter 6 with a twice-told-tale: There was a time when the sun never set on the British Empire. It was a political as well as a natural phenomenon--the territory was so vast that it included all the world's datelines. The new German Empire of Emperor Wilhelm II and Reichskanzler Otto von Bismarck envied Great Britain. The Germans also wanted a United Kingdom, elevated international status, and colonies to enrich their domestic economy at the expense of distant peoples basking under an imperial sun. Thus the German empire developed a rhetoric that expressed its entitlement to a "place under the sun." This was thanks to a combination of an inferiority complex in the face of Great Britain's might, a dash of German hot-tempered quarrelsomeness, and, above all, a willingness to fight and sacrifice to get that place in the sun. When their rhetoric ripened and was ready for action, Germany launched occupation wars in Africa and elsewhere.
One generation later, there was no empire or emperor, just a weak and defeated Weimar Republic. The rhetoric remained, but the reasons had changed. Germany was feeling claustrophobic within its borders. The demagoguery of place fell on willing ears, and Germany felt compelled to create a Lebensraum, a living space, for itself in the East. Lebensraum was one of Hitler's two obsessions; the other was the Jews. Poland, perceived as a thorn in German's side, was the challenge, a seductive prize for the Nazi hunters. Later in 1939 Hitler began his campaign to erase Polish "nationhood," including its intelligentsia, the standard-bearers of Polish nationalism. Hitler hoped to annex Polish lands to Germany and to populate them with Volksdeutche, Aryans, and ethnic Germans who lived in the Baltic States and Eastern Poland. "A place under the sun," in the Judeo-German lexicon, means something very specific and sinister.
Binyamin Netanyahu named his book in Hebrew, A Place Under The Sun. Burg asks, is it because the narrative speaks of the rightist, paranoid belief in nothing but power and settlements to counterbalance the Arab demographic threat? Is this a subliminal admission that with the expansion to the east and the de facto annexation--an Anschluss--of Judaea, Samaria, and the Golan, an Israeli empire was born? Is it a manifestation of claustrophobic pangs in the Jewish ghetto mindset that seeks relief by breaking out into a broader living space? It may just be literary insensitivity on Netanyahu's part, another instance of the endless paradoxical expressions that Hitler and the Shoah left us to struggle with.
DONALD TRUMP THE Übermensch & SHELDON ADELSON'S ZIONISM
Burg in Chapter 9 offers up a truth that Trump represents the Übermensch (German for "Beyond-Man", "Superman", "Overman", "Superhuman", "Hyperman", "Hyperhuman"; Menche--the Aryan blond giant that represents the West. Burg writes that it is fair to say that the destruction of the European Jews, our holocaust was not only a Jewish historical event, or the climax of longstanding hatred of Jews. Perhaps even more, it was a universal, multifaceted event that took place in the historical timeliness of the world. The Holocaust is the climax of a process of racial superiority theories that white races and their contacts with "inferior" races during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and half the twentieth century. The Jewish Holocaust was climax of expanding human evil.
During the past decade, the nations of the world internalized the profound meaning of the European Holocaust. They came to understand what we in Israel have not yet understood: the denier of the others holocaust will eventually have his own holocaust denied. Lutheran pastor Martin Niemoller, a rave anti-Nazi theologian, wrote a bitter son, often mistakenly attributed to Bertolt Brecht, expressing the idea that if we didn't speak up for others, there would be no one to speak up for us.
The song can be rewritten in many ways: First they took the Native Americans, then the Herero, then the Armenians, then the mentally ill, the Gypsies, the homosexuals, the Slavs, and now they are taking the Jews. But it is too late.
World War One & The Balfour Declaration
According to Philip Jenkins in The Great and Holy War: How World War One Became A Religious Crusade (2014) World War One changed everything. The consequences for Judaism were sweeping. Jews had not been able to depend wholly on friendly nation-states before the war, but in several countries, at least, they created workable arrangements. The crisis of war in 1914 raised hopes that the enthusiastic patriotism of Jews would lead to full recognition of their membership in the national community, to a full recognition of Jewish rights. As the war dragged on, anti-Semitism grew across the continent, with a venous element of conspiracy theory. In 1916, the German government carried out a "Jewish census" to examine charges that Jewish soldiers were shirking their front-line responsibilities. For patriotic Jews, this act was a vicious betrayal that called into question everything they had taken for granted about their German loyalties. In Russia, meanwhile, the enemies of the revolution blamed the Bolshevik victory on Jewish plotting, and that theme became a mainstay of the European Right. The Jewish position in Europe seemed ever more dangerous. With theories of benevolent assimilation in ruins, writers and thinkers were driven to seek alternatives, to redefine their identity as Jews. Jewish scholars who, before the war, had lauded secularism now rediscovered much older aspects of faith, including Hasidism and Kabbalism.
But the war also created new opportunities in the form of the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent growth of Zionism--events that would have been inconceivable except in the millenarian excitement of 1917-18. Geoffrey Wheatcroft remarked, "The First World War changed everything: without it, there would have been no Russian Revolution, no Third Reich, and almost certainly no Jewish state." Jenkins adds, no modern Judaism in anything like the form in which we know it.
The success of the Balfour Declaration relied on what Lothrop Stoddard and Glenn Frank in Stakes of the War (1918) “Palestine being erected into a Jewish State. This could come about only through control of Syria by some European power or powers or by an international concert." According to Stoddard and Frank, "the number of Jews in Palestine [was in 1918] so small and their position so artificial a product of Zionist stimulation that further immigration of Jews could come only through large capitalization by wealthy Jews throughout the world."
HOW THE US LOST THE PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Historian Robert Dallek in The Lost Peace: Leadership In a Time Of Horror and Hope, 1945-1953 (2010) writes that in 1948, Harry Truman believed that his containment policy [post-World War Two], was essential to the country's future safety and well-being. If political rivals to his left or right defeated him in that year's election, he thought, it would be disastrous for the nation. Political opponents urging greater accommodation to Moscow or tougher steps that could precipitate a war impressed him as offering dangerous alternatives.
The likelihood of a Truman defeat in 1948 overshadowed these concerns. Clark Clifford, the president's White House counsel, who had become his principal campaign adviser remembers that his hopes of Truman's election "went up and down. Few had any hope after the Democrats lost both houses of Congress in 1946, Truman seemed to be a president with little public backing.
But Truman carried off the greatest election upset in presidential history. Several elements contributed to his success: an unqualified appeal to New Deal liberals, the cultivation of African American voters, a whistle-stop cross-country train trip in which the president endeared himself to voters by his plain speaking, and an uninspired Republican campaign from the lackluster Tom Dewey, whose stiff formality gave him a reputation as the only man who could strut sitting down.
No foreign policy issue more directly influenced the election than Truman's decision to give prompt recognition to the state of Israel in May 1948. It is true that significant political considerations entered into the president's decision, and they so angered Secretary of State Marshall--who, like others in the State Department, believed that less overt backing for Israel was in American's best interest--that he never spoke again to Clark Clifford, who pushed recognition as essential to the president's election.
Washington DC, USA, Friday, July 11, 2003
Harry Truman's Forgotten Diary 1947
Writings Offer Fresh Insight on the President
By Rebecca Dana and Peter Carlson Washington Post Staff Writers
"THE JEWS, I find are very, very selfish," President Harry S. Truman wrote in a 1947 diary that was recently discovered on the shelves of the Truman Library in Independence, Mo., and released by the National Archives yesterday.
Written sporadically during a turbulent year of Truman's presidency, the diary contains about 5,500 words on topics ranging from the death of his mother to comic banter with a British aristocrat. But the most surprising comments were Truman's remarks on Jews, written on July 21, 1947, after the president had a conversation with Henry Morganthau [sic. Morgenthau], his Jewish treasury secretary. Morganthau called to talk about a Jewish ship in Palestine -- possibly the Exodus, the legendary ship carrying 4,500 Jewish refugees who were refused entry into Palestine by the British, then rulers of that land.
David Irving comments:
YES, I knew about Truman's disregard for the Jews although I confess that I too did not find this diary, when I researched in his library. "I gave them the state they asked for," he said, commenting on their ingratitude, in another document that I did read, "but they're all still here." One by one the inner thoughts of the world's great and goodly people about their Jewish fellow-humans are revealed, as the archives disgorge their cruel secrets. Those who attended my Libel action against Deborah Lipstadt, where the defence lawyers (but not Lipstadt herself) accused me of anti-semitism, will recall that I invited their expert witness Prof Richard "Skunky" Evans to read (to himself) certain passages of the diaries of well-known statesmen, which I put to him while in the witness box, and I would then ask him questions. I was going to ask if these were not statesmen of the utmost esteem and respectability; and whether he did not agree that their private comments on the Jews far exceeded any statement that I might have made. Mr Justice Gray panicked, and refused to allow him to answer. There's Justice for ya.
"He'd no business, whatever to call me," Truman wrote. "The Jews have no sense of proportion nor do they have any judgement (sic) on world affairs. Henry brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis and they stayed."
Truman then went into a rant about Jews:
"The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes."
Yesterday, those comments startled scholars because Truman is known as a president who acted to help Jews in postwar Europe and who supported recognition of Israel in 1948, when his State Department opposed it.
"My reaction is: Wow! It did surprise me because of what I know about Truman's record," says Sara J. Bloomfield, director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. "Truman's sympathy for the plight of Jews was very apparent."
But Truman's comments were, Bloomfield says, "typical of a sort of cultural anti-Semitism that was common at that time in all parts of American society. This was an acceptable way to talk."
"Truman was often critical, sometimes hypercritical, of Jews in his diary entries and in his correspondences, but this doesn't make him an anti-Semite," says John Lewis Gaddis, a professor of history at Yale University and a prominent Cold War scholar. "Anyone who played the role he did in creating the state of Israel can hardly be regarded in that way."
Throughout his presidency, which lasted from 1945 to 1953, Truman was a prolific but sporadic diarist, jotting down his thoughts in diary books and on loose pieces of paper. This newly discovered diary appeared in a book titled "The Real Estate Board of New York, Inc., Diary and Manual 1947." The book, which begins with 160 printed pages of information about the Real Estate Board, was donated to the Truman Library in 1965, seven years before his death, and has sat on shelves there ever since. Apparently its tedious title scared scholars away and nobody noticed Truman's handwritten comments in the diary section in the back of the book until recently, when a librarian reshelving books happened to see them.
"This is probably the most important document the Truman Library has opened in 20 years," Michael J. Devine, the library's director, said in a prepared statement. "Once again, in this diary, we are able to hear that strong personal voice that Truman almost always projected in his writings."
IN one memorable entry, Truman recounts a meeting at which he offered to yield the 1948 Democratic presidential nomination to Gen. Dwight Eisenhower if Gen. Douglas MacArthur campaigned for the Republican nomination.
Truman's comments on Eisenhower and MacArthur came in an entry dated July 25, 1947, years before Truman's famous firing of Gen. MacArthur during the Korean War. In the entry, he wrote of a discussion that afternoon with Eisenhower, who was then Army chief of staff.
"We discussed MacArthur and his superiority complex," Truman wrote. "Ike & I think MacArthur expects to make a Roman Triumphal return to the U.S. a short time before the Republican Convention meets in Philadelphia. I told Ike that if he did that that he (Ike) should announce for the nomination for President on the Democratic ticket and that I'd be glad to be in second place, or Vice President. I like the Senate anyway. Ike & I could be elected and my family & myself would be happy outside this great white jail known as the White House."
Truman did not reveal how Eisenhower, who was elected president as a Republican in 1952, reacted to his suggestion. He did note that he and Ike agreed to keep quiet about it: "Ike won't quot [sic] me & I won't quote him."
But Eisenhower did tell the story to confidants, and it leaked out and was recounted in "Eisenhower," a 1983 biography by Stephen E. Ambrose.
"At the time, Truman's chances for reelection appeared to be nil," Ambrose wrote. "Eisenhower assumed that Truman wanted to use him to pull the Democrats out of an impossible situation. The general wanted nothing to do with the Democratic Party; his answer was a flat 'No.' "
Eisenhower sat out the 1948 election, as did MacArthur. Truman ran against New York Gov. Thomas Dewey and won a stunning upset victory.
The diary contains several other interesting Truman comments.
He had praise for Gen. George C. Marshall, whom he later appointed secretary of state: "Marshall is, I think the greatest man of the World War II. He managed to get along with Roosevelt, the Congress, Churchill, the Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and he made a grand record in China."
On Jan. 6, he wrote: "Read my annual message. It was good if I do say it myself. . . . Clark Clifford did most of the work. He's a nice boy and will go places."
In that comment, Truman proved prescient. Clifford, then a 40-year-old Truman aide, later became an aide to President John F. Kennedy, secretary of defense under Lyndon Johnson and a major Washington power broker until his death in 1998.
On March 7, he wrote: "Doc tell's [sic] me I have Cardiac Asthma! Aint that hell. Well it makes no diff, will go on as before. I've sworn him to secrecy! So What!"
On July 28 -- "terrible day" -- Truman wrote about his mother's funeral. "Along the road cars, trucks and pedestrians stood with hats off. It made me want to weep -- but I couldn't in public. I've read through thousands of messages from all over the world in the White House study and I can shed tears as I please -- no one's looking."
But Truman's famed plain-spoken wit is also evident in the diary. On July 4, after attending Independence Day festivities in Monticello, Va., he wrote a passage that can only be called Trumanesque:
"Mrs Astor -- Lady Astor came to the car just before we started from Monticello to say to me that she liked my policies as President but that she thought I had become rather too much 'Yankee.' I couldnt help telling her that my purported 'Yankee' tendencies were not half so bad as her ultra conservative British leanings. She almost had a stroke."
However, Dallek states that for Truman, who accepted the political necessity of overtly supporting the new Jewish state, there was nothing untoward about doing so: not only would it help him politically, but he believed it was the right and realistic policy. He fully accepted the moral claims for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and Clifford convinced him that Israel would come into existence without or without America's immediate backing.
RACING THE JEWS
Sander Gilman in The Jew's Body (1991) validates that Jews have been White for less than 75 years. A lack of being classified as White is why Hitler and the Nazis could persecute the Jew successfully without objection from the West. Jews have only been officially classified as White since the 1950s. Gilman declares in "The Jewish Nose" (which is about Jewish patients seeking rhinoplasty/nose jobs) that in being denied any association with the beautiful and the erotic [races], the Jew's body was denigrated. Within the racial science of the nineteenth century, being "black" came to signify that the Jews had crossed racial boundaries. The boundaries of race were one of the most powerful social and political divisions evolved in the science of the period. That the Jews, rather than being considered the purest race, are because of their endogenous marriages, an impure race, and therefore, a potentially diseased one. That this impurity is written on their physiognomy. According to Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the Jews are a "mongrel" (rather than a healthy "mixed") race, who interbred with Africans during the period of the Alexandrian exile. They are "a mongrel race which always retains this mongrel character." Jews had "hybridized" with blacks in Alexandrian exile. They are "a mongrel race which always retains this mongrel character." Jews had "hybridized" with blacks in Alexandrian exile. They are, in an ironic review of chamberlain's work by Nathan Birnbaum, the Viennese-Jewish activist who coined the word "Zionist," a "bastard" race, the origin of which was caused by their incestuousness, their sexual selectivity.
Jews bear the sign of the black, "the African character of the Jew, his muzzle-shaped mouth and face removing him from certain other races, as Robert Knox noted at mid-century.... It is, therefore, not only the color of the skin which enables the scientist to see the Jew as black, but also the associated anatomical signs, such as the shape of the nose. The Jews were quite literally seen as black. Adam Gurowski, a Polish noble, "took every light-colored mulatto for a Jew: when he first arrived in the United States in the 1850s.
If the Germans (Aryans) are a "pure" race--and that is for the turn-of-the-century science a positive quality--then the Jews cannot be a "pure" race. But what happens when the Jew attempted to stop being a Jew, to marry out of the "race?" Their Jewishness, rather than being diminished, became heightened. Their status as a mixed race became exemplified in the icon of the Mischling, the member of the mixed race. The term Mischling in late nineteenth century racial science referred to the offspring of a Jewish and a non-Jewish parent. The Jewishness of the Mischling undoubtedly signifies a degeneration: degeneration of the Jew, whose character is much too alien, firm and strong to be quickened and ennobled by Teutonic blood, degeneration of the European who can naturally only lose by crossing with and ;inferior type; they can have "Jewish-Negroid" features. Language and therefore, thought processes, are a reflex of the racial origin of the "black" Jew. And their "blackness" appears even more strikingly in mixed marriages, almost as nature's way of pointing up the difference and visibility of the Jew. This "taint" can appear among families "into which there has been an infusion of Jewish blood. It tends to appear in a marked and intensely Jewish cast of features and expression. It is in the "mixed" breed, therefore, that these negative qualities are most evident. As the quintessential anti-Semite said to the German-Jewish writer Jacob Wassermann in the 1920s, "whether, after conversion, they cease to be Jews in the deeper sense we do not know, and have no way of finding out. I believe that the ancient influences continue to operate Jewishness is like a concentrated dye: a minute quantity suffices to give a specific character--or, at least, some traces of it--to an incomparably greater mass." Crossing the boundaries of race presented the potential of highlighting the inferiority of the Jews.
So even when the Jew wished to vanish, by marrying out of the "race," his or her blackness was not diminished. Indeed, it was heightened. The power of the image of the "Black Jew," the product of crossbreeding Jew with black, is a powerful one in nineteenth century Europe, especially for those Jews who desired to see themselves as "white."
Jews look different, they have a different appearance, and this appearance has pathogenic significance. Skin color marked the Jew as both different and diseased for the Jewish scientist, such as Sigmund Freud, these "minor differences in people who are otherwise alike form the basis of feelings of strangeness and hostility between them: this is what Freud clinically labeled as the "narcissism of minor differences." This is what Freud clinically labeled as the "narcissism of minor differences." But are these differences "minor" either from the perspective of those labeling or those labeled? In reducing this sense of the basis of difference between "people who are otherwise alike," Freud was not only drawing on the Enlightenment claim of the universality of human rights, but also on the Christian underpinnings of these claims. For this "narcissism: fights "successfully against feelings of fellowship and over power[s] the commandment that all men should love one another." It is the Christian claim to universal brotherly love that Freud was employing in arguing that the differences between himself, his body and the body of the Aryan, are trivial. Freud comprehended the special place that the Jew played in the demonic universe of the Aryan psyche. But he marginalized the role as the question of the Jew's function "as an agent of economic discharge in the world of the Aryan ideal" rather than as one of the central aspects in the science of his time. What Freud was masking was that Jews are not merely the fantasy capitalists of the paranoid delusions of the anti-Semites, they also mirror within their own sense the selves the image of their own difference.
A parallel shift in the perception of the Jewish body can be found during the twentieth century in the United States. It is not merely that second-and-third-generation descendants of Eastern European Jewish immigrants do not "look" like their grandparents; but they "look" American.
Gilman concludes that there is no mask, no operation, and no refuge. Indeed, as the plastic surgeon Mark Gorney noted: "Patients seeking rhinoplasty frequently show a guilt-tinged, second generation rejection of their ethnic background masked by excuses, such as not photographing well. Often it is not so much a desire to abandon the ethnic group as it is to be viewed as individuals and to rid themselves of specific physical attributes associated with their particular ethnic group." It is in being visible in "the body that betrays," that the Jew is most uncomfortable. For visibility means being seen not as an individual but as an Other, one of the "ugly" race.
ARE THE ISRAELIS WHITE?
Noam Chomsky & Gilbert Achcar in Perilous Power: The Middle East & U.S. Foreign Policy (2007) appears to be discoursing with Gilman, although dialoging with Achcar. Chomsky remarks that there’s another problem we should consider if we’re discussing the situation within Israel, and that’s the problem of the Mizrahim, the “Oriental Jews.” The majority of the population in Israel is from the Arab world, and they’re very harshly oppressed. Recently, when Amir Peretz, a Jew who was born in Morocco, was appointed the head of the Israeli Labor Party, there was a bitter attack on him by Shimon Peres’ younger brother, warning of “Levantinization”: the labor party is being taken over by Arabs, just as General Francisco Franco attacked the Spanish republic with Moroccans, a “fifth column” who “shot the Spanish Republic in the back.” That’s a sign of the racism that exists against Jews who are not of Ashkenazi (European) background, though a few have made it to elite sectors.
In many ways they’re more repressed than the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel—literally.
Some of the Mizrahim who came to Israel were relatively well off, such as the Iraqi Jews. But the Moroccans and others were poor people. After 1948, some Moroccans went to France and some went to Israel. The ones who went to France are today doctors, lawyers, college-educated. The ones who went to Israel are manual laborers, or unemployed.
Chomsky declares that Israel didn’t want the Falasha (the Black Ethiopian Jews) in the worst way, and for a long time they just refused to allow them in. But there were some Jewish groups in the United States that were both Zionist and civil libertarian, and they stared a big campaign, with a lot of publicity on the issue. And Israel really began to look bad. When people didn’t about it, people didn’t care, but when it got to be known that Israel was blocking Black Jews—this was after the Civil Rights movement—this was too ugly for them, so Israel had no choice but to take them in. But most of them are in development towns.
Achcar interjected: Right. And that was used in turn as a propaganda tool: We resemble the United States so much—we are twin societies. Chomsky replied: Yes, but after they had their arms twisted. What they wanted was the Russians.
Chomsky believes that the Ashkenazi (European Jews) elites are the ones who are formally for peace, but they’re in favor of the neoliberal system and tend to support the breakdown of the social system, which doesn’t harm them, but of course is very harmful to a large majority of the population, most of whom are Mizrahim. The Russian Jews are a separate component; I think there are about a million of them now; and with very few exceptions, they’re extremely hawkish and very much opposed to any of the social democratic policies. Most of them are pretty well placed to move themselves into the professions; most of them, particularly the ones who came from Russia itself and not Georgia, are fairly well educated. And they’re extremely militant and hawkish. Actually a lot of them aren’t Jews. The Rabbinate, which is very corrupt, is willing to accept them as Jews—mostly because they’re blond and blue-eyed, figuratively speaking. They don’t look like Arabs, they look more like Northern Europeans. So that helps stem the Levantinization. The typical model of the Sabra, an Israeli Jew born in Israel, is supposed to be red-haired and strong, rather like a movie hero in the West. The Russian so-called Jews help with that. I think some of the estimates were that maybe half did not fit the strict criteria for being Jewish. In any event, they’re a very hawkish element, and they’re politically very significant.