Jonathan Freedland on "The McCarthyites of the Jewish right"

If we judge by the letter sent to Obama by 87 of the 100 US Senators, there is a rift between US and Obama on Israel.
One can also see that even some of the non-signatories have a pro-Israel voting record. For some reason, they did not want to appear as 'opposing' Obama. But 87% of the votes is something that can be easily called "bi-partisan".

US opinion polls clearly show that Americans widely support Israel on main issues.

So the rift is not where Freedman represents it.

The thing is that Freedland won't have to live with the consequences of the advice he gives. If Israel were mad enough to take the advice of a man who works for the West's leading anti-Zionist newspaper and it turned out to be flawed, it wouldn't be Freedland who would have to do the fighting and the dying. It also isn't Freedland who has to live with the consequences of Israel doing nothing. He doesn't have to worry about rockets landing on his house or someone shooting him on the way to work. He isn't kept awake at nights by the thought that someone might kill his children as they make their way to school.

I think perhaps I might act as a mediator between Freedland, his friends at Hamas and the Jewish state. "Lookit" I will tell the Islamofascists "in the event the Zionist entity takes Jonathan Freedland's advice...yes, yes, that's your good friend Mr. Freedland...do you think you could see your way to doing something nasty to Mr. Freedland and his many supporters instead of murderi...sorry, slip of the tongue...taking it out on Israelis?"

"So the rift is not where Freedman represents it."

Of course it isn't, but if you were considered to be a traitor by virtually all of your fellow Jews, wouldn't you do everything you could to try and justify your actions?

I don't see as a problem that Freedman is an anti-Zionist, provided he does not misrepresent the situation between US and Israel. We certainly don't need another propagandist here.

The problem, as anyone can witness, is between Obama and Israel. And also between Obama and the US.

Joshua, what evidence do you have that Jonathan Freedland is "considered to be a traitor by virtually all of [his] fellow Jews"? You and who else?

And Jose, it's ludicrous to suggest that he is an anti-Zionist, unless you have an extremely unusual definition of anti-Zionism. (And by the way, you could at least try and get his name right.)

If this is the same JF who on CiF (1 December 2009) when talking about the Swiss minaret vote didn't know that the Swiss had banned shechita eons ago, he seems naive.
Remember this?:

The Swiss ban makes me shudder

I can't help imagining how I would feel if the attitudes reflected in the minaret vote were directed at my own community

It's a crude reaction but it's the first one I had on hearing that the Swiss had voted to ban the building of minarets on mosques – the same reaction I have to the increasingly-frequent stories like it: how would I feel if this were not about them, but us? How, in other words, would I react if this latest attack were not on Muslims but on Jews?
It's crude because no two situations are ever exactly the same, and Muslims and Jews have different histories – in Switzerland and everywhere else. But it's useful, allowing the testing of any proposition against an almost instinctive yardstick of decency.
So how would I react if the Swiss voted to restrict the way synagogues are built? With horror, of course. Indeed, the mere hint of such a proposal in the heart of Europe – given the blood-soaked history of the 20th century – would send a shudder down the collective spine. That reaction alone would tell me that, on this proposal, there was only one decent place to be – against it.
Or take Jack Straw's campaign against the niqab in 2006. He and his supporters made what they hoped was a subtle, nuanced case against women wearing the full veil, but my first thought was much simpler. What if a government minister told ultra-orthodox Jewish men that, in their full beards, it was hard to tell them apart, or that he disliked the custom that commands ultra-orthodox Jewish women to cut off their hair, covering their heads with either a wig or a hat? No matter how subtle or nuanced his reasons, I would feel that this was, at best, an act of bullying directed at a vulnerable minority or, at worst, the first step towards something much more menacing.
I'm clearly not the only who thinks this way, submitting proposed anti-Muslim actions to an informal "Jewish test". It seems the proponents of the minaret ban proceeded the same way. According to Tariq Ramadan, the initial target of the Union Démocratique du Centre (UDC) campaign was due to be the Islamic method of animal slaughter – until the UDC realised that Jews, who also rely on ritual slaughter to produce kosher food, would immediately feel threatened. So they moved onto minarets, apparently confident that they had found an issue with few Jewish resonances (synagogue buildings rarely have an impact on the skyline and are often pretty inconspicuous).

And Jose, it's ludicrous to suggest that he is an anti-Zionist

Really? Why is that so? Because you say it? Or because he says it? Are you him?
And what does Freedland do, except the same thing as Israel's enemies while pretending to be a friend?

Do you know the saying "Oh God, protect me from my friends, I'll take care of my enemies." ?

You're right Yvetta, and in fact you'll notice sometimes that the floor of synagogues are below the street ground, because the locals opposed that the synagogue could be higher than the nearby church, so that the synagogue builder had to dig to make the ceiling higher.
They are also plenty of municipal rules that restrict how high building can be.
And Freedland's 'horror' would be complete if he only realised that minars are not at all necessary for mosques as they are used only for waking up Muslims for prayers, something that is totally forbidden for all in Western world cities, and they are not a religious feature.
But Freedland is much more friendly to Muslims countries and will never criticise them. Maybe he couldn't find anything to criticise there. But there is, isn't it?

This comment by Joshua18 has been moderated

Yvetta,

You write:
"What if a government minister told ultra-orthodox Jewish men that, in their full beards, it was hard to tell them apart, or that he disliked the custom that commands ultra-orthodox Jewish women to cut off their hair, covering their heads with either a wig or a hat? No matter how subtle or nuanced his reasons, I would feel that this was, at best, an act of bullying directed at a vulnerable minority or, at worst, the first step towards something much more menacing."

In some Islamic countries, a woman can be flogged for not conforming to the dress codes. So the dress codes (niqab etc) are enforced by state torture. This is not the case in Israel.

Yvetta,
I reiterate... by not banning the burqa, the UK govt is actually condoning the torture of women in Islamic countries with regard to their strict enforcement of dress codes.

The "act of bullying" is actually allowing the burqa on the streets in The UK.

If the Israeli state flogged men who did not cover their heads, then I would certainly support the banning of kippot in The UK. In fact, I would be campaigning for their ban.

This comment by Joshua18 has been moderated

"I'm not Jonathan Freedland though - I'm actually Jonathan Hoffman."

More like Reinhard Heydrich.

Yvetta,

You refer to Muslims in the UK as a "vulnerable minority". Yes, the women are extremely vulnerable, because Muslim men are imposing codes of behaviour and dress on them.

Unfortunately, the PC intelligentsia ("feminists" like Shami Chakrabarti of "Liberty") never address this issue. Neither do they condemn the state torture of women who don't conform to the dress codes in Islamic countries. Such "feminists" are of course, Islamofascists. It is a sick irony that Shami Chakrabarti is employed by an organization called "Liberty".

"You refer to Muslims in the UK as a "vulnerable minority". Yes, the women are extremely vulnerable, because Muslim men are imposing codes of behaviour and dress on them."

You should be addressing your comments to Jonathan Freedland. After all, you are quoting from his piece. I imagine that Yvetta actually agrees with you.

Yvetta,
My apologies.
I thought it didn't sound like you.
Please forgive me.

"Please forgive me."

There you go:

http://tinyurl.com/2b5wphx

Jose, you've almost got it right. I'm not Jonathan Freedland though - I'm actually Jonathan Hoffman.

No, that's me! ;)

This comment by Ben Abuyah has been moderated

This comment by Joshua18 has been moderated

"I'm actually Jonathan Hoffman"

Ben Abuyah is lying and I have requested that s/he is banned for impersonation

You are a Jewbaiting lier

A QUESTION OF IDENTITIES

I am the Blacklisted Dictator who asks the "damnfool questions".

Anonymous is anonymous (otherwise this blog will be closed down!)

Joshua18 is not Adolf Hitler. The latter died in a bunker.

Jonathan Hoffman is Jonathan Hoffman. He has his photo to prove it.

No, I am Blacklisted Dictator - anyone else claiming to be Blacklisted Dictator is an impostor. You'll note that he has the same photo as me.

This comment by Blacklisted Dictator has been moderated

This comment by Joshua18 has been moderated

"Joshua18 is not Adolf Hitler. The latter died in a bunker."

That's what you think:

http://tinyurl.com/345ar38

Comments for this page are now closed.