Our Zoom call this week will be at our regular time: Friday at Noon EDT. Our guest will be Maytal Kowalski. Maytal says she was fired in August from the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver after objecting to its refusal to ask the Canadian government to oppose Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. We’ll talk about her experience and about the particular dynamics inside Canada that make Jewish institutions there even less tolerant of criticism of Israel than their counterparts in the US.
Ronnie Kasrils played a heroic role in the fight against apartheid. I agree with him that Palestinians deserve equality and freedom. I think he advised Hamas to cease attacks on civilians but he may well have interacted with them in ways I would not. Certainly I don't share the values of an Islamist group and oppose attacks on civilians. But I interview people I disagree with all the time: most recently, Benny Morris. Before that Bret Stephens and many others to my right. That's kind of the point of this. So why not Kasrils?
I'm not that old, but I'm old enough to remember that every single Republican presidential candidate was, according to the mainstream liberal left, the worst person in the universe and their election would literally cause the end of American democracy. The rhetoric was the same regardless of the candidate, whether it was Bush Jr, McCain, Romney, or of course Trump.
Let's talk about Mr. Romney, shall we? When he was running for president, he was the guy with the binders full of women. The guy who bullied a gay kid and shaved his head. The guy who tortured dogs. The guy who hated 47% of Americans. His Mormonism wasn't a sign that he respected American values, but that he was a religious ultra fundamentalist who hated women and wore magic underwear. And of course, let's not forget that according to Joe Biden, Romney was going to put Black Americans "back in chains."
So to come around now some years later and suddenly praise Romney and declare he's a decent fellow worth listening to, just because he doesn't like the latest evil Republican presidential candidate, just comes off as dishonest and disingenuous.
As for the Orthodox Jews who need to be taught a lesson, they've already learned their lesson, Beinart, from you and the progressive left. They know that you don't give a crap about them or their values. They know you only wrote this essay because you think you can use Romney's anti-Trump position to try to slay your personal dragon, AIPAC. Whether they agree with you or not, tomorrow you'll be back on the progressive warpath calling them Bible thumpers and their religious community illiberal, anti-women, and anti-gay. No one buys it. Go back to sucking up to the Palestinians, people who clearly share your values more than your fellow Jews.
Your comments on AIPAC are bizarre. AIPAC backing candidates who support Israel is their mandate, not other issues. Should AIPAC not back a candidate, for example, who is pro or anti abortion? From the AIPAC website: "AIPAC brings together Democrats and Republicans to advance our shared mission. Building bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is an American value we are proud to champion."
The problem with AIPAC from a liberal standpoint is that they are not policy-neutral in their advocacy for stronger bonds between Israel and the United States. That’s why it’s natural that they’re such a bogeyman on the American left—just like why the much less effective J-Street is hated on the right.
AIPAC is effectively the lobbying arm of the Israeli prime minister’s office in US Congress to push a pro-settlement / pro-Occupation / pro-war agenda, which is contrary to stated US liberal positions on Israel/Palestine and the middle east.
This was true when they vehemently opposed Bush Sr in 1991-92 for withholding loans over the settlements, pushed US support for the Iraq War in 2003, engaged in active partisan opposition to Obama’s 2015 JCPOA, and spent considerable cash in the last election cycle sinking even “pro-Israel” progressive incumbents and candidates on non-Israel related issues.
Actually, Paul, that is not accurate. AIPAC supports the objectives of the elected Israeli government. They are not aiming to direct policy at Israel, unlike JStreet. Should a different government be elected promoting a different agenda, for example Peace Now, as the majority of Israel supported before the murderous Intifada campaigns, AIPAC would be lobbying to support that government.
Well, yes, “AIPAC supports the objectives of the elected Israeli government” which invariably fall well to the right of American liberal progressives on settlements and occupation, even historically with elected Labor governments. It’s a lobbying arm of a foreign government in the US Congress. It’s not bizarre at all for American liberal progressives to oppose it.
One could argue that the food industry should be prevented from including 'added sugars' to their foods because of sugar's contribution to the obesity epidemic. But is that the fault of the sugar industry lobbying group?
One could also argue, to use another example, that Congressional lobbying efforts for more favorable regulations by US telecommunication device firms, like Apple, would be less objectionable than the same kinds of lobbying efforts by Chinese telecommunication device firms, like Huawei.
Or one might object to the promotion of a narrative that being reflexively “pro-business” in the context of American domestic politics was made to be synonymous with supporting regulatory policy that is more favorable to Chinese tech firms and contrary to long-standing bipartisan consensus.
In May 2007, during a visit to the Palestinian territories, Kasrils met with the Political Leader of Hamas Ismail Haniyeh and invited him to make his first visit outside the Muslim world to South Africa. South Africa's Jewish Board of Deputies criticised the invitation, saying the "racist ideology" of Haniyeh's Hamas organisation, which led the Palestinian unity government at that time, stood in contrast to South Africa's own post-apartheid ideals.
How can you give a platform to a person who met with Hamas…not to mention his Marxist rubbish that led to the current state of South Africa …which he laments
A person that speaks to Hamas based on revolutionary ideology should be beyond even your pale…it’s one thing for protagonists to speak (Israel and Hamas one day) but another for a putrid ideologically bankrupt loser like Kasrils…why not resurrect Hitler and invite him to speak
"How can you give a platform to a person who met with Hamas"
Why should meeting with Hamas *disqualify* someone from Peter's weekly call? I am curious to know why you think this should be a deal-breaker. I would think on the contrary that (a) having a guest who could inform listeners about Hamas would be a good thing, and (b) actually having met with Hamas would be part of how a guest would be informed about Hamas.
Peter, I am a friend of your father and studied under him in Cape Town, as did my late husband Tony. You ask about Ronnie Kasrils. I think my friend Barbara Meyerowitz abd her husband Colin May know how to contact him if he is still alive. She lives in Australia, ex Johannesburg. If you have difficulty contacting her I can do it for you, or send her an email from you
Interesting. I am not a jew, and most of the Jews I do know are secular and not political. However, I do get angry when I see the Canadian Political Parties take stands that are not reflective of my interests as a Western Canadian due to lobbying by the Canadian Jewish Congress. This is on many issues, but primarily in respect to getting involved in things in the world that are none of our business.
In talking to business people, I see them becoming resentful of that influence. Long term, creating resentment on the part of non-Jewish Canadians is not a good strategy. Calling people who point this out antisemite is even worse, and if not curtailed will end badly.
I am writing this here, because I hope that there are fair minded people of the Jewish faith that can speak within the Jewish community as to how damaging the Canadian Jewish Congress is to the long term relationship of Jews with the rest of Canadians.
John, Canadian Jews have every right to lobby their government on whatever issue they want. Most adults know that a diverse society will have different people with different interests and people will always pursue their interests. Whining about it and making subtle threats like saying it "will end badly" for them if they don't stop is a very bad look.
Beinart, any thoughts on John and his unnamed "business people" being "resentful" towards Jews because of the CJC's lobbying? Besides I assume agreement?
They have the right to lobby as Citizens of Canada. They do not have the right to smear and degrade, and intimidate elected officials. Also, as Canadians, I would like them to put the interests of Canada forward. They do not have the right to make my interests as Canadian secondary to their own.
I see. So now, Canadian Jews don't just lobby the government in a way you don't like. They "smear, degrade, and intimidate elected officials" and are working against the interests of Canada, with no evidence of course. It's just another day on Peter Beinart's Substack.
Insightful backstory. I keep learning from you. When will the day come that persecution of any people be deemed equally needing to be remembered so as to never happen again to anyone?
Anonymous, do you disagree with the notion that expulsion is in the Zionist Jewish DNA? Is your view that the expulsions done by organized Zionist Jewish military power are better explained by some kind of "nurture" instead of the "nature" of the ideology?
No, Peter, I’m not a racist. Any expulsions that happened during the 1948 war were a consequence of the Arab leadership choosing to wage a genocidal war against the Jewish population of the former British Mandate.
Let’s not forget the ethnic cleansing of the Jews by the Palestinians and their Arab allies was more complete than anything done by the “Zionists.” Does that tell you anything about the Arab DNA? I would think not.
Saying that "expulsion is in the Zionist Jewish DNA" is not saying anything about a "race"; it's saying something about an ideology held by a group of people. The point (whether you agree with it or not) being that expulsion is part of the inherent nature of the Zionist Jewish movement, rather than being something that can be attributed to circumstances. It actually makes sense to include the word "Jewish" in this context, because the expulsions are carried out by Jewish Zionists, not by non-Jewish Zionists who support them.
For an analogy, someone might argue that "Territorial expansion is in the DNA of the white United States of America" when describing at least the first century of the history of the USA and saying something about the fact of its territorial expansion.
I notice in your own analogy you forgot to mention an ideology, instead generalizing millions of individuals because of the actions of a government. Not every American nor every white American was involved in territorial expansions.
But let me throw you a bone and follow your logic train. I take it then you would see nothing racist in the statement “Butchering children with knives is in the Palestinian nationalist Arab DNA?” That would be a perfectly legitimate criticism? I think not.
Anonymous, thank you for asking for clarification. For the analogy with the other two examples to work, the statement "Butchering children with knives is in the Palestinian nationalist Arab DNA" would have to assume that it's an agreed fact that butchering children with knives is or was something done intentionally and systematically by the organized Palestinian nationalist Arab movement -- like expulsions carried out by the state of Israel, which is the institutional expression of Zionist Jews, or the territorial expansion of the USA, which is (or at least was) the institutional expression of the white people of the United States of America. It's not that I'm "generalizing millions of individuals because of the actions of a government", but rather that I'm talking about these two governments as the institutional expressions of the people adhering to their respective ideologies, a fact that nobody questions about these governments, whether their attitude to either one is of love, hate, or indifference.
I would say that there's something racist in "Butchering children with knives is in the Palestinian nationalist Arab DNA" because it paints Palestinian Arabs -- even if only "nationalist" ones -- with the broad brush of butchering children with knives. Based on what evidence? Contrast with expulsion by Zionist Jews: that's an established fact (that people either condemn or defend) carried out systematically and intentionally as directed by the leadership of the organized institutional expression of Zionist Jews.
I am guessing that you wouldn't find something racist in the statement "rounding up the Jews and murdering them was in the Nazi German DNA."
I’ve become a subscriber but there’s no information that Incan find about how to access the Friday “Paid Subscriber” Zoom call mention at the beginning of the podcast.
Golden plates and multiple wives. All religion is Mickey Mouse but Mormonism is just a joke. Catholicism is dangerous. Did you read yesterday that in 1940 the POPE received information from a Catholic Bishop in Germany -- thus he could trust it-- about the gassing of Jews.? He did nothing, of course. Why? They killed our Lord JC.
Quite true. I'm not particularly interested in the religious reasons for people's political views. Religion and its so-called holy texts can be used to excuse anything, such as the religious Zionists justifying the Nakba on the grounds that Yahweh gave them the land. As for Catholicism, it is of course not just its vast crimes against children and young women, but its deep affinity with Nazism.
Exactly, James. Religion sucks and religious followers are dumb, except in this one particular instance when religion is used to justify being anti-Trump, and then it's great. It's called intellectual dishonesty.
So true! I grew up in Canada and went to a modern Orthodox high school, and can speak firsthand to the near-fanatical reverence for Israel in that circle.
Hamas is ideologically and religiously anti semitic and Salafist …they only meet with ideologues like him to promote revolution and to be able to say they have met with a “Jew.” We don’t need him to tell us what Hamas thinks or what their goals are …or to act as a dupe to say they have a more pragmatic side. The only time Hamas is willing to stop its violence is by Hudna which is basically a tactical truce which it can negotiate/agree to with other parties without the help of a washed up Marxist
It is important to understand and remember that Romney's political viewpoints primarily represented and supported the wealthy and the white. His religious beliefs are tied to this point of view. He was both an economic and a cultural conservative based, largely, on his religious outlook. If one considers oneself anything other than a traditional Republican conservative, opposed to universal health insurance and even Obamacare, in favor of cutting taxes to the wealthy for the questionable purpose of growing the economy, please don't celebrate either Romney, the person, or his legacy. Yes, he opposed the corruption of Trump, but he is no hero to the ordinary American.
That's exactly what we saw in Communist Russia. ;) Nothing wrong with communism per se, but when it becomes a dogmatic, violent, dominating ideology used to force people to its will..... obviously this happens with other political/economic ideologies and countries... just giving one example.
Secular ideologies can be just as "religious" as any sort of faith tradition. It's the domination and dogma that is the issue, not the religion. And all faith and non-faith ideologies/tradtitions have BOTH flavors of domination/violence and self-emptying love/non-violence. None have monolithic narratives or practices. That's important to distinguish if the conversation is going to stay honest/productive.
Short strategy, stick with the folks showing love, self-interrogation, and non-violence, and awareness of our interconnectedness and how that effects us all whether that is coming from a secular or religious informed way of thinking. And walk away from the ones cool with domination, violence, and exclusive tribalism. You'll find folks like that coming from both secular and religiously informed ideas too. If you lump everyone in the religious or secular as being one certain way, you'll miss out on more opportunities for perspective and peace. People of all faiths and non faiths will surprise us in ways both wonderful and disappointing. The hopeful thing is that all individual can grow and evolve too! This is less likely if we just dismiss them and wish them away.
Honestly, two of my friends who were involved with Oslo Peace Accords on both sides said that is ultimately why they failed.. the powers that be wanted to to wish away the religious people. The best way to peace is to understand religion and religious people (for better or worse), not to just want them and these things most humans find valuable in to not exist. There is no love in that response, just anger (which is totally understandable and appropriate to name without stereotyping seeing as the way so many manipulate religion for egregious things), but ultimately that anger and dismissal will not lead to peace. At the end of the day, I think that's what we all want, so we need each other to get there.
Ronnie Kasrils played a heroic role in the fight against apartheid. I agree with him that Palestinians deserve equality and freedom. I think he advised Hamas to cease attacks on civilians but he may well have interacted with them in ways I would not. Certainly I don't share the values of an Islamist group and oppose attacks on civilians. But I interview people I disagree with all the time: most recently, Benny Morris. Before that Bret Stephens and many others to my right. That's kind of the point of this. So why not Kasrils?
Carol, someone put me in touch with Kasrils. So nice to have a former student of my dad's as a reader. Thanks.
I'm not that old, but I'm old enough to remember that every single Republican presidential candidate was, according to the mainstream liberal left, the worst person in the universe and their election would literally cause the end of American democracy. The rhetoric was the same regardless of the candidate, whether it was Bush Jr, McCain, Romney, or of course Trump.
Let's talk about Mr. Romney, shall we? When he was running for president, he was the guy with the binders full of women. The guy who bullied a gay kid and shaved his head. The guy who tortured dogs. The guy who hated 47% of Americans. His Mormonism wasn't a sign that he respected American values, but that he was a religious ultra fundamentalist who hated women and wore magic underwear. And of course, let's not forget that according to Joe Biden, Romney was going to put Black Americans "back in chains."
So to come around now some years later and suddenly praise Romney and declare he's a decent fellow worth listening to, just because he doesn't like the latest evil Republican presidential candidate, just comes off as dishonest and disingenuous.
As for the Orthodox Jews who need to be taught a lesson, they've already learned their lesson, Beinart, from you and the progressive left. They know that you don't give a crap about them or their values. They know you only wrote this essay because you think you can use Romney's anti-Trump position to try to slay your personal dragon, AIPAC. Whether they agree with you or not, tomorrow you'll be back on the progressive warpath calling them Bible thumpers and their religious community illiberal, anti-women, and anti-gay. No one buys it. Go back to sucking up to the Palestinians, people who clearly share your values more than your fellow Jews.
Jews have a much more extensive history of persecution in the United States than Mormons. I don't think your logic tracks, Peter.
Thoughtful/Winters credibly threatened me in another thread here. Just letting everyone know the integrity of the person you’re dealing with here.
we send the zoom to paid subscribers every wednesday
Your comments on AIPAC are bizarre. AIPAC backing candidates who support Israel is their mandate, not other issues. Should AIPAC not back a candidate, for example, who is pro or anti abortion? From the AIPAC website: "AIPAC brings together Democrats and Republicans to advance our shared mission. Building bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is an American value we are proud to champion."
The problem with AIPAC from a liberal standpoint is that they are not policy-neutral in their advocacy for stronger bonds between Israel and the United States. That’s why it’s natural that they’re such a bogeyman on the American left—just like why the much less effective J-Street is hated on the right.
AIPAC is effectively the lobbying arm of the Israeli prime minister’s office in US Congress to push a pro-settlement / pro-Occupation / pro-war agenda, which is contrary to stated US liberal positions on Israel/Palestine and the middle east.
This was true when they vehemently opposed Bush Sr in 1991-92 for withholding loans over the settlements, pushed US support for the Iraq War in 2003, engaged in active partisan opposition to Obama’s 2015 JCPOA, and spent considerable cash in the last election cycle sinking even “pro-Israel” progressive incumbents and candidates on non-Israel related issues.
Actually, Paul, that is not accurate. AIPAC supports the objectives of the elected Israeli government. They are not aiming to direct policy at Israel, unlike JStreet. Should a different government be elected promoting a different agenda, for example Peace Now, as the majority of Israel supported before the murderous Intifada campaigns, AIPAC would be lobbying to support that government.
Well, yes, “AIPAC supports the objectives of the elected Israeli government” which invariably fall well to the right of American liberal progressives on settlements and occupation, even historically with elected Labor governments. It’s a lobbying arm of a foreign government in the US Congress. It’s not bizarre at all for American liberal progressives to oppose it.
One could argue that the food industry should be prevented from including 'added sugars' to their foods because of sugar's contribution to the obesity epidemic. But is that the fault of the sugar industry lobbying group?
One could also argue, to use another example, that Congressional lobbying efforts for more favorable regulations by US telecommunication device firms, like Apple, would be less objectionable than the same kinds of lobbying efforts by Chinese telecommunication device firms, like Huawei.
Or one might object to the promotion of a narrative that being reflexively “pro-business” in the context of American domestic politics was made to be synonymous with supporting regulatory policy that is more favorable to Chinese tech firms and contrary to long-standing bipartisan consensus.
Israel’s not even in the top 10 of foreign lobbyists: https://www.opensecrets.org/fara
First of all-Ronnie Kasrils…?
In May 2007, during a visit to the Palestinian territories, Kasrils met with the Political Leader of Hamas Ismail Haniyeh and invited him to make his first visit outside the Muslim world to South Africa. South Africa's Jewish Board of Deputies criticised the invitation, saying the "racist ideology" of Haniyeh's Hamas organisation, which led the Palestinian unity government at that time, stood in contrast to South Africa's own post-apartheid ideals.
How can you give a platform to a person who met with Hamas…not to mention his Marxist rubbish that led to the current state of South Africa …which he laments
A person that speaks to Hamas based on revolutionary ideology should be beyond even your pale…it’s one thing for protagonists to speak (Israel and Hamas one day) but another for a putrid ideologically bankrupt loser like Kasrils…why not resurrect Hitler and invite him to speak
"How can you give a platform to a person who met with Hamas"
Why should meeting with Hamas *disqualify* someone from Peter's weekly call? I am curious to know why you think this should be a deal-breaker. I would think on the contrary that (a) having a guest who could inform listeners about Hamas would be a good thing, and (b) actually having met with Hamas would be part of how a guest would be informed about Hamas.
Peter, I am a friend of your father and studied under him in Cape Town, as did my late husband Tony. You ask about Ronnie Kasrils. I think my friend Barbara Meyerowitz abd her husband Colin May know how to contact him if he is still alive. She lives in Australia, ex Johannesburg. If you have difficulty contacting her I can do it for you, or send her an email from you
My name is Carol Barac (née Cohen)
Interesting. I am not a jew, and most of the Jews I do know are secular and not political. However, I do get angry when I see the Canadian Political Parties take stands that are not reflective of my interests as a Western Canadian due to lobbying by the Canadian Jewish Congress. This is on many issues, but primarily in respect to getting involved in things in the world that are none of our business.
In talking to business people, I see them becoming resentful of that influence. Long term, creating resentment on the part of non-Jewish Canadians is not a good strategy. Calling people who point this out antisemite is even worse, and if not curtailed will end badly.
I am writing this here, because I hope that there are fair minded people of the Jewish faith that can speak within the Jewish community as to how damaging the Canadian Jewish Congress is to the long term relationship of Jews with the rest of Canadians.
John, Canadian Jews have every right to lobby their government on whatever issue they want. Most adults know that a diverse society will have different people with different interests and people will always pursue their interests. Whining about it and making subtle threats like saying it "will end badly" for them if they don't stop is a very bad look.
Beinart, any thoughts on John and his unnamed "business people" being "resentful" towards Jews because of the CJC's lobbying? Besides I assume agreement?
They have the right to lobby as Citizens of Canada. They do not have the right to smear and degrade, and intimidate elected officials. Also, as Canadians, I would like them to put the interests of Canada forward. They do not have the right to make my interests as Canadian secondary to their own.
I see. So now, Canadian Jews don't just lobby the government in a way you don't like. They "smear, degrade, and intimidate elected officials" and are working against the interests of Canada, with no evidence of course. It's just another day on Peter Beinart's Substack.
כן אנונימי, סתם עוד יום בגן עדן.
Sea Seán, lá eile ag bualadh leo siúd atá difriúil uait.
Insightful backstory. I keep learning from you. When will the day come that persecution of any people be deemed equally needing to be remembered so as to never happen again to anyone?
I would say the day people stop making comments like “expulsion is in the Zionist Jewish DNA.” Know anyone who would say something like that, Sam?
Anonymous, do you disagree with the notion that expulsion is in the Zionist Jewish DNA? Is your view that the expulsions done by organized Zionist Jewish military power are better explained by some kind of "nurture" instead of the "nature" of the ideology?
No, Peter, I’m not a racist. Any expulsions that happened during the 1948 war were a consequence of the Arab leadership choosing to wage a genocidal war against the Jewish population of the former British Mandate.
Let’s not forget the ethnic cleansing of the Jews by the Palestinians and their Arab allies was more complete than anything done by the “Zionists.” Does that tell you anything about the Arab DNA? I would think not.
Saying that "expulsion is in the Zionist Jewish DNA" is not saying anything about a "race"; it's saying something about an ideology held by a group of people. The point (whether you agree with it or not) being that expulsion is part of the inherent nature of the Zionist Jewish movement, rather than being something that can be attributed to circumstances. It actually makes sense to include the word "Jewish" in this context, because the expulsions are carried out by Jewish Zionists, not by non-Jewish Zionists who support them.
For an analogy, someone might argue that "Territorial expansion is in the DNA of the white United States of America" when describing at least the first century of the history of the USA and saying something about the fact of its territorial expansion.
I notice in your own analogy you forgot to mention an ideology, instead generalizing millions of individuals because of the actions of a government. Not every American nor every white American was involved in territorial expansions.
But let me throw you a bone and follow your logic train. I take it then you would see nothing racist in the statement “Butchering children with knives is in the Palestinian nationalist Arab DNA?” That would be a perfectly legitimate criticism? I think not.
Anonymous, thank you for asking for clarification. For the analogy with the other two examples to work, the statement "Butchering children with knives is in the Palestinian nationalist Arab DNA" would have to assume that it's an agreed fact that butchering children with knives is or was something done intentionally and systematically by the organized Palestinian nationalist Arab movement -- like expulsions carried out by the state of Israel, which is the institutional expression of Zionist Jews, or the territorial expansion of the USA, which is (or at least was) the institutional expression of the white people of the United States of America. It's not that I'm "generalizing millions of individuals because of the actions of a government", but rather that I'm talking about these two governments as the institutional expressions of the people adhering to their respective ideologies, a fact that nobody questions about these governments, whether their attitude to either one is of love, hate, or indifference.
I would say that there's something racist in "Butchering children with knives is in the Palestinian nationalist Arab DNA" because it paints Palestinian Arabs -- even if only "nationalist" ones -- with the broad brush of butchering children with knives. Based on what evidence? Contrast with expulsion by Zionist Jews: that's an established fact (that people either condemn or defend) carried out systematically and intentionally as directed by the leadership of the organized institutional expression of Zionist Jews.
I am guessing that you wouldn't find something racist in the statement "rounding up the Jews and murdering them was in the Nazi German DNA."
I’ve become a subscriber but there’s no information that Incan find about how to access the Friday “Paid Subscriber” Zoom call mention at the beginning of the podcast.
Golden plates and multiple wives. All religion is Mickey Mouse but Mormonism is just a joke. Catholicism is dangerous. Did you read yesterday that in 1940 the POPE received information from a Catholic Bishop in Germany -- thus he could trust it-- about the gassing of Jews.? He did nothing, of course. Why? They killed our Lord JC.
Quite true. I'm not particularly interested in the religious reasons for people's political views. Religion and its so-called holy texts can be used to excuse anything, such as the religious Zionists justifying the Nakba on the grounds that Yahweh gave them the land. As for Catholicism, it is of course not just its vast crimes against children and young women, but its deep affinity with Nazism.
Exactly, James. Religion sucks and religious followers are dumb, except in this one particular instance when religion is used to justify being anti-Trump, and then it's great. It's called intellectual dishonesty.
Thoughtful/Winters credibly threatened me in another thread here. Just letting everyone know the integrity of the person you’re dealing with here.
So true! I grew up in Canada and went to a modern Orthodox high school, and can speak firsthand to the near-fanatical reverence for Israel in that circle.
Hamas is ideologically and religiously anti semitic and Salafist …they only meet with ideologues like him to promote revolution and to be able to say they have met with a “Jew.” We don’t need him to tell us what Hamas thinks or what their goals are …or to act as a dupe to say they have a more pragmatic side. The only time Hamas is willing to stop its violence is by Hudna which is basically a tactical truce which it can negotiate/agree to with other parties without the help of a washed up Marxist
Paul Krugman wrote about Mitt Romney and his true legacy in the NYT Editorial today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/18/opinion/economic-conservatives-extremism.html?searchResultPosition=3
It is important to understand and remember that Romney's political viewpoints primarily represented and supported the wealthy and the white. His religious beliefs are tied to this point of view. He was both an economic and a cultural conservative based, largely, on his religious outlook. If one considers oneself anything other than a traditional Republican conservative, opposed to universal health insurance and even Obamacare, in favor of cutting taxes to the wealthy for the questionable purpose of growing the economy, please don't celebrate either Romney, the person, or his legacy. Yes, he opposed the corruption of Trump, but he is no hero to the ordinary American.
What you say has to be heard. By the end of this century RELIGION should be dead, but that is too long to wait.
Be careful what you wish for. If humans have an innate “religiousness” bias, you may not like what replaces traditional organized religions.
That's exactly what we saw in Communist Russia. ;) Nothing wrong with communism per se, but when it becomes a dogmatic, violent, dominating ideology used to force people to its will..... obviously this happens with other political/economic ideologies and countries... just giving one example.
Secular ideologies can be just as "religious" as any sort of faith tradition. It's the domination and dogma that is the issue, not the religion. And all faith and non-faith ideologies/tradtitions have BOTH flavors of domination/violence and self-emptying love/non-violence. None have monolithic narratives or practices. That's important to distinguish if the conversation is going to stay honest/productive.
Short strategy, stick with the folks showing love, self-interrogation, and non-violence, and awareness of our interconnectedness and how that effects us all whether that is coming from a secular or religious informed way of thinking. And walk away from the ones cool with domination, violence, and exclusive tribalism. You'll find folks like that coming from both secular and religiously informed ideas too. If you lump everyone in the religious or secular as being one certain way, you'll miss out on more opportunities for perspective and peace. People of all faiths and non faiths will surprise us in ways both wonderful and disappointing. The hopeful thing is that all individual can grow and evolve too! This is less likely if we just dismiss them and wish them away.
Honestly, two of my friends who were involved with Oslo Peace Accords on both sides said that is ultimately why they failed.. the powers that be wanted to to wish away the religious people. The best way to peace is to understand religion and religious people (for better or worse), not to just want them and these things most humans find valuable in to not exist. There is no love in that response, just anger (which is totally understandable and appropriate to name without stereotyping seeing as the way so many manipulate religion for egregious things), but ultimately that anger and dismissal will not lead to peace. At the end of the day, I think that's what we all want, so we need each other to get there.