Start with Part 1; Part 2.

ZIONISM AS A “RISKY STRATEGY”

Zionism was a risky strategy—to use Frank Salter’s term62—because it led to charges of dual loyalty. The issue of dual loyalty has been a major concern throughout the history of Zionism. From the beginnings of Zionism, the vast majority of the movement’s energy and numbers, and eventually its leadership, stemmed from the Eastern European wellspring of Judaism.63 In the early decades of the twentieth century, there was a deep conflict within the Jewish communities of Western Europe and the U.S., pitting the older Jewish communities originating in Western Europe (particularly Germany) against the new arrivals from Eastern Europe, who eventually overwhelmed them by force of numbers.64 Thus, an important theme of the history of Jews in America, England, and Germany was the conflict between the older Jewish communities that were committed to some degree of cultural assimilation and the ideals of the Enlightenment, versus the Yiddish-speaking immigrants from Eastern Europe and their commitment to political radicalism, Zionism, and/or religious fundamentalism. The older Jewish communities were concerned that Zionism would lead to anti-Semitism due to charges of dual loyalty and because Jews would be perceived as a nation and an ethnic group rather than simply as a religion. In England, during the final stages before the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, Edwin Montagu “made a long, emotional appeal to his colleagues [in the British cabinet]: how could he represent the British government during the forthcoming mission to India if the same government declared that his (Montagu’s) national home was on Turkish territory?”65

…

ZIONIST EXTREMISM BECOMES MAINSTREAM

Since the Second World War, there has been a long evolution such that the American Jewish community now fully supports the settler movement and other right-wing causes within Israel. Zionists made a great deal of progress during the Second World War. They engaged in “loud diplomacy,” organizing thousands of rallies, dinners with celebrity speakers (including prominent roles for sympathetic non-Jews), letter-writing campaigns, meetings, lobbying, threats against newspapers for publishing unfavorable items, insertion of propaganda as news items in the press, and giving money to politicians and non-Jewish celebrities in return for their support.80

By 1944, thousands of non-Jewish associations would pass pro-Zionist resolutions, and both Republican and Democratic platforms included strong pro-Zionist planks, even though the creation of a Jewish state was strongly opposed by the Departments of State and War.81 A 1945 poll found that 80.5% of Jews favored a Jewish state, with only 10.5% opposed.82 This shows that by the end of the Second World War, Zionism had become thoroughly mainstream within the U.S. Jewish community. … What had once been radical and viewed as dangerous had become not only accepted, but seen as central to Jewish identity. Read more

The U.S. abstention on the UN resolution on West Bank settlements continues to reverberate. Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech defending the U.S. position that included the following:

The Israeli prime minister publicly supports a two-state solution, but his current coalition is the most right-wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by its most extreme elements. The result is that policies of this government — which the prime minister himself just described as “more committed to settlements than any in Israel’s history” — are leading in the opposite direction, toward one state.

Obviously, the U.S., along with the rest of the world, sees through the Israeli lies that it has been pursuing peace and a two-state solution in good faith — after nearly 50 years of occupation. But what I want to focus on is his statement that the current Israeli coalition has “an agenda driven by its most extreme elements.” This was too much for British PM Theresa May, whose spokesman responded that “We do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally.”

But of course, it’s quite possible that a government fall into the hands of fanatics, and that may well be a problem for the rest of the world, especially in the age of nuclear weapons. The fact that fanatics are in charge in Israel is particularly a problem for countries like the U.S. where the Israel Lobby commands so much political and media support, with the result that the U.S. has often been in the position of giving diplomatic and military support to a government run by fanatics. This has meant either actively caving into their pressure (e.g., the Iraq war, promoted by Israel, the Israel Lobby, and neocons in the Bush administration) or turning a blind eye to Israeli actions (as with the decades-0ld official U.S. condemnation of West Bank settlements while doing absolutely nothing to curtail their diplomatic and financial support of Israel).

In the case of Israel, I think that the fact that the government has taken over by extremists is entirely comprehensible in terms of an understanding of the internal dynamics of Judaism. The following are excerpts from an article I wrote for The Occidental Quarterly in 2003, “Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism.”

Read more

The offending building owned by Richard’s mom

Current events oddly compel me to once again broach the subject of the newly most hated man in America: Richard Spencer. But this time the topic isn’t the man, but his mother. America is currently in the throes of a gripping drama known (by me) as “Richard Spencer’s Mom-gate.”

Most readers probably know the story. Richard Spencer’s mother lives in a small town in Montana. As Richard manages to get himself in the news quite a bit, his mother is increasingly being harassed by a predominantly Jewish local group. This consists of a shrewish Jewish real estate agent and a puzzlingly too-much-time-on-his-hands reform Rabbi, as well as others in a group ironically titled “Love Lives Here” that are determined to protest the fact that Richard Spencer has a Mom he loves who dares to live there.

Clearly, Spencer should either not have a Mom, or if he has to, she should live somewhere where there are no people to be offended by her existence. Maybe 20 miles east, up on a glacier. But not in a beautiful town named Whitefish (which, by the way, is the exact type of fish my own Mom uses in her homemade gefilte fish).

A beautiful town named Whitefish

Unfortunately, Spencer does have what appears to be a nice and reasonable mother who stands by her son despite disagreeing with and publicly disavowing his political views, which is exactly what I’d imagine my mother would do if she ever knew I wrote for The Occidental Observer. Richard Spencer’s Mom doesn’t understand her son’s views, and has absolutely no affiliation with any of his projects.  Yet somehow, the mere fact of their relation is enough to trigger some of Whitefish’s small Jewish community into trying to bully her into selling her property and donating some of the money to their organization.

This is all even more odd since Richard Spencer is not generally a fierce critic of Jews. From what I’ve read, I think he probably thinks that in an ideal world, most or all Jews should move to Israel. Many Israelis think this as well, but nobody’s harassing their Moms about it. My guess is that the Whitefishers follow Spencer news quite closely and were re-triggered by the recent media manufactured “hailgate”. Read more