So says J Street, commenting on the absurd and antisemitic “Seven Jewish Children.” More from David Hirsh here.
Subscribe to the Z Word blog via RSS - click on the orange button below. For more information on using RSS, please read this helpful guide.
RSS
- Z Word Merges With The Propagandist
- New Message from Hamas To Israelis: Leave Or Die
- Bob From Brockley Goes One State
- American Human Shields In Korea
- Gurvitz The Progressive Blogger
- Mercosur and Another Confusing Recognition
- The PA’s Choice: Palestinian State or Palestinian Cause
- Assange and Shamir
- Iranian Revolution: Lessons Learnt?
- Gideon Levy And The Dog That Doesn’t Bark
I left the following comment at the J Street blog:
“The decision to feature Seven Jewish Children at Theater J should be judged not on the basis of the play’s content but, rather, on its value in sparking a difficult but necessary conversation within our community.”
This is an insane idea. It’s like saying that the racist content of a work is not important because it will lead to debate.
Let’s republish then “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as well as “Mein Kampf.” Surely they too will spark debate.
Secondly, my fellow J people, do we really this modern day Prioress tale to spark debate. Hasn’t there been a debate all along?
Antisemitic propaganda plays will not spark debate it will make most people angry and some people self righteous.
Finally, most people are not as sophisticated as you think. Some of them will even use the play as an excuse for their own private hatreds to keep on hating.
You have taken the wrong approach with this decalaration.
David Hirsh points out that “Howard Jacobson and many others have judged that the play is antisemitic because it accuses Jews of bringing up their children in a particularly neurotic, dishonest and damaging way. That would be an antisemitic accusation, wouldn’ t it?”
Yes it is antisemitic not least for the reason David said. As a mother I wonder how many children those associated with the play like Ms. Churchill and Ms. Rose have?
On what basis to the dare criticize other people for bringing up their children in ways that the have (if they have any children). What model of child rearing do they propose? Should Jewish mothers imitate the way Muslims and more specifically Hamas mothers bring up their children? Should we adopt the Catholic model? Or maybe the free enlightened model of those who have children out of wedlock?
Perhaps they only want us not to tell our children about what happened to their grandparents and great grandparents in Europe and in Arab countries?
I’d be curious to know what they have in mind.
J Street just released a poll were they sem to misread its results.
“shows strong continued support among American Jews for assertive American diplomacy in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as in the Middle East generally. The results, which you can read in full below, demonstrate an understanding that difficult compromises will have to be made by both sides in order to bring true peace and security to Israel, the Palestinians, and the entire region.”
http://www.jstreet.org/campaigns/j-street-releases-new-poll-american-jewish-community
I’d be interested to read your own view of the poll and how J street assess these results.
I just posted this follow up comment on J Street:
J Street’s view of the play is solipsistic in as much as it believes that Jews, especially Zionists are the real obstacle to peace between Jews and Arabs.
We can talk about this antisemitic play till we turn blue and nothing will change.
We can blame ourselves about Hamas and nothing will change. We can abandon Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and antisemitism won’t change. In fact it will get as strong and as virulent as it was before 1948.
Take Hamas (a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood) for example. How many J Streeters have read their covenant?
Here is what Shlomo Avinery the Israeli leftist philosopher has to say about them in Haaretz:
“What to speak with Hamas about”
By Shlomo Avineri
“Recently, more and more voices have been heard saying that the only way to reach an Israeli-Palestinian accord is by talking to Hamas. These voices are not only in Europe but also in the United States. New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, for example, and Brent Sowcroft, who was national security adviser to the first president Bush, have said that without a dialogue with Hamas there will be no peace between Israel and the Palestinians. And if Israel refuses to do so, the Europeans or the Americans should begin a dialogue with Hamas. …
I believe they are right, but not for the reasons they cite. The question is what to talk to Hamas about. It is clear we have to talk with them - and Israel indeed does speak with them indirectly - about freeing kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit and achieving calm.
I believe we must talk to Hamas about other things too, like about what is written in their founding covenant. Most Israelis, as well as the Europeans and Americans, know that Hamas espouses the destruction of Israel. What most of them do not know is that Hamas’ founding document includes a much more comprehensive attitude, not merely to Israel and Zionism, but to the Jews.
The prologue to the covenant states that Hamas’ aim is a war - not against Israel or Zionism but against the Jewish people at large, since the Jews, and not merely Israel and Zionism, are the enemies of Islam.
And in order to remove any doubt, the entire chapter 22 is devoted to detailing the iniquities of the Jews.
According to Hamas, the Jews are responsible for all the ills of modern society - the French Revolution; the Communist revolution; the establishment of secret associations (Freemasons, Rotary and Lions clubs, B’nai B’rith) designed to help them gain control of the world by secret means. They control the economy, press and television; they are responsible for the outbreak of World War I, which they initiated in order to destroy the Muslim caliphates (the Ottoman empire), to get the Balfour Declaration and set up the League of Nations with the aim of establishing their state. They also initiated World War II in order to make a fortune from selling war materials; they use both capitalism and communism as their agents.
Sound familiar? Yes, some of it is taken directly from “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” and some, particularly the parts dealing with the world wars, is original.
Don’t tell me that these are merely words and Hamas must not be judged only on the basis of its covenant. Would anyone dare say that if a similar movement were to arise in Europe or America and, in addition to statements like these, was busy killing Jews?”
Read the rest for yourself here.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=1076694
And by the way, if J Street wants to stage Churchill’s clearly antisemitic play, why not offer a reading of Hamas’ covenant. That should give us something to talk about as well. I don’t mean this ironically since Churchill’s play is just so much pretentious bile, while Hamas’ covenant is a call to action and we must familiarize ourselves with what it says.
Forewarned is forearmed and the way to peace is through a thorough knowledge of what your enemy’s aims are. You can’t wish your way to peace.