Academia and Jews

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/711997.html

Being a student of History, and indeed having a passion for it isn't even a question for those that know me well. Surely, I take pride in my position as apart of academia.

Yet, I can help but shudder; and yes, even find myself agreeing with the political right after reading something by Chomsky or Judt, and their ilk. How can they despise Israel so, and yet ironically still call themselves jewish? Of course, that is a debate for another post; and not one I wish to focus on this time.

This time, I want to deal with a little (infamous) article by Judt "The Country that wouldn't grow up." This historically bereft article brought up some memories of a completely unrelated book called "Guns, Germs, and Steel." I remember digesting each and every page of word-vomit that this book containted. (Okay, okay, it wasn't all word vomit). However the tone of both were quite similar. "Guns, Germs, and Steel" was quick to posit it's thesis of explaining why western civilization has dominated the world thus far; yet continually provided P-C morsels of how "Americans are dumber..then the people of New Guinea" and even going on a diatribe about how white people really are devils. The tone of "The Country that wouldn't grow up" remains the same. Israelis are depicted as imperialistic, when nothing could be further from the historical evidence. In short, the general tone of both works of quasi-non-fiction is sneering; just short of juvenile ridicule.

Time and again through out Judt's article, he posits how the USA is being controlled by Israel; or more preciesly, jews. Just like the media, eh? As apart of academia, I urge Dr. Judt to re-examine his hysterical conspiracy theories.

The reason America and Israel support and agree with each other is both are democracies; both share a liberal set of rights guaranteed to their citizens. It is NOT due to some scant evidence supporting a blantly anti-semetic theory. The US, after all, gives even more money to Egypt then Israel; yet not an academic alive would dare posit that Egypt is under US control; preceisly because such a position is patently absurd. There is, after all, much more evidence of the overpowering effect of oil rich Saudi influence on American government policy then there is of Israeli influence.

Through out the article Judt frequently posits just how powerful Israel is. We all like to size up folks; in this case however he's making Israel seem like a veritable super-power. Full of what polical scientists call "Hard Power" (that is military power, as opposed to "Soft Power" that being cultural power). The fact is, Israel has a good sized arsenal, but lets disspell the myth that Israel is *the* bad boy on the block. Israel is the size of New Jersey; and the twenty-two other states in the mid-east are equivalent in size to the lower forty-eight states of the US. Israel has won every fight she's had. Lets keep in mind that Israel HAS to win every war that she's confronted with; because even a single loss against her Arab neighbors means her total destruction. It's like a matter of initiative; if you know your community could face the very real possibility of slaughter if it losses, you'll fight harder and be cogniscent of prepardness (It was prepardness that's saved Israel, NOT weapons - that is, constant training, and constant strategy). Just a side note; in terms of "Soft Power" Israel has a nearly infinite amount: it's the cradle of western religion; of western morals, of western values, of western courts, of literally, nearly all things western - and a signficant contributor of philosophy and concepts of equality (equality being a component of democracy). The only other nation that comes close in terms of sheer Soft Power would be Greece - indeed western europe and much of the rest of the western world comes to a distant third, fourth, fifth, etc. Perhaps that's a reason modern europeans seem to have such a jealous distaste for Israel.

Now, for a particularly ludicrous claim: "Charles De Gaulle realized that France's settlement in Algeria, which was far older and better established than Israel's West Bank colonies, was a military and moral disaster for his country."
No, your eyes don't deceive you.
Yes, that drivel actually came from someone that teaches.

First, France's occupation of Algeria was much more brutal then Israel with the West Bank. Lets also keep in mind that the jewish settlements are not "Israel's West Bank colonies," indeed, the Israeli government doesn't even have control over those persons that willingly move into area; and certainly don't encourage it. Additionally, referring to the jewish persons living in these settlements as "settlers" much less "colonists" is highly innaccurate and out-right pejorative. Why? The "West Bank" occupies land that is traditionally known as Judea/Judah, and Samaria. In other words, as jews, they have a historical right to exist and live in the land. Much more so then the French did in north africa.

The more discerning may note, however, that Judt states "Israel's West Bank colonies" not "Jewish West Bank colonies" (because Judt knows if he did say that he would be asked to leave History to people that can actually understand it). The fact is, however, "Jewish" doesn't just refer to religion, it's also an ethnicity. Israel is dominated by pracitioners of a particular religion, that being Judaism; this particular religion is practiced by a jewish people, an ethnic group unto themselves. Thus, Israel, like every other nation, is dominated by a particular majority ethnic group; such as Britain by Anglos, and China by Han-chinese.