Dean's World

Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Don't Get Fooled Again: The Reality of Kahanism

Some years ago Meryl Yourish and I had a fight over a couple of things that, in retrospect, were pretty stupid. Still, it was funny: a year or so after those incidents she wrote me to ask for a personal favor. She was entirely nice about it. I assumed this was an olive branch and complied. Since then we've exchanged short, polite emails a couple of times over mostly blogging-related matters. I didn't think we'd ever be friends again but I thought simple civility and courtesy were now a reasonable expectation.

Apparently not. Well, live and learn I guess.

Without responding to the slime spewed by Meryl and her commenters--the sexist, misandrist garbage about me, the slanderous claims about what I supposedly think about Judaism, or the shamefully Islamophobic nonsense--let me focus once again on my exact problem with the following video:


Lettre ouverte au monde entier
Uploaded by Tazda

I agree with much of what's said in that video, as I've said from the start. I quibble with one or two things. If they weren't the words of a deplorable man, I would find nothing worth remarking negatively upon. I'd have probably posted the video on Dean's World, with a hat tip, and said little more about it.

However, the fact is that Meir Kahane was an evil man. Weak-tea statements like "I do not agree with everything he stood for" while glowingly quoting him at length strikes me as a big mistake. That opens up the Israeli people, and their supporters, to the charge that they stand by terrorism and theocratic extremism and are thus "no better than" their enemies--which is stupid garbage. But Kahane, by his life and actions, made such bullcrap harder to refute. If most Jews hadn't thoroughly rejected him he'd be the poster child for Jewish evil rather than the minor footnote he deserves to be.

I've spent too many years, too much personal time and money, and taken too much abuse for defending Israel. I will not stand by while a murdering terrorist thug and embarrassment to humanist values is approvingly quoted and treated as merely a bit controversial.

Under the assumption that we are actually talking like rational adults, let me point to a few examples that might help Meryl and her friends understand my point. I'll start with some comparatively mild objections about Kahane. I will then move up to issues that I consider felonies and not misdemeanors. So if someone tries the trick of only responding to my more mild objections, or pretending I put them all on the same level, we'll all know better.

Minor objection #1, which might be called a nitpick:

Meryl approvingly notes that Israel respects gay rights and is proud about this. She and I completely agree about this--we're both liberal humanists after all. As I noted almost three years ago, the following quiz is reason alone for tolerant people everywhere to respect Israel. You don't have to "approve" of homosexuality to note what it says about an enlightened, tolerant society not to imprison and persecute such people, to prefer to talk to them rather than stone them.

What would Rabbi Kahane have said about this? Well, he wanted to throw every non-Jew out of Israel, get rid of most of Israel's democratic institutions, and bring in traditionalist, Orthodox religious rule throughout the country. He advocated turning Israel into an officially theocratic, Orthodox regime. Furthermore, the Kahanist official line has always been that homosexuality is "detrimental to the perpetuation of Jewish life."

Update: This just in, Kahanists lionize a man for stabbing a homosexual. Nice folks, those Kahanists.

I think we are safe to assume that there would be no gay pride parades if Rabbi Kahane's Israel came into existence; indeed, the Kahanists continue to do their best best stop such things.

Minor objection #2, a bit more serious:

Ehud Sprinzak some years ago wrote an excellent expose of Rabbi Meir Kahane, detailing Kahane's theocratic views. There's lots there to read but I found this part particularly revealing:

The Arabs are, taken together, the collective entity that, for Kahane, threatens Jewish existence; and the Israeli Arabs (there is no Palestinian nation for Kahane) are a highly explosive time bomb. The Arabs claim the same land as the Jews, refuse to recognize God's biblical prescriptions and would never be ready to settle for less than the whole. This places them in the same position as the native population of Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest, and all biblical rules and regulations adopted and applied by Joshua against the Canaanites are relevant today. Joshua, Kahane reminds us, sent the Canaanites three letters offering them three alternative courses of action: leave the land, fight for it and bear the consequences or peacefully surrender to the Jews and obtain the status of loyal "resident strangers." Any individual Arab is thus welcome to stay provided he fully accepts Jewish sovereignty, as well as the right upon which it is founded. Applying the rules of Halakha (written and oral tradition) according to his understanding, Kahane maintains that even in the case of complete submission, full rights of citizenship should not be given to "strangers." Only "strangers" who will obey the seven commandments of "Noah's sons," pay special taxes and submit to special labour regulations may remain. Following the "kingdom rules" of Maimonides, the "strangers" must also constantly be "humiliated and detested"

Does that sound like dhimmitude to you? It sure does to me.

I thought we were all proud of the fact that Arab citizens of Israel serve in its armed forces, in its government, and enjoy almost all the same rights that everyone else in Israel does. Israeli Arabs--not the Palestinians, but the actual Israeli Arabs who stood by Israel even when they were invaded--are treated with respect and friendship, and even gratitude. I've noted this myself many times as a reason to respect Israel. Would that every one of Israel's immediate neighbors was so tolerant of religious and ethnic minorities within their borders.

But Sprinzak notes that Kahane called for even Israeli Arabs to be expelled or at least treated with contempt and loathing. As Sprinzak noted, Kahane didn't just hate the non-Jews in Israel. He wanted them all gone, and the few who might stupidly remain should be treated with utter loathing and permanent second-class citizenship.

Minor Objection #3: To Kahanists, a Jewish woman who has sex with a non-Jew is a whore and a traitor to the Jewish people. If she doesn't deserve jail then certainly the man who had sex with her does. The Kahanists openly advocate this policy. They don't just frown upon miscegenation. They don't just condemn it. They don't even limit themselves to discouraging it. They want to make it punishable by law for a Jewish woman to have sex with a non-Jew.

I admit we are still in "controversial" territory here. I can understand why a reasonable Jew would say, "well maybe I support some of those ideas, or some parts of them," or even, "well I don't support much of that but I get where it's coming from." Either way, most would say, "we have higher issues we have to deal with right now--the protection of Israel."

I get that. So:

Not-So-Minor Objection #4: Kahanism is a terrorist movement.

If you read Sprinzak's expose, you'll find it's a pretty good introduction to Kahane's actual terrorist activities. The innocent people he beat up, the everyday people his followers hit with sticks and stones, the bombs they blew up or tried to blow up, the car bombs they set, the people he and his friends threatened to kill--and some of the people they actually did kill.

The Anti-Defamation League--an organization of which I am sometimes critical, but is certainly not anti-Jewish or anti-Israel--has a lengthy look at Kahane and his movement's violence. Click "show" below to see a few selections. By the way, the Jewish Defense League, mentioned repeatedly, is a Kahanist organization:

Those are just a few selections I chose almost at random; you should read the whole thing yourself.

Indeed, the ADL's listing isn't even complete. The Jewish Virtual Library notes one of the supreme ironies: Binyamin Zev Kahane, Rabbi Kahane's son, openly approved of the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Rabin was murdered in 1995 by a Kahanist terrorist named Yigal Amir, a member of a Kahanist offshoot group known as Eyal.

Got that? No Arab, no Islamist, murdered Yitzhak Rabin. A Jew proudly affiliated with Kahane murdered Yitzhak Rabin.

Worse, the Kahane organization, in their typical fashion, denied being part of the terrorist act but then said they approved of the action anyway.

This was not the first time a Jew was terrorized by the Kahanists. But it was the final straw for most Israelis.

So let's get something straight: it is not Dean Esmay who says Kahane and his followers are terrrorists. The U.S. State Department says so. The Council on Foreign Relations says so. The Israeli government says so. The Center for Defense Information's Terrorist Project says so. The Anti-Defamation League says so. Even Front Page Magazine, of all places, recognizes that Jewish terrorism is still terrorism, and notes a recent Kahanist atrocity from 2005.

"Are they as bad as bad as the Islamist terrorists?" is almost a cowardly question. Who gives a damn? Are they evil or are they not? Do you have the moral fortitude to answer that without equivocation?

I do not "think" Kahane was a terrorist, I know he was. And now everybody, including Meryl Yourish, knows it too. Kahanism = terror and oppression and barbarism. That being the case, here are a few simple questions:

Will you unequivocally denounce Rabbi Meir Kahane as the leader of a radical theocratic and terrorist movement that even Jews are not safe from being harassed, beaten, and murdered by? Or will you stick with a mealy-mouthed "well, I don't agree with everything, but..." or "yes but Dean Esmay is a bad, evil man" response?

We all make mistakes. The real question is whether we apologize for them and try to make amends.

(And by the way, see Dean Esmay, Terrorist Supporter if you're thinking I've never made the mistake of unwittingly supporting terrorists myself.)

Update: And by the way, I thought this blindingly obvious but maybe it needs to be stated: when a terrorist--a man who was a practicing terrorist before he ever even moved to Israel--takes it upon himself to speak for all of Israel, the unspoken assumptions behind his "we don't give a damn what anyone in the world thinks" rhetoric seem pretty obvious, do they not?

Friday, November 24, 2006

The Pledge

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

I'm not aware of any other nation on Earth which has a similar oath, but every American I know can recite that by heart. As children, we grew up reciting it every day in school. Every American who was born in this country knows that oath. They can recite it in their sleep. Conservatives especially tend to love it.

But here's the funny part: it was a liberal--a leftist socialist--who first formulated that pledge. His name was Francis Bellamy, and he was a Jimmy Carter-style liberal Democrat.

Ann Coulter must be having hissy fits over this news: a left-wing socialist in the Jimmy Carter tradition invented the Pledge of Allegiance. Worse, here is the pledge he actually wrote in the late 1800s:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

It was formulated to get young children past the wounds of America's great Civil War of the 1860s. It was meant to encourage children to see America as one nation, and to repudiate the war of secession that the South had lost.

By the 1920s the pledge was altered to read as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

At the time they thought this was a better formulation because the words "my flag" seemed vague. An immigrant might say "I pledge allegiance to my flag" and they might mean the flag of another nation. So this new version seemed a much more clear. It was not just any flag, it was the flag of the United States.

This is almost the version of the pledge that most Americans know today. But back then, a lot of Americans still objected to the pledge for religious reasons. They considered it a form of idolatry, and even slightly blasphemous. You pledge allegiance to a flag?? And to a republic?? Isn't that putting your government and its symbols above your faith in God???

So in the 1950s some liberals suggested this formulation: "one nation, under God," so that everyone would understand that pledging allegiance to the United States would not mean you were making faith in America more important than faith in God. Devoutly religious people could now recite the oath and not feel like they were betraying their faith.

What's funny about all this is that a lot of people today take the line "one nation, under God" as some kind of affirmation of America's religious nature. When in fact that line was added for the exact opposite reason: so that the devoutly religious could recite the oath and not feel like they were putting love of country above love of God.

None of this makes either liberals or conservatives comfortable today. Because it flies in the face of all of their prejudices. Let's review:

Fact: The pledge was invented by a liberal left-wing socialist from the same tradition that Jimmy Carter came from.

Fact: the pledge was never intended to be a religious oath, it was supposed to be an oath that helped people get past the arguments that led to the Great Civil War, and to realize that they lived in a truly great country.

Fact: the words "under God" were only added in the 1950s so that religious people would be comfortable reciting the oath, so they could affirm the oath without feeling like they were putting love of country above love of God.

By the way, in case you're curious: I'm basically a secular humanist and a deist. I oppose the idiots who want to take the words "under God" out of the pledge, and I utterly oppose those who want to take the words "In God we trust" off of our money and who seek to abolish religious symbols in government. I oppose such efforts completely, for I recognize that religion has always been part of what makes America great. They're wrong, they're totally wrong.

I also have absolutely no problem affirming this oath:

iwo jima

9/11

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

I do so pledge, without reservation.