Whilst Alan’s US publisher has the courage to publish his book “Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews”, they don’t have the finances to promote it. Book promotion usually involves getting the author onto radio talk shows, TV talk shows, book signing engagements, debates etc and as the purpose of his book is to stir up an honest debate about the situation, this kind of promotion is the current need of the time.
There are many organisations in the US willing to arrange all of this for Alan, but the cost of touring the US is a lot and contributing towards it is the best way that you can support Alan right now.
We’re trying to sort out a better donation mechanism, but in the meanwhile, PayPal has made it very easy and you can donate by following the PayPal link on the side.
― buzza, Friday, 6 December 2013 05:58 (five years ago) link
i thought rudy was reasonable but he's obviously slipped pretty far down the anti-semitic rabbit hole. sad. he probably thinks i'm another defensive pro-zionist jew who can't handle the truth.
― I dunno. (amateurist), Tuesday, 21 October 2014 05:05 (five years ago) link
― my jaw left (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 21 October 2014 13:27 (five years ago) link
Interesting review of a couple of new books on the subject: My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel by Ari Shavit and Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict by John Judis.
― o. nate, Wednesday, 22 October 2014 02:41 (five years ago) link
Yeah I read that and a couple of other similarly-themed articles at the time. It's sort of academic by now, but I don't agree with the premise that zionism necessarily has/had to become illiberal. The reality for me is that it has gone that way, but I think it could possibly have gone differently. From the beginning there were left zionists who didn't support expelling Palestinians. Maybe their position was an impossible contradiction, but they existed.
― my jaw left (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 22 October 2014 03:08 (five years ago) link
I agree it could have gone differently. The Freedland piece makes that point as well:
Still, believing that a Jewish national home had become a moral necessity is not the same as believing that the dispossession of the Palestinians was logically inevitable. The two views are separable. Judis’s central argument is that things could indeed have turned out differently, had Truman followed his instinct for evenhandedness between Jews and Arabs and backed the Zionism of Ahad Ha’am and his followers, who called for a binational state in Palestine...
The conventional view is that the vision of Ahad Ha’am and the Brit Shalom movement he inspired—which included Judah Magnes, Martin Buber, Henrietta Szold, and Gershom Scholem among others—was impossibly utopian and doomed to fail, that the two peoples were always fated to clash. Judis rejects that, insisting that Truman could have used US might to impose a binational solution on Palestine.
Others, including the political scientist Jerome Slater, argue that a binational state was not the only way that expulsion and dispossession could have been avoided. Slater describes plans in circulation at the time for voluntary resettlement by Arabs, along with substantial financial compensation, which might have made a Jewish state possible without much of the brutality that ensued.
These should be important questions for liberal Zionists because they challenge, at the very least, the notion that violent dispossession was unavoidable and inherent in the Zionist enterprise.
― o. nate, Thursday, 23 October 2014 02:19 (five years ago) link
Oh huh, I think I am mixing it up with a different piece.
― my jaw left (Hurting 2), Thursday, 23 October 2014 02:26 (five years ago) link
Also around that time some rando friend-of-friend told my wife she was "crying the crocodile tears of the liberal Zionist" which really pissed me off
Not a history but I think this is the nearest place to link this piece by John Berger on Mahmoud Darwish:
― xyzzzz__, Friday, 18 May 2018 13:51 (one year ago) link