person:john judis

  • Understanding the Trump/Sanders Constituencies : Inequality Is Something the Elites Did
    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/understanding-the-trump-sanders-constituencies-inequality-is-something-the-eli

    John Judis has an interesting piece in Vox on the success so far of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. They have garnered the support of large numbers of voters who are disaffected with the agenda pushed by the mainstream in both parties. Judis argues that this agenda, which he alternatively describes as “#neo-liberal” or “free market,” has been responsible for the rising economic insecurity of the white middle class. This insecurity has led Republicans to embrace Trump’s nationalistic and often racist agenda as well as Sanders’ openly left-wing agenda of a radically expanded welfare state.

    There is an important point that Judis leaves out of his story. The policies that have led to so much upward #redistribution were not simply “free market,” they were policies that were designed to redistribute income upward.

    #Régulation étatique en faveur des plus #riches

  • Jewish muzzling of pro-BDS speakers only makes them stronger - West of Eden Israel News | Haaretz
    By Chemi Shalev | Feb. 25, 2014
    http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/.premium-1.576418

    Critics, rivals and even outright enemies of Israel can take their shoes off. Relax. They don’ t need to exert themselves. They don’t have to launch recruitment drives. They don’t really require any infusion of funds. They can sit back and let self-professed Israel-defenders do their advertising and marketing work for them.

    This, after all, is probably the most lingering effect of the ever-expanding onslaught against proponents of Boycott, Disinvestment (BDS), Israel-bashers, anti-Zionists and others of their ilk. By closing the door on BDS supporters - and, more importantly, by chucking them out after they’ve already gained entry - these self-anointed guardians of the gate are providing their enemies with the kind of free publicity, automatic sympathy and sexy allure that money just can’t buy.

    Take Franz Kafka, for example. Were it not for Israel’s hyperactive and overzealous chaperones, no one but his most loyal fans would have known or cared that BDS champion Judith Butler had been invited to participate in a March 6 New York Jewish Museum discussion about the early-20th Century Prague-born author. Butler, after all, is a widely respected philosopher and literary theorist who is eminently qualified to speak about Kafka, while Israel, BDS and the future of Zionism were not supposed to be on the agenda for the March 6 event.

    Nonetheless, an anti-Butler campaign was launched, a brouhaha ensued, angry letters were written, donors got annoyed and Butler was duly axed. “While her political views were not a factor in her participation, the debates about her politics have become a distraction making it impossible to present the conversation about Kafka as intended”, the museum said in a statement.

    And what were the spoils of this big victory? The Jewish Museum was humiliated, those supposedly acting in Israel’s name were seen as intellectual-muzzling brutes, BDS received tons of exposure and free publicity it did nothing to deserve and Butler was cast as an heroic academic victim persecuted for sins she did not commit. The next time she comes to town, even for BDS, you can rest assured that her star power will be greater than ever – especially in the eyes of the young and impressionable.

    It is the Book of Genesis, remember, that shows us the seductive taste of forbidden fruit, even in the Garden of Eden, while the Book of Proverbs extols the unbearable sweetness of stolen waters. Things that are considered boring and humdrum when they are conducted freely and out in the open turn alluring and enticing when they are prohibited or censured or hidden from view. Younger people are inevitably drawn to the values their elders eschew: maintaining the status quo is usually considered tedious as hell.

    Jewish groups and organizations are under no obligation to invite anti-Israel speakers to their forums, but once they do so, they should stick to their guns. Succumbing to outside pressure casts their own management in a bad light, tarnishes the image of the pro-Israel community and puts a powerful spotlight on the very issues that their critics wish to suppress.

    This was true last year, when a BDS debate at Brooklyn College that no one had heard of turned into a national cause celebre because of ill conceived, politically motivated attempts to shut it down. It was true last month, when the Jewish Community Center of Washington D.C. disinvited David Harris-Gershon, author of What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife? because he had once said something vaguely supportive of BDS.

    And, in a prime example of zealous overreach and the slippery slope of stifling free speech, New York’s Museum of Jewish Heritage this week invited then disinvited then once again re-invited journalist/historian John Judis. What was his sin? He has written a new, revisionist history book about Harry Truman’s attitude towards Israel. You know who isn’t complaining about the kerfuffle? Judis’ bank manager and Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, who published his book.

    The same dynamic is playing out in college campuses across the U.S., where the Hillel powers that be are trying to clamp down on rogue Hillel chapters that have chosen to invite BDS supporters to speak. Whatever the merits of a Hillel-wide policy of refraining from inviting BDS supporters – and there are such merits – this is a faceoff that the “establishment” can only lose, especially if it maintains its heavy-handed my way or the highway tactics: it comes across as authoritative and narrow-minded, the renegade Hillel chapters are viewed as daring and non-conformist and the entire Judeo-Israeli complex is seen as being too defensive and too weak to withstand a few rounds of healthy debate.

    As the wily dwarf Tyrion Lannister says, in brutal Game of Thrones style, in George R. R. Martin’s A Clash of Kings: “When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

  • Le lobby pro-israélien s’active pour interdire tout débat sur l’histoire des relations entre Iaraël et les Etats-Unis
    http://www.pourlapalestine.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1743:le-lobby-pro-israe

    (...)En tant que Président, Truman était initialement opposé à la création d’un Etat juif. Il a tenté de promouvoir la création d’un état ou d’une fédération binationale judéo-arabe. Il a finalement abandonné en 1947 et rallié à l’idée de la partition de la Palestine en états distincts, mais il a continué à exprimer des regrets en privé de n’avoir pas atteint son objectif initial.

    Il soulignait le plus souvent sur ​​une "ingérence injustifiée" des sionistes américains. Après avoir reconnu le nouvel Etat, il a pressé le gouvernement israélien de négocier avec les Arabes sur les frontières et les réfugiés, et exprimé en particulier son dégoût à propos de "la manière dont les Juifs traitent le problème des réfugiés". »

    Revenons à la conférence que devait donner l’historien à New York. La date convenue entre John Judis et la direction du Museum of Jewish Heritage était le 1er juin prochain. Gabriel Sanders, directeur de la programmation des activités du musée, était en train de constituer un panel d’orateurs pour débattre avec l’historien à propos de son livre. Et puis, récemment, Gabriel Sanders a recontacté John Judis pour tout annuler, car "en haut lieu" le sujet de son œuvre est jugé "explosif", "on" craignait de vives réactions.

    Ce qu’une attaché de relations publiques du musée, interrogée par Philip Weiss, traduit par : « nous avons craint que la controverse occulte le contenu ». Bref : pas de vagues !

    C’est que si plusieurs organes de presse Etatsuniens ont rendu compte de l’ouvrage, jugé sérieux et important, il a aussi été l’objet de violentes attaques du lobby pro-israélien. Et bien entendu, cela ne pouvait manquer, certains commentateurs juifs lui ont prêté - notamment dans le Wall Street Journal - des sentiments antisémites. What else ?

    Judis est un sexagénaire considéré comme une personnalité discrète et pondérée. Et cet auteur très respecté aux Etats-Unis, appartenant à la tradition juive "libérale", est lui-même vu comme un partisan d’Israël, favorable à la "solution à deux Etats", supposée garante de l’avenir et de la sécurité de "l’Etat juif".

    Il vient sans doute de découvrir que tout débat intellectuel susceptible de déplaire au gouvernement israélien et à ses soutiens inconditionnels est virtuellement devenu impossible. Quiconque ne soutient pas sans discuter le gouvernement Netanyahou et sa clique fascisante jusque dans ses pires errements est automatiquement traité en ennemi, et aucun effort n’est épargné pour le réduire au silence.

    • Reflections on John Judis’s Genesis, and Its Critics
      http://www.jeromeslater.com/2014/03/reflections-on-john-judiss-genesis-and.html

      Judis’s central argument is that Harry Truman, while sympathetic to the plight of the Jews after the Holocaust and their need to find a homeland and place of refuge in Palestine, also thought that for reasons both of moral justice and strategic concerns over U.S. national interests in the Middle East, it was necessary to reach a solution that would be fair to the Palestinians. The best solution, Truman thought—and this is clearly Judis’s own preference—would have been the establishment not of the Jewish state of Israel but of some kind of binational Jewish-Palestinian state or federation.

      (...)

      A second theme in Genesis focuses on what Judis argues is an inconsistency and moral blindspot in the American Zionist movement which, while led by strong liberals such as Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter and others, abandoned their principles by privileging statehood for the Jews in Palestine over democracy and self-determination for the Palestinians. If they had been true to their principles, Judis argues, they would have recognized their moral obligation to support the few leading Zionists in Palestine, such as Judah Magnes and Martin Buber, who argued for the creation of a democratic binational state:

      “The outward logic of Zionism was impeccable,” Judis writes. “Jews wanted a genuine nation of their own where they could be secure from persecution and oppression. The trouble came when Zionists specified where that nation should be. Two thousand years earlier most Jews had lived in Palestine and a few thousand still did. But other peoples had also inhabited Palestine over the millennia, and Arabs had lived there for 1,400 years.” (15)

      Even so, Judis clearly does not favor the disestablishment of Israel today, for he goes on to argue that “the moral balance in Palestine and the case for a Jewish state” changed after that state became a fait accompli. As for how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved today, Judis does not argue for the replacement of Israel by a single binational state but supports the standard international consensus two-state solution, the only one that in his view (and mine) is morally justifiable and has any chance of being implemented.