
Max and Facts
Max Blumenthal, not actually wanting to argue over the place of theology in the political sphere, has issues with the facts. To set him straight:
a) I don't live in a settlement.
b) Not that it's germane, given a), but the neighborhood in Jerusalem where I own an apartment (not live) was, mostly, on the Israeli side as part of the 1949 armistice agreement. In fact, it ended up being a no-man's land, although, from what I've heard from locals, parts of it were used by Palestinian shepherds for grazing. So it's disputed, at the very least.
c) It would come as a suprise to me if John Hagee's money ever reached this neighborhood -- such donations usually earn a prominent marker on the involved institution, and I've never seen Hagee or his organizations cited in the neighborhood. If Max wants to enlighten me, that's fine.
One thing he's right about: I can be long winded, if only because I like to work through an argument, to examine every side of it before jumping to conclusions.
But still.
So I'll make this brief: I really don't care about theologies and eschatologies when it comes to examining how people act -- unless they are expressly attempting to fulfill the specifics of an End Times belief.
So, if Hagee were planning to murder all but 144,000 Jews (and as I noted, it's not even clear he hews to that particular End Times scenario), yes, I would worry. A lot. If he says, though, that he believes that a power utterly beyond his control plans to include that atrocity at a time that Hagee would not presume to guess -- then, what can I say? That I find it distatesful? Sure. Relevant? No.
Of course there's a fat gray area between the lunatics who believe they are somehow channeling God's specific impulses and those who simply believe, and do not think their actions will affect the outcome. And it takes judgment to assess where a religious figure lies along that spectrum.
Max doesn't have a whole lot of it. Imagine, for instance, treating one of the 1980s era terrorists who planned to blow up the Dome of the Rock precisely the same way you would treat an Ethiopian Jew deboarding at Ben Gurion who believed his arrival was a tiny part of biblical prophecy fulfilled. Imagine treating a crazed mother who murdered her children at the behest of "voices" the same way you would treat at stockbroker who had a dream, woke up, quit his job and spent the rest of his life volunteering in soup kitchens.
Max thinks it's the same. Does John Hagee allow his theology to inform his choices? Of course; some of these I think are uncontroversial (Max is free to disagree), for instance, money that has gone to Barzilai hospital in Ashkelon. Some deserve scrutiny (as I pointed out), for instance, money that has gone to educational institutions in the West Bank -- or the propagation of notions of a secretive cabal that controls the world's finances that have had provable consequences in the last century.
In fact I've never heard of (and am happy to be disabused) of a major movement that used End Times theology to target Jews in our lifetime. And I don't see any evidence that Hagee wants to murder Jews, which essentially is what Max argues. In fact, Hagee is almost alone among evangelicals in arguing against proselytizing among the Jews -- and converting Jews is a critical element of the scenario that Max (free with facts) wants to foist upon Hagee.
And that's a calumny.
And Max, avoid getting personal. Ask the folks around you: It's a career killer.
6 Comments
Share This
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
Ron has said where his apartment is, it’s in East Talpiot. Here’s what the BBC had to say about his neighborhood in April, 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8020825.stm):
Construction has begun on approximately 60 new homes in a Jewish settlement in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem, the Israeli campaign group Peace Now says.
The work, in East Talpiot settlement, is aimed at creating a belt around East Jerusalem that would sever it from the rest of the West Bank, the group says.
Sounds like a great place Ron!
Adam, my little Stalinist enforcer,
The plan for the additional homes has been in the hopper for years. The Peace Now objection, as framed here—http://www.palestine-pmc.com/details.asp?cat=3&id=1174—has to do with how the homes will be positioned; they would, according to Peace Now, erase a natural line between an Israeli neighborhood —East Talpiot—and a Palestinian one.
East Talpiot: At the end of December 2007 Israel published tenders for construction of 400 new units in East Talpiot. The construction would establish Israeli housing only footsteps from the Palestinian neighborhoods of Sur Baher and Jabal Mukaber. Such construction will make any future separation between these Israeli and Palestinian neighborhoods more difficult. This is in all likelihood one of the goals of the project.
Hi Ron!
First off, you’re too sweet. So much for not getting personal.
Second, the issue was whether East Talpiot is considered a settlement or not. I posted the BBC article to show that the international community does consider it a settlement. Similarly the international community does not recognize the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem (and the no man’s land).
I should also say that I really admired your initial disclosure of owning the apartment in East Talpiot. I just don’t understand why you want to pretend now that it doesn’t matter? Nobody is saying you’re off poisoning Palestinians’ fields with the settlers down in the south Hebron hills, but East Talpiot is a settlement nonetheless.
Adam-
Forgive me for calling you a Stalinist.
I know the BBC describes East Talpiot as a settlement, I’m simply not sure if that extends to the international community. Like Ramat Eshkol and a sliver of the Galilee south of the Golan, these are areas that Israel claims according to the 1949 armistice line but that were subsequently occupied by Arab powers. (Israel’s neighbors have similar counterclaims, beyond lands captured in 1967; Jordan and Egypt have resolved these.)
In any case, I don’t object to the designation—like I said the neighborhood could be seen as being in dispute—as long as it relates to my coverage of Jerusalem and its neighborhoods which is why I disclosed it.
What I object to is how it crops whenever someone objects to what I report—and not even how I report it—and no matter how remote the fact is from my reporting. Some of the best and most honest reporting I’ve seen on settlements and issues pertaining to them has been by reporters I know who indisputably live in settlements. Repeatedly invoking this status is, I think, a creepy means of impugning my credibility—and all the more insidious because I made the disclosure in order to sustain my credibility.
Leave a Comment
To comment on this article, you must first be registered with JTA.
Not Registered?
There are real advantages to a FREE registration with JTA.org:
- Make your voice heard through comments on articles
- Receive our e-mailed Daily Briefing, an invaluable quick-read
- Help decide what Jewish news matters most with interactive tools
Register Now
Already a JTA member?
Not registered? Sign up now. It's fast and it's free.
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Bill Pearlman on The power of example -- the NIF, the attacks, and Goldstone
- david bedein on The power of example -- the NIF, the attacks, and Goldstone
- david bedein on The power of example -- the NIF, the attacks, and Goldstone
- Jeremiah Haber on The power of example -- the NIF, the attacks, and Goldstone
- Jeremiah Haber on The power of example -- the NIF, the attacks, and Goldstone



David
11/02/09 12:03 PM
Sorry, Ron, publish your Jerusalem address and let objective observers decide if it’s in a settlement.