From: Chris Kennedy (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jan 19 2009 - 07:05:53 PST
I agree with your first statement that there can be two Jews that disagree
with one another. Thatıs fair.
However, when you go into ³judeophobia², you are getting ridiculous. Itıs a
lot like when Bill Oıreilly questions the patriotism of an American who does
not believe in waterboarding or the war in Iraq. Slanders of hating America
were the common defense to disagreeing with American policies. Iıve been
against the Bush policies from the beginning. Does that mean that Iım a
self-hating American or suffer Ameriphobia? He said that we needed to kill
³them² over there so they wouldnıt kill ³us² in America. I still disagree.
You may argue that my analogy doesnıt hold because itıs about race rather
than nations (I would disagree, b/c Israel is very much a nation and is
acting like a nation upon a group seeking nationhood). And if so, than letıs
use the analogy of the carpetbaggers from the sixties in the US. Is that
whitophobia? Or, your previous descriptive of such things: ³Christian guilt
complex²*? And even if so, does that make their actions wrong?
(*Funny, though, Gerald Kaufman uses this diagnosis to explain why European
countries are supporting the Israelis, while you use it to explain why
theyıre supporting the Palestinians.)
You argued before that you like to keep things on the level of ³facts². But
then you decide via Foucault that the other argumentıs subject position is
unable to speak towards facts because their context either puts them outside
of the argument altogether or, even worse, is some self-hating paradigm that
creates an added level of victimization (³you canıt agree with me because
your historical context has made you hate your own people²).
The problem with throwing perceived subject positions into the arguments is
that it makes it impossible to discuss because both sides assume that the
other person is saying something because of a hidden position. We then make
conjectures about the otherıs subject position that, honestly, if actually
spoken, would smack of racism. Me saying, ³you take this position b/c of
this & this & this² and you saying, ³you take this position b/c of this &
this & this² would be rather insulting and juvenile. Itıs why some of the
discussion on this listserv has gotten out of hand.
I would hope that one would be able to transcend oneıs
historical/Foucauldian subject position to potentially see the other side
(rather than bomb it).
But even if one canıt, then I would stretch the argument to say that not
only is the violence in Gaza (on both sides) killing bodies, but itıs really
f*cking up future subject positions for the both of them. Clearly it is not
the appropriate solution to the problem.
Hope for the best,
On 1/19/09 12:00 AM, "FRAMEWORKS automatic digest system"
<email suppressed> wrote:
> From: malgosia askanas <email suppressed>
> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:33:13 -0500
> Subject: Re: Warsaw Ghetto
> So? Is his being a "British MP" or "Jewish" supposed to make his
> opinion authoratitive? All I can say is: in me and him you have two
> Jews (though not two MPs) who disagree with one another. It happens
> all the time, you know.
> BTW, without imputing anything to your minimalist textual jabs,
> perhaps it is worth stating that just because a person's opinion is
> also held by a Jew, doesn't exempt it from judeophobia. Firstly
> because, as good old Foucault never tired of pointing out, it matters
> *who* is speaking - there are no disembodied "opinions". And
> secondly, because Jews can be at least as judeophobic as anybody else.
>> >Gerald Kaufman, British MP. Jewish.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.