April 14, 2008

The Bintel Blog has a good post defending the Zionism of Albert Einstein (yes, that Einstein):

Was Albert Einstein “the first post-Zionist”? Jason Maoz, editor of the right-wing Orthodox weekly, The Jewish Press, thinks so. In fact, Maoz goes so far as to suggest that the famed physicist could properly be labeled a “villain.”

“Einstein, because of his iconic status as the 20th century’s preeminent scientific genius, has largely escaped Jewish criticism for his antipathy to the notion of a Jewish state,” writes Maoz, who isn’t one to give the wild-haired physicist a free pass.

Alas, Maoz presents a very selective presentation of the relevant facts, cherry-picking quotes that paint Einstein in the worst possible light. True, Einstein was critical of political Zionism and disliked the idea of a specifically Jewish state. But Einstein also lent his voice and his celebrity to the Zionist cause of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine — and he did so at the early date of 1920. He remained a consistent and strong advocate of the effort to settle Jews in Palestine, and he publicly berated the Diaspora anti-Zionists of the American Council for Judaism, calling the group “a pitiable attempt to obtain favor and toleration from our enemies by betraying true Jewish ideals.” And when Israel was founded, he hailed the newborn state’s achievements, expressing his “joy and admiration” in a 1949 radio address.

Did history prove Einstein naïve and wrong (perhaps even somewhat dangerously so) on the question of a Jewish state? Certainly. His almost-unshakable faith in the immediate possibility of harmonious co-existence between Jews and Arabs in Palestine led him to overlook certain harsh realities. Einstein believed that if not for the policies of Britain, the Arabs of Palestine would have peacefully accepted the mass-influx of Jewish immigrants. This was clearly unrealistic.

In fact, that optimism was shared by another titan of the Tribe in the 20th century: Theodor Herzl, whose Utopian dreams of coexistence in Zion were detailed in his novel “Altneuland.”

Here is footage of Einstein meeting David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister.

Barack Obama’s recent closed-door comment about “bitter” country folk who “cling to guns or religion” has been getting a lot of play, thanks in large part to Hillary Clinton’s willingness to castigate him for it. Here’s more via Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish:

Bill Kristol, trained in the same politics as Hillary Clinton, now argues that Obama’s remarks in a fundraiser q and a are the “real Obama” – and that his voluminous writing and speaking about the sincerity of his own religious faith, and of others, are presumably “masks.” The reason for inferring Obama’s Marxism is the following point Obama artlessly made about the way in which economic distress can alter people’s tolerance for others:

  “It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Is this indistinguishable from saying, along with Marx, that all religion is an obviously false consciousness caused by the alienation of the world-historical class struggle? No, it obviously isn’t. It’s saying that economic distress does often in human history express itself in more rigid forms of religion, more reactionary cultural identification, less tolerance of “the other.” Since large swathes of human history have shown this to be true – and perfectly arguable without any materialist understanding of religion – Kristol is deliberately distorting to paint Obama as a cynical manipulator of religious faith for political ends, rather than as a genuine Christian. He’s calling him a lying, Godless communist.

(Image: Time)

At the Democratic presidential forum last night, Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked a question quite comical when considering the event’s host (Messiah College in Pennsylvania).

There was a moment of levity on Sunday night when Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was asked at a nationally televised faith forum whether she believed “God wants you to be president?”

“Well, I could be glib and say we’ll find out,” Clinton said to laughter from the audience.

“But I—I don’t presume anything about God. I believe, you know, Abraham Lincoln was right in admonishing us not to act as though we knew God was on our side,” she said.

I’m glad she opted for grace and didn’t deem herself the next divinely appointed President of the United States of America. Don’t get me wrong: There is no endorsement I’d rather have. It’s just kind of frowned upon when you tell the populace that God spoke to you and said He had picked you to lead this nation.