This Sunday, CAMERA, the Committe for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, is holding a conference about Jewish defamers of Israel. Their word, defame. Cynthia Ozick will be there, so will Alvin Rosenfeld, who wrote the paper for the AJC last year on anti-Semitic Jews criticizing Israel. Should be fun.
Presumably Tony Judt, Norman G. Finkelstein, and Noam Chomsky will be targets of the panel, not to mention non-Jews Walt and Mearsheimer, and it is worth remembering that any time Judt has spoken or tried to speak in the last year, or Jimmy Carter, or John Mearsheimer, people in the CAMERA camp demand that there be "context." That an audience not be limited to Judt’s views; that "someone from the other side" will get to answer him. Fairness. Balance. Context.
Will CAMERA provide any context at their conference this weekend? Will a Jewish "defamer" be invited to make his case so that the conference is not unbalanced?
(I hope not. I don’t believe in "context." I think people should express their views and the devil take the hind-most.)
Related posts:
- ‘It’s Hopeless!’ Cynthia Ozick on the Battle With ‘Jewish Defamers of Israel’
- CAMERA Director: ‘Many, Many Times We Have Urged’ Israeli Gov’t to Take Action Against American Publications
- Finally. Jewish Antiwar Conference in NY Begins by Honoring Rachel Corrie as a Martyr to ‘Evil’
- The Islamic World Needs to Practice Free Speech. So Does the Jewish World.
- AIPAC should invite Walt and Mearsheimer to a debate at its spring policy conference
{ 34 comments }
I think you misrepresent what the term "context" means.
It is NOT the media's point/counterpoint caricature.
Context is critical to judgement. The accusation is that Chomsky, Judt, Finkelstein MISREPRESENT in their selective presentations, that they ignore what is inconvenient to a demonizing prejudicial judgement of Israel as a whole.
I agree with that assessment of Chomsky's mode of argument often. (I managed an archive library of his lectures during the late 80's – early 90's, so I've heard a great deal of his work and approach.) Others can certainly form different opinions.
A criticism of a policy is a different beast than a defamation.
I don't know CAMERA well, nor have any idea what they will present.
I do know that hating "context" speaks very badly for you.
I've read your book, and context is critical to the meaning. In all other analysis that you cited, "context" is a highly used term, rightly so.
You can't speak of the idiocy of announcing the proposed excavation of a portion of land amounting to an expropriation, a week before a critical diplomatic initiative, without speaking about the context of the settlement and annexation strategy.
Why would you ever give any credibility to the renunciation of judgement, by disavowing the importance of context?
When "context" is added to further a materialistic agenda, specifically a political agenda, that is known as propaganda.
When "context" is added in pursuit of knowledge, of veracity, that is known as research.
Tony Judt, Noam Chomsky–they are researchers. Not attempting to construct a narrative that is favorable to any particular party, but that which actually happened. In addition they advocate, separately, their positions based on their knowledge and elemental notions of what is ethical.
Richard Witty, CAMERA–advocates first and foremost, not legitimate researchers. They are trying to estabilish a narrative favorable to their material and emotional interests. The "context" they wish to add is solidly intended to obfuscate what history and observation every day reveal on the ground in "Jewish"-mandate Palestine.
There are those wishing to illuminate, to investigate honestly, with courageous skepticism when belief would be so much easier, and then there are those wishing to obfuscate, to accept convenient "truths" and explain away any evidence to the contrary. But the intelligent reader can clearly see who is whom.
When those that claim to "research" consistently end up demonizing, as distinct from criticism of specific policies – with full research into context, their credibility is shattered.
I was appalled at the repitition of false propaganda during the Hezbollah War last year. For example, many followed the lead of Juan Cole, who repeated the false assertion by Nasrallah, that the abductions had occurred in Lebanon and not intentionally orchestrated in Israel per the UNIFIL report.
Also, too many ignored the UNIFIL and NY Times reports that described the conflict initiating by more than incidental shelling of civilian towns in Northern Israel as a diversion from the long-planned abduction.
I heard a thousand times that the Israeli war was in response to "only" an abduction.
I now agree that the Israeli response was excessive, but the unanimity of support for the defense of the Israeli border was startling, for its consent from Israeli left and right alike.
But what credibility do you have on the matter, Richard? You won't even acknowledge what Olmert himself inadvertently said, that the Lebanon attack was planned months in advance. Your need to rationalize Israeli actions as self-defensive in nature apparently requires you to ignore inconvenient truths.
And you're free to do it. To your heart's content.
But we, as U.S. citizens with no blood relatives in Israel, who wish to have a fact-based discourse on this subject, would just ask you distort and suppress the facts–I'm sorry, "provide context," somewhere else, somewhere the focus is propaganda, which is your interest in this.
The Lebanon strategy was one of a thousand plans. Its "plan" was a preparation, not an initiation.
It was not planned in the same meaning of the term as Hezbollah planned its abduction.
For two hundred years there was little "context" in American history books, just as Americans have not been treated to much "context" since the birth of modern Israel. Carter and MW have begun something that will not be stopped, as again, the tussle
emerges between the victors and the vanquished about what really happened, is happening. Go to Little Big Horn today, then to Deir Yassein (sic?). Truth is always way late and more than a dollar short.
For two hundred years there was little "context" in American history books, just as Americans have not been treated to much "context" since the birth of modern Israel. Carter and MW have begun something that will not be stopped, as again, the tussle
emerges between the victors and the vanquished about what really happened, is happening. Go to Little Big Horn today, then to Deir Yassein (sic?). Truth is always way late and more than a dollar short.
American history is now much more complete.
And, some of the conservative myths have been debunked, AND some of the left's myths have been debunked.
That doesn' stop propagandists from repeating them anyway, knowingly or generously unknowingly.
Most stories that I've heard have multiple tellings.
Deir Yassin is NOT a hero story even in Israelis eyes. The only Jewish heroes in it were the orthodox neighbors who confronted the Irgun from falsely justifying their slaughter.
And, Deir Yassin was a small portion of the opportunism of the Irgun.
We need MORE context, if we wish to see clearly, not a rationalization for a leftist propaganda, over a rightist.
Richard
I agree with your bottom line: we need more context, not more propaganda from any side of whatever issue. I guess I failed in implying this. I was merely trying to point out, for example, that both Carter and WM took the line they took precisely because of the dirth of context that had ruled so long before them, their attackers having been fully content with no context but their own; we are talking about the lone superpower's foreign policy here, right?
I am sorry, how is Chomsky objective? He repeats the same old line–that America and the world are under the control of these sinister powers that manipulate our ever action–and his "facts" are often exposed as seriously flawed and tendentious.
That said, I generally agree with Phil and M-W.
You say that "it is worth remembering that any time Judt has spoken or tried to speak in the last year, or Jimmy Carter, or John Mearsheimer, people in the CAMERA camp demand that there be 'context.'"
What does "people in the CAMERA camp" mean? Has CAMERA itself ever insisted that "someone from the other side" speak along side Judt, W&M, etc? Glancing over their web site, it doesn't appear so. And if not, reference to "people in the CAMERA camp" seems like a somewhat disingenuous way to implicate the organization for something that someone else did.
Also, Richard Witty is absolutely correct in his comments about the contrived "pre-planned attack" controversy. Armies have contingency plans. All armies, not just Israel's. It's what armies do. How can anyone who is serious about having a reasoned and educated discussion promote the idea that having a contingency plan for responding to an attack somehow turns the responding party into the aggressor because "they were going to do it anyway"?
OK, in Bizarro-Zionist land, Israel is not even interested in the Littany River. The Littany what? What's what? Fresh water? What's that good for, anyway?
Good sarcasm, MM; but not very good logic.
A Palestinian growing tomatoes should pay the same price for the same quality of water as an Israeli growing tomatoes? Talk about thinking outside the box.
My problem with Israel in Lebanon is not that they reacted to Hezbollah, but that they reacted in their traditional fashion–they attacked civilians and pretended it was all the fault of Hezbollah using civilians as human shields, a lie disproven by Human Rights Watch.
As for Chomsky, he's mostly right, but also somewhat irrelevant these days. By that I mean that in the pre-blog era if you wanted a viewpoint untainted by the usual mainstream crap you read Chomsky's books or subscribed to a number of lefty magazines. Nowadays there are plenty of online sources one can look at and on the subject of Israel, a fair number of reputable Israeli authors one can read, such as Meron Benvenisti, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, and Benny Morris (when he's being an historian and not an apologist), as well as other authors such as Robert Fisk or various Palestinians. I used to read every political book Chomsky wrote–nowadays there's no need, because anything they contain can be found online or in numerous other books.
Perhaps Israel should become the 51st USA state? http://www.beliefnet.com/story/116/story_11636_1.html
Jeff M. wrote:
"Also, Richard Witty is absolutely correct in his comments about the contrived "pre-planned attack" controversy. Armies have contingency plans. All armies, not just Israel's. It's what armies do."
That is a bit too bland.
Let us look at this: a) Armies make contingency plans for armed conflict b) Armies make plans for a specific campaign and wait for an opportune incident to start it c) Armies prepare for a specific campaign and stage an incident to start it.
The so-called Gleiwitz-incident at the Polish border which led to the start of World War II was staged by the Nazis and falls under (c).
The revolver shots from an eighteen year old Bosnian boy that killed the Austrian crown prince, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, in Serajevo in June 1914 and that led to the "Guns of August" falls somewhere between (a) and (b). It would be ridiculous to argue that they were "the cause" of the war. Parties on all sides had been preparing for war. On the other hand, nobody had foreseen this specific incident.
For my money now the campaign against Hezbollah seems to fall pretty clearly under (b): preparation for a specific campaign and waiting for a suitable incident to start it. There was always something going on around that border.
Compare these excerpts of an article by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker of 21th August 2006 entitled "Watching Lebanon -Washinton's interest in Israel's war"
"According to a Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of both the Israeli and the U.S. governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah—and shared it with Bush Administration officials—well before the July 12th kidnappings."
…
"The United States and Israel have shared intelligence and enjoyed close military coöperation for decades, but early this spring, according to a former senior intelligence official, high-level planners from the U.S. Air Force—under pressure from the White House to develop a war plan for a decisive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities—began consulting with their counterparts in the Israeli Air Force.
“The big question for our Air Force was how to hit a series of hard targets in Iran successfully,” the former senior intelligence official said. “Who is the closest ally of the U.S. Air Force in its planning? It’s not Congo—it’s Israel. Everybody knows that Iranian engineers have been advising Hezbollah on tunnels and underground gun emplacements. And so the Air Force went to the Israelis with some new tactics and said to them, ‘Let’s concentrate on the bombing and share what we have on Iran and what you have on Lebanon.’ ”
…
"Several current and former officials involved in the Middle East told me that Israel viewed the soldiers’ kidnapping as the opportune moment to begin its planned military campaign against Hezbollah.".
…
"Earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, the U.S. government consultant said, several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, “to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear.” The consultant added, “Israel began with Cheney. It wanted to be sure that it had his support and the support of his office and the Middle East desk of the National Security Council.” After that, “persuading Bush was never a problem, and Condi Rice was on board,” the consultant said." "
I'm certain that there were people that were intent on that plan vs others that were also acted on at other times (containment, simply proportional response, or no response).
The feeling I get was different, largely because the plan was not well developed, and the objectives and rules of engagement were not clarified to the extent that it was even an opportunity.
It more resembles an urgent response before a contingency is fully prepared for.
I'm certain that there are people in the pentagon that are only thinking about their limited responsibilities and similar people in the IDF.
Thank you for at least thinking out the different levels of intent, rather than just the blanket "it was a conspiracy".
Also, please take the time to game out the levels of opportunism and CONTEXT of Hezbollah's actions.
Hezbollah claims to be defensive as well, but in this case they most importantly misjudged how their intentional adventurism would be perceived.
Specifically, that it was an act of war in the CONTEXT of a pre-existing two-front near war, with the prospect of becoming a three (Hezbollah) or four (Syria) front war.
Hezbollah stepped over a red line in initiating its abduction by first shelling civilian towns. Even just shelling IDF positions would have stimulated a serious response.
And, they confirmed that they actually meant to escalate by shelling Israeli cities, deep in Israel, later.
Maybe they did what they needed to do to survive. Maybe it was that far along for them, and they experienced what they understood as a David-like miracle in defeating the Philistines.
My assessment of Hezbollah in that war, is that it failed to defend the Southern Lebanese.
And, that the UN failed to establish a clear and conclusive de-militarized or sovereign Lebanese border.
So, things aren't that different than the past, and will likely repeat in some respect.
Hezbollah has in its charter and consistently the requirement to eliminate Israel "from the map". It states consistently that Shabaa Farms is only a secondary objective, that even with acquiring the disputed Shebaa Farms, they will continue to regard attacking Israel (including civilians) as legitimate independant of any actions by Israel.
It adds up to an unconditional enemy, an extra-legal one. Not a state, and not consenting to the sovereignty of Lebanon. Instead retaining the sovereignty of a faction, a militia in spite of international law.
I can't quite see what you are getting at but I take it that you agree then that there was a pre-conceived specific plan for a campaign to get at Hezbollah and that those captured soldiers provided the opportunity.
I see with some chagrin that my posts to this therapeutic thread yesterday were all removed in the dead of night.
In them I merely inquired what quantity of blame or guilt we could assign to 2.1% of the population, who number among themselves 51% of the most influential or powerful members of society, when 77% of the society at large were convinced that the country was going badly.
Are these numbers meaningless? Are they unrelated? Have I hit some raw nerve?
David, they are on the previous thread.
I expect that there was a gamed preparation for the Hezbollah war, as there is for most plausible threats, so the response can be immediate rather than take months to develop.
Israel is threatened daily, and MUST maintain such plans.
I'm certain that Syria has similar type response plans mapped out for a wide range of possible situations.
I actually don't think that the plan was acted on in the manner of an intention looking for an opportunity.
And, partially due to the confusion as to mission at the start of the war. Certainly, the specificity of target selection seemed to be prepared in advance (consistent with the nature of a well-prepared response planning).
I'm sure some wanted to. There are still many veterans of the Lebanon invasion that feel that the failure there was tactical, rather than of policy.
I think the story that the Hezbollah war was planned as in "intentionally" provoked or opportuned, is similar in logic to the assertion that when Ahmenijidad stated that "Israel will be wiped from the map" (per Iranian press service translation), it meant that he was planning to genocide Jews.
I don't believe that Ahmenijidad meant that Jews should be killed for being Jews, but that he did mean that he and Iran will act to remove the state Israel from existence, including by force if necessary.
Similarly, I don't believe that the Hezbollah war was planned in the sense that you propose, but that Israel does intend to remove Hezbollah from the map in the sense of an extra-legal militia with no accountability to external institutions.
People hear what they want to hear, from the same English. Most is partially true.
"Hezbollah has in its charter and consistently the requirement to eliminate Israel "from the map". It states consistently that Shabaa Farms is only a secondary objective, that even with acquiring the disputed Shebaa Farms, they will continue to regard attacking Israel (including civilians) as legitimate independant of any actions by Israel."
Not exactly. What they say is that even if the Shebaa Farms is liberated, they will still keep their arms, which are necessary to protect Lebanon from Israel, i.e. deterrence.
In regards to Hezbollah's stance on Israel, this following was printed in a 2003 Seymour Hersh article in the New Yoker:
_________
****Nasrallah emphasized that he was not seeking a confrontation with the United States. Because of Hezbollah’s ability to disrupt a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians, I asked Nasrallah about his view of the renewed talks. He hesitated a moment and declared, “At the end, this is primarily a Palestinian matter. I, like any other person, may consider what is happening to be right or wrong. . . . I may have a different assessment, but at the end of the road no one can go to war on behalf of the Palestinians, even if that one is not in agreement with what the Palestinians agreed on. Of course, it would bother us that Jerusalem goes to Israel.”
I asked, “But if there was a deal?”
“Let it happen,” he answered. “I would not say O.K. I would say nothing.” ****
_______________________________
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/07/28/030728fa_fact?printable=true
Whatever the case, it's ridiculous to talk about a militia of a few thousand fighters as an existential threat to Israel.
"Not exactly. What they say is that even if the Shebaa Farms is liberated, they will still keep their arms, which are necessary to protect Lebanon from Israel, i.e. deterrence. "
Actually, they site that they regard Israel as not sovereign, and will continue to fight to remove the nation from the map.
In follow-up questions, when asked, Hezbollah officials refer to the Fatah leadership as not sufficiently representative of the Palestinian people to constitute "Palestine making a deal".
Many Palestinians agree, but many disagree strongly, enough to make the deal.
It constructs a Catch-22, as if Fatah is empowered to negotiate with Israel (affirmed officially during the "unity" government, as well as now that Fatah is more predominant in the West Bank) but any agreement they would then confirm is void in Palestinians' and supporters eyes, then the Israeli contention of "there is noone to negotiate with" becomes a truth.
I'd rather call Israel's bluff, by getting the militants to stay out of the way, so the Palestinians can acquire self-governance, and the world can test whether Israel is willing to compromise or not.
I love how Witty says he doesn't "think" Israel was looking for an opportunity to attack Hezbollah.
You used the wrong word, Richard. You said "think," but you meant "believe"… Richard Witty is an Israeli true believer… Israeli intentions are eternally pure. Israel is only trying to defend its poor self from the Hezbollah menace, and if that means UN peacekeepers need to be brought in, to establish a new 'green line', this time on the Littany River, filling settler swimming pools with cool, fresh Lebanese water, well, Richard Witty wouldn't be entirely against that. He might even say he is against it, but we know what that means: he'll do absolutely nothing about it, save attempting to rationalize a non-Israeli culpability.
Arie Brand, thank you for providing that crucial "context." I sincerely admire your thoroughness and have learned much form your comments here. I would like to know if you know if Israel or its operatives have been involved in any (c) scenarios?
Thanks for your appreciative words MM.
You ask me whether I know "if Israel or its operatives have been involved in any scenarios". I take it that you are still referring to the Lebanon war (Israeli operatives are of course engaged full time in devising all kinds of scenarios which tend to converge to the double aim of a GREATER ISRAEL free of Palestinians).
On Lebanon I can only add what Uri Avnery wrote at the time and which serves as an addition to Seymour Hersh's remarks about the Lebanon war as an Israeli-American dress rehearsal for an attack on Iran.
Avnery pointed out that Israel had never really given up on its aim to install a Quisling government, subservient to Israel, in Lebanon. Already Ben Gurion saw that as an Israeli aim. Sharon tried to do something about it in 1982 but failed (a Quisling , Bashir Gemayel, did get elected as President but was murdered before he even could take office).
Sharon's minions haven't given up. The calculation was apparently that if Israel would only cause enough damage and suffering the population would turn against Hezbollah. Things worked out the other way (which could have been predicted on the basis of the simplest historical reflection: the London 'Blitz', the terror bombing of German cities and … Iraq).On July 31 Lebanon's – christian – President, Emile Lahoud, declared his full support for Hezbollah. As you know they are now regarded as heroes of the resistance over there.
Hezbollah is regarded as hero, and as villain, in Lebanon.
A civil state in Lebanon, even if assertive (but without military opportunism)k is nowhere a quisling. That is sovereignty.
A militant state though is more accurately a hurricane, essentially a void, a negation, pretending to be substance.
Arie,
So, to the question "do you know…", the answer is clearly no you do not know.
You suspect.
Better to be honest about that distinction.
Arie to Richard:
'I can't quite see what you are getting at'
you've still got it Richard. I dips me lid.
I am currently teaching *Unheroic Conduct*, the book that made Daniel Boyarin an antisemite, or a self-hating Jew, or a Holocaust denier, or a terrorist-supporter, or whatever it is one is supposed to be if one has a mind of one's own. So I would be curious to know if Boyarin will also be dragged in for target practise at this "conference." Anybody?
'It constructs a Catch-22, as if Fatah is empowered to negotiate with Israel (affirmed officially during the "unity" government, as well as now that Fatah is more predominant in the West Bank) but any agreement they would then confirm is void in Palestinians' and supporters eyes, then the Israeli contention of "there is noone to negotiate with" becomes a truth.'
How very convenient, that Catch-22 eh? Just the way the cookie crumbles I suppose.
'I'd rather call Israel's bluff, by getting the militants to stay out of the way, so the Palestinians can acquire self-governance, and the world can test whether Israel is willing to compromise or not.'
Of course you would. Those of us who do not think about this debate with our blood think it might make more sense, if the goal is peace via Palestinian self-governance, to have the aggressor, the occupier, the stronger party by far take it's foot off the occupied peoples' throat. The onus is on the occupier; you can't make demands of a powerless, occupied people. The militants are militant because of the occupation, so remove the occupation. If the suicide bombers don't stop then, we'll all agree they're murderous crazies and you'll get a green light for almost anything. Eretz Israel – bring it on!
But of course, that won't happen will it? It's not the militants in the way of self-governance, it's a foreign occupying power that, so far from evincing a 'willingness to compromise', are busy as we speak building more illegal settlements full of Jews every bit as racist as those they are displacing, with somewhat less in the way of mitigating factors.
The idea of an occupying power imposing this absurd, impossible 'test' of it's own devising (getting the militants 'out of the way') before it can be expected to submit to a test of it's own good faith bona fides – is the product of an imperialist mindset.
Get off their land and see what happens. It's not rocket science.
Richard Witty writes: "Actually, they site that they regard Israel as not sovereign, and will continue to fight to remove the nation from the map."
Where do they cite this? Don't you have to deal with the evidence Peter H. posted, rather than just repeating the same old bullshit?
"Get off their land" is not possible currently.
There are two parts of the question.
1. What is the basis of sovereignty/governance ("Get off their land" is a meaningless concept if you advocate for democracy, as in consent of the governed expressed as one person – one vote/voice)
2. Who lives there? ("Get off their land") – The effort to entirely exclude Jews from the land is more of a fascistic impulse than a democratic or humane one.
There are two possible solutions that I see:
1. Sovereign Palestine at or very near the green line, with Jewish settlers within then Palestine getting to choose whether to be Palestinian citizens or move to geographic Israel and be Israeli citizens.
2. Revised boundaries on approximately a square mile for square mile swap, to as closely as possible resemble the region's plurality.
1967 is now past, long past. As opportunistic as the Likud illegal settlement strategy was in 1970 and continues to be, it has passed the status of possibility or humanity of implementation of resolution 242 as you propose in the simplistic terms of returning to 1967 "cease-fire" lines.
"Get off their land".
A legal process of title clarification would be useful and just, and most likely result in either transfer of title of much land to Palestinians (and/or other Arabs) or perfection of title with accompanying compensation.
The objective is to find a solution that accomplishes mutual consent, and valid consent.
The simplistic and rhetorical "Get off their land" ignores other historical injustices.
I wish American taxpayers would wake up.
Comments on this entry are closed.