The one good thing about the nest of vipers--sorry, I mean the neoconservatives--is that their plans for Iraq and the Middle East gained blanket acceptance in the Establishment and then were emphatically discredited. Thus the neocons have served as the intellectual equivalent of the Emperor's New Clothes --and caused people to question all mainstream thinking on the issue. Opening the debate at the edges, to new ideas. Last night I heard some of those ideas at New York's Brecht forum, coming from Ghada Karmi, a Palestinian doctor and author in England, who was expelled from her home in '48.
Zionism is a "loathsome" ideology, she said. "There is nothing complicated about this... It is a settler colonizing project, and behaves like all settler colonialist projects."
The answer is to dissolve the Jewish state, she said. I'm a little blown away by her argument, so let me try and lay out her ideas in a straightforward manner.
Karmi began with the idea that the Zionists fully anticipated Palestinian resistance. Ze'ev Jabotinsky said way back when to his fellow Zionists, "If you insist on doing this, on setting up a state at the expense of the people of the region, you must expect that they will never accept you... They will almost always reject you. That is the history of colonialism. ... You will have to live by the sword, or give [the project] up." Karmi commented, "Unfortunately they didn't give it up, and we have had an appalling conflict since."
The ideology of Zionism, she said, has caused enormous damage to the region. Israel has transformed the Arab world. The cost of Zionism is not just the effect on the Palestinians, but the radicalization and extremism of Arab societies. These problems "can be traced back to Israel."
"There is no way out except through a one-state solution... Our problem isn't, Can we get Israel to concede enough territory to make a state to live alongside Israel?.. The problem is Israel, a state set up on an ideology which is racist, exclusivist, belligerent and aggressive." Israel will always be threatening its neighbors. You cannot expect Palestinians to live in a neighborhood with Israel, it is like asking a people to live with violent gangs. Why, just look at what the Zionists have done with Hebron, from the latest testimonies of Breaking the Silence soldiers.
The difficulty of fighting Zionism (of course) is that Palestinians are fighting a "settler colony backed by the strongest power on earth," she said. "We are also fighting... the allegiance that the idea of Israel has been able to evoke in many people, Jews predominantly, of course." But the Palestinians have struggled to understand what they are up against because this myth was born of Europe and the Holocaust.
If American Jews saw the actuality of Israel, they would feel differently about it. But if you suggest that Israel does bad things, there is an emotional response. "The idea of the ending of the Jewish state is experienced by many people as a personal assault. They actually feel emotionally and psychologically identified with the Jewish state. You tread on people's identity like that, they will fight... And Zionists have been able to harness these fears, hopes, needs, desires, complexes, whatever they are, to the Zionist project."
Historically, Jews have experienced tolerance in the Arab world. There was no history of pogroms. And then a European problem, the question of what to do with the Jews, "which they were never able to solve," was passed to the Arabs. The west cannot disentangle itself from its guilt over the Holocaust and its own antisemitism. So Europe offloaded people it didn't like on to the Arabs, and then castigated the Arabs" for not loving the people it didn't like."
Karmi's father died last year, at age 101. All his life, "this man had known nothing but conflict." Born under the Ottoman Empire, he lived through the World War I division of the region, the Mandate period, and then his own expulsion and exile from the land he loved. Karmi has made a vow to herself, that she will not die before there is a solution.
"This can't be allowed to go on... it has to end."
A couple comments. First, it's amazing that twice in the last couple of weeks I've been to New York forums, albeit small ones, at which Jewish and Arab speakers talked about dissolving the state of Israel as we know it. Regime change. This represents a new level of openness about such ideas. (And no, I'm not sure just where I stand on this one, I'm learning.)
Karmi's appeal to the west is both moving and tragic. I've been told that the Arab historian George Antonius stated in his journals back in the '30s, Boy, all I have to do is go to London and explain what Zionism is doing, and the world will come to our side. It never happened; Antonius didn't know what he was up against. Of course much has changed since then, including the barbarity of the Israeli occupation. And the proliferation of Arab voices in the U.S. is bound to make a difference. Still.
I always come back to American Jewish identity. Jews are so influential on this issue, owing to the background of the Holocaust. The most critical thing here is for Jews to look at Israel society as they look at American society. Here we demand acceptance and human rights, for us and other minorities. When will we make the same demands of Israel? Jane Kramer's piece on Nadia Abu El Haj in the New Yorker sprang, Kramer said, from her own Jewishness (so I gather she told Jon Wiener in his April 8 show). And before she went to the Brecht Forum, Karmi went to the Nation Magazine yesterday. It is vital that American Jews hear these stories of affliction from Arabs, and then do something about them.
'The most critical thing here is for Jews to look at Israel society as they look at American society.'
Not just Jews, Americans generally.
There was a telemovie in the 80s called Max Headroom (British I think) which was set in a 'Network' type future, where the news was what the corporate political elite wanted it to be. But lo, there was a heroic underground investigative journo with tech smarts enough to be able to hack into the broadcasting machinery of the big networks in order to speak directly to the masses to give them the good oil rather than the bullshit.
It's got to that stage in the US; a few unexpected doses of truth about Israel (with lots of pictures) administered at prime time might be able to cut thru, to carry a big idea instantly to the crowd.
Here's Robert Parry (via Jon Schwartz) on why desperate measures are needed:
'So, the real question is not how widespread the ethical lapses of the U.S. news media were – both in palming off self-interested ex-generals as objective observers and for failing to demonstrate even a modicum of skepticism in publishing false articles that paved the way to war.
Rather, the urgent question is what must be done if the United States is to reclaim its status as a functioning constitutional Republic in which a reasonably honest news media keeps the public adequately informed.
Having spent most of my career on the inside at places such as the Associated Press and Newsweek, it’s been my view for many years that the mainstream U.S. news media can’t be reformed, that it is beyond hope.'
Jim referred the other day to places like this being 'our samizdat', but it's a very small piss in a very large ocean. It's gotta be wide and deep to be effective. I used to joke years ago that if I won the lottery I'd charter a few planes to drop leaflets to the ill (and under) informed US populace, but if you were serious, you'd probably have to start in Washington.
No disrespect intended with the 'small piss' crack Phil. Small, but perfectly formed.
There are flipsides.
One is the ABSENCE of criticism of Palestinian nationalism, which historically has been exclusive to Jews (whether instituted by the Palestinian militancy or Arab states).
The language used is "so long as you don't want to constitute great numbers, enough to change the power structure in our society in any way, you can live here".
And then the reality of the world itself changing, the Arab world included, somehow is irrelevant to the argument.
World changes:
1. The world is more crowded (11 million NOW residing in a region that had 1 million 75 years ago, and NOT primarily from immigration.) The world being more crowded is by no means limited to Israel/Palestine.
2. The world is more informed, connected. Everyone trades, and because of the information needs and advantages of communication, everyone doing anything beyond local requires the internet, all of it.
3. History occurred. Displacement of peoples occurred, and historically it has not only been the Jews moving in. Not all that long ago, Arab culture was not the dominant culture in the region. Arab peoples and Arab culture.
Then, considering the future:
1. It is LIKELY, and has already occurred, that many will be displaced by similar pressures, ecological ones exacerbated by social stresses.
Accommodation of people's moving is what will constitute "humaneness" in that setting.
Moving to the humaneness that makes a single-state is relevant.
So, if cultural acceptance is urged, and ecological awareness regardless of the messenger, THAT is what will make a real progressive state.
The imposition of a politically oriented, "get the fuck out" state and sentiment, is not a healing but ONLY a reactionism.
A state is only not needed in an environment of utter acceptance of the free association of viable community.
And, as people genuinely live by very different social codes, it is relevant to accommodate that, to allow "nations" to be exclusive in locales.
That we choose cosmopolitanism over Zionism to live in, is our personal choice, NOT any universally true form to impose on others that choose to live differently.
Thats what the neo-cons do. They say "republican pluralism is the only true governance form". We are bringing the light. "THEY" don't know what they want.
And, here, MANY use the term "THEY", and insist that it be followed, rather than suggest, rather than mediate.
Which dictation is best? I thought the effort was to minimize the degree of dictation that occurred in the world, minimize the coercion and means of it.
Limit the scope of one's political efforts to what is good, to what is really known to be good (not guessed).
"One is the ABSENCE of criticism of Palestinian nationalism, which historically has been exclusive to Jews (whether instituted by the Palestinian militancy or Arab states)"
Why don't you shut up.
You take one line and use that as some illustration?
How are you any different than the press that you criticize?
"Limit the scope of one's political efforts to what is good, to what is really known to be good (not guessed)."– Witty
How about a few concrete examples?
Good for whom?
I am not saying sorry, Richard!
But sometimes I wonder if you read Philip's stories at all, or follow his links? Your often unrelated, repetitive floods (contemplative incontinence?) do not serve your cause, quite the opposite.
You should at least grant people like Ghada Karmi their own point of view.
Nationalism, had it existed then, no doubt would have helped Palestinians. They could have simply issued immigration laws, restrictions and quotas.
And no, this wouldn't have been a sign of their racism since the whole West did it.
The usual argument in this context seems to be more often that since there was no nation called Palestine, they can't have had any rights. I mean of course, if they existed at all!
Maybe you could occasionally switch on your head before you plague your keyboard and us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Principles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Nationalism
She has an important point of view, as repetitive as it is.
Advocating for the single-state solution currently, and in the terms argued, is arguing for a utopia, with the downside of horrendous civil war with Palestine removed entirely, if the utopia doesn't bear out into the form of compelling mutual acceptance.
The numbers don't support the idea that mutual acceptance to the degree necessary to not result in bloodbath exist.
There are MANY that agree to live and let live. But there are MANY that agree that the "other" is not worth living.
"The usual argument in this context seems to be more often that since there was no nation called Palestine, they can't have had any rights. I mean of course, if they existed at all!
Maybe you could occasionally switch on your head before you plague your keyboard and us."
You should bother to read what I actually write, rather than what you imagine from my "headlines" as well.
Health for Israel AND health for Palestine is not "they can't have any rights".
Anti-Zionism though is a reactionism. Out with babies and bathwaters.
It is an irony though that the form of the state of Iraq for example, is a cosmopolitan state (same as the single-state in Israel/Palestine), that the US government is compelling to remain if it can swing it at all.
"Limit the scope of one's political efforts to what is good, to what is really known to be good (not guessed)."– Witty
Oppose expansion of settlements
Oppose roadblocks within Palestine
Support the opening of a port in Gaza
Support the unification of the PA and the willingness to regard prior administrations agreements as binding.
Support the establishment of specific conditions and uses of US aid to Israel
Support the continued development of Palestinian institutions in a color blind manner (economy, law/courts, police, universities, hospitals, roads, electrical grid, media)
Support welfare services to those that are homeless
Support the specific efforts to make Israeli law color-blind
Support the effort to form an Israeli constitution with power of precedent and authority of Israeli Supreme Court
Abandon the "anti" approach.
And OPPOSE the use of terror as a means.
Phil may not be the brightest bulb in the box, but he knows well enough that the state of Israel is not going to dissolve itself at a whim.
richard witty and the 'toothpick of beavis the butthead', are zionist foot soldiers. we find them at all blogs that might mention israel. maybe they all work out of the same office. their purpose is to continue the lies; to waste the time of humans; to give red herrings; set up straw men arguments; to take up cyber space.
and some of these foot soldiers are really deceiving: appearing to be non zionist to control the amount of criticism against the state of the jews(and jewry) and to offer only zionist approved solutions.
"You should bother to read what I actually write, rather than what you imagine from my "headlines" as well.
Health for Israel AND health for Palestine is not "they can't have any rights".
I didn't write you said so. But nothing you write, I haven't heard before. Maybe I am simply tired about your tendency to contain the whole universe in one note, or your stern suggestions about rights and wrongs.
…flipsides, nationalism, world population, information technologies, history of deplacement, Arab culture, the history and future of displacement, humanness.
Maybe it would be interesting to study your responses, their relative length and their relative escapist mode according to contexts?
Bondo: …are zionist foot soldiers. we find them at all blogs that might mention israel. maybe they all work out of the same office.
LeaNder: compared to what James Wolcott calls attack poodles, and that is what you describe above, Richard is a really likable guy.
Again,
The anti approach harms, alienates, and ends up accomplishing little reconciliation.
To the extent that the single-state advocacy is based on anti-Jewish state, it will fail to accomplish the reconciliation necessary to actually make it possible.
I'm a Zionist supporter. Nothing hidden.
I support the right of the Jewish people to live in coherent Jewish community, in Israel, and if that requires a state to be safe, then a state.
I do not support any expansion. I support Israel at the green line (or mutually consented border revisions), but oppose the forced removal of settlers, instead prefer offering them the right to be Palestinian citizens or leave to live in Israel.
Among those that support a single-state solution. To the extent that they do first things first, work to improve the relationships between the communities to a VERY VERY high state of confidence of mutual acceptance, I favor their work.
I even hope that they may succeed in that 50 year effort, say to a bi-national state.
I oppose the quick and dirty, the agitation by boycott, etc.
"Richard is a really likable guy."
Posted by: LeaNder | April 24, 2008 at 06:29 AM
i'll take your word for it. i dont really read(quick skim) much of his stuff (and those like him). i've seen it, heard it thousands of times. their purpose is not to listen but to repeat the fabrications.
nice or not nice, left zionist or right zionist, their purpose is the same. the genocide of the palestinians, the iraqis, othr arabs/muslims.
different tactics are used. not one size fits all. different protesters fall for different tactics.
zionists are not all hidden(many antizionsits are the hidden ones). different tactics.
"I oppose the quick and dirty, the agitation by boycott, etc."
Posted by: Richard Witty | April 24, 2008 at 06:47
boycotts, sanctions, strangulation, starvation are used against the palestinians, syrians, iraqis, iranians. why not against israel? you oppose the 'quick and dirty'. there is nothing quicker or dirtier than missiles, stallings, lies, deceptions.
israel has already put an end to a palestinian state. 6 prison cells with armed guards do not a state make.
.
"The problem is Israel, a state set up on an ideology which is racist, exclusivist, belligerent and aggressive. Israel will always be threatening its neighbors. You cannot expect Palestinians to live in a neighborhood with Israel, it is like asking a people to live with violent gangs." — Karmi, via Phil
This is an underappreciated point. AP reports today that CIA Director Michael Hayden and his staff will brief six Congressional committees on Thursday, alleging that Syria was building a nuclear reactor before Israel bombed it last year.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080424/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/nkorea_syria
You'll recall that Israel has a profile of bombing its neighbors, having bombed an alleged Iraqi reactor in the 1980s, bombed Lebanon to shambles two summers ago, and is making threatening noises about bombing Iran as we speak. Yet it's Syria which the U.S. is exercised about. AP summarizes the charge:
"Syria did not declare the apparent reactor to the International Atomic Energy Agency nor was it under international safeguards, possibly putting Syria in breech of an international nuclear nonproliferation treaty."
Huh? As compared to Syria's alleged reactor, Israel has a functioning reactor at Dimona and several hundred nuclear warheads — but this reactor is not under international safeguards, nor are the weapons declared.
An objective observer on a Martian flying saucer could easily determine that Israel, unrestrained by treaties, with FUNCTIONING nuclear weapons, and with a long rap sheet of regional rumbles, is one of the most dangerous regimes on the planet. If one were looking for the potential trigger of the world's next nuclear war, Israel would be Candidate #1 by a long shot.
Only the hijacking of U.S. foreign policy by the Lobby prevents the U.S. from coming down hard on Israel, as by far the world's most dangerous, out of control nuclear proliferator.
It's a "green" issue — anyone who doesn't want the environment trashed with nuclear waste and nuclear fallout, should be screaming for Israel to join the NPT and submit to safeguards and inspections. The silence on this issue is wildly irresponsible and stunning.
Isnt it enlightening how some find it difficult to criticize the neocolonialism of zionist israel and yet if asked, that same person would find a million valid reasons against the colonialist projects of the british in india, or against any other colonialist power who oppressed the nations where they found strategic interests.
but its different when its your people and your interest isnt it? zionism has done a masteful job of conflating judaism and zionism/israel, so much so that they are made to feel as traitors of their judaism if they do not defend zionist israel, it is really quite a conondrum. remember that jews have a long history of turning their backs on their own relatives if that relative accepted another religion, so its not so difficult to appreciate the pressure that is put on them if they choose to speak up and condemn zionism/ israel.
being ostracized by your own people, family and community has been the black mark in the jewish community for centuries.
read the warnings these old rabbis gave concerning zionism they were prescient in reading the tea leaves of the zionist project. especially the ones before ww2.
link to jewsagainstzionism.com
jewish americans are a people trapped between two worlds and two nations, either they look objectively at israels colonialist crimes during its short history and take a humanitarian stance consistent with judaisms claims of being a caring humanitarian religion against those crimes, and against that nation and political system, which has conflated its interests with judaism, or they will conflate the interest of the two nations wherein they live as the zionist have done and justify it with the lies that have held that project together since its inception. jews either risk being outcasts from their own community of zionist supporters or they keep playing the duplicitous role of being a humanitarian people who seek inclusivity everywhere but in israel because its different there.
The zionist masterfully have conflated judaism with zionism thereby drawing in the support of the jews of the world in everynation where they dwell in support of the state of israel as if they were supporting judaism, the monumental role that the presses and communications companies of the world have played in keeping the truth of the barbarity of what the zionist have done in israel and the middle east is probably unprecendented in scope in the history of the modern world in the age of communication.
but as phil says, alas the dawn is breaking through and the judaics are beginning to see israel for what it truly is, a neocolonialist project.
the christian zionist are under the same spell and must also start to play the role of the good samaritan and stop supporting the crimes against humanity in the middle east.
"My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight…… but now is my kingdom not from hence. john 18:36
the christian zionist also need to get back to their roots. the israel project is not only a jewish undertaking.
bondo: nice or not nice, left zionist or right zionist, their purpose is the same. the genocide of the palestinians, the iraqis, other arabs/muslims.
different tactics are used. not one size fits all. different protesters fall for different tactics.
LeaNder: In times of black & white, good & evil it's important to draw distinctions. He definitely is not a supporter of WWIII/IV. And I tend to believe him that he did not support the Iraq war either.
He seems to be driven by fear that Phil's open thought processes may endanger people. I do not agree with him. Maybe I should as a German? But I do not think history repeats itself.
I tend to agree with Philip and a lot of other voices. Censure wont stop people from asking questions.
Phil speaks somewhat differently in face to face than he does here.
If Phil's audience was Jewish Americans inquiring into how they/we live, how they/we support Israel, then his comments would be perceived more as "open inquiry".
In this setting, speaking to the audience that frequents this blog, and the way that Phil frames his inquiry, at least partially invoke prejudicial and even hateful "criticism" as much as "open inquiry".
Phil at one point asked "why" he was not hired by prominent magazines to write on the topic of "Israel Lobby" or "dual loyalty" or other related topics.
I think his blog, his actions (not only the blog-mob) would suggest to most editors that it would be an upstream effort for him to get selected, except by advocacy publications like The Nation, or The Progressive, or Mother Jones, etc.
Knowing Phil personally, he doesn't strike me as a person that could easily stake out a Matt Drudge type hot-journalism (close to rumoring) identity and make a living at it. Hopefully he wouldn't want to.
Phil's professional reputation is based on his ability to get inside the thinking of some that are regarded as a little (or way) outside the pale, and convey their thinking publicly.
I wish that he thought similarly about the settlers, the variety of them, as uncomfortable as that might be for him. They have a story, reasoning, some of which is valuable, and some of which is self-talk.
But, certainly the right/left engages in an enormous amount of self-talk as well.
Maybe at some point Phil will write an article on the population of anti-Zionists, an interesting inquiry that would certainly uncover odd bedfellows.
"I've been told that the Arab historian George Antonius stated in his journals back in the '30s, Boy, all I have to do is go to London and explain what Zionism is doing, and the world will come to our side. It never happened; Antonius didn't know what he was up against. Of course much has changed since then, including the barbarity of the Israeli occupation. "
This is a VERY vague and infammatory paragraph. "explain what Zionism is doing".
Zionism is a movement an ideology, not a person. A person does things. And what specifically is it that was done?
What are you doing Phil? What are you doing to your skills as a journalist?
.
"In this setting, speaking to the audience that frequents this blog, and the way that Phil frames his inquiry, at least partially invoke prejudicial and even hateful "criticism" as much as 'open inquiry'. " – R. Witty
You sound like the Pharisees, raggin' on rebel Jesus for hangin' out with the harlots and tax collectors.
It may be a rude rabble, Richard, but the livin's easy. Phil's writing his own prophecy, while you sit up in a sycamore tree, shooting airball rhetorical Cheetos at him with a cereal-box plastic slingshot. Climb on down, son; you're way out on a shaky limb!
"Zionism is a movement an ideology, not a person. A person does things. And what specifically is it that was done?"
Not much, Richard, just the Nakba, Iraq War, and, coming soon
to your local theatre, the Attack On Iran. Want a ticket? Not to worry; the American taxpayer will give you one. But wait a minute, until he finishes filling up his gas tank.
"I wish that he thought similarly about the settlers, the variety of them, as uncomfortable as that might be for him. They have a story, reasoning, some of which is valuable, and some of which is self-talk." – Richard Witty | April 24, 2008 at 08:39 AM
the squats stories all seem to me to be the same: terrorize palestinians and take, take, take, then more terrorism. as for variety: fat, thin, m/f, young, old, tall, short.
So, Witty, American goys might draw different conclusions than American jews from Phil's blog? God forbid. Since 98 or 99% of the USA is goy, why is it that we goys have to depend on Phil just to get a different perspective than we get everyday on the USA MSM?
"If Phil's audience was Jewish Americans inquiring into how they/we live, how they/we support Israel, then his comments would be perceived more as "open inquiry. In this setting, speaking to the audience that frequents this blog, and the way that Phil frames his inquiry, at least partially invoke prejudicial and even hateful "criticism" as much as "open inquiry".–Witty
Oh, Geez, G-D forbid Phil allow a goy to comment. Witty, why don't you just keep talmudic speak to your own kind. Phil is actually trying to communicate to all humans. Or is that wrong? Only Jews are real humans?
"Phil's professional reputation is based on his ability to get inside the thinking of some that are regarded as a little (or way) outside the pale, and convey their thinking publicly."
That makes sense.
"I've been told that the Arab historian George Antonius stated in his journals back in the '30s, Boy, all I have to do is go to London and explain what Zionism is doing, and the world will come to our side. It never happened; Antonius didn't know what he was up against. Of course much has changed since then, including the barbarity of the Israeli occupation. "
This is a VERY vague and infammatory paragraph. "explain what Zionism is doing".
Why do you use quotation marks above, Mr. editor? Is this a self-citation?
http://www.amazon.com/Married-Another-Man-Israels-Palestine/dp/0745320651/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1
Product Description
Two rabbis,visiting Palestine in 1897,observed that the land was like a bride,"beautiful,but married to another man". By which they meant that, if a place was to be found for Israel in Palestein,where would the people of Palestine go? This is a dilemma that Israel has never been able to resolve.
No conflict today is more dangerous than that between Israel and the Palestinians. The implications it has for regional and global security cannot be overstated. The peace process as we know it is dead and no solution is in sight. Nor, as this book argues, will that change until everyone involved in finding a solution accepts the real causes of conflict, and its consequences on the ground.
Leading writer Ghada Karmi explains in fascinating detail the difficulties Israel's existence created for the Arab world and why the search for a solution has been so elusive. Ultimately,she argues that the conflict will end only once the needs of both Arabs and Israelis are accommodated equally. Her startling conclusions overturn conventional thinking-but they are hard to refute.
********************************************
Your problem with Philip seems to be that he is human before being Jewish or Zionist.
I don't believe that he acts differently in private & feigns things here; do not judge before you have tried to understand.
"Phil is actually trying to communicate to all humans. "
Actually, here, Phil is speaking to a very limited audience.
"Why do you use quotation marks above, Mr. editor? Is this a self-citation?"
How about you read a line up in Phil's quote?
"Ultimately,she argues that the conflict will end only once the needs of both Arabs and Israelis are accommodated equally. "
If she is arguing for the demise of Zionism, then your quote doesn't describe her views accurately.
"Your problem with Philip seems to be that he is human before being Jewish or Zionist.
I don't believe that he acts differently in private & feigns things here; do not judge before you have tried to understand."
I differ with Phil about the importance of Walt/Mearsheimer's thesis and method of presenting it, invoking at all any issues of dual loyalty except in very limited and specific occassions (where generalization is not a possibility).
I find his tone often quite negative. I dislike that he doesn't use the term "I" all that frequently, thereby hiding his own views. (Its his blog. He's a journalist.)
Often, in discourse, print, web, F2F, there is ambiguity as to whether a person making references is stating his/her own opinion or genuinely reporting on anothers'.
An editor (a blogger in this case) expresses his/her opinion by the selection of material presented.
So, I infer what Phil's opinions are by the material he selects, and the tone that he presents it.
If Phil presented more boring less aggressive tone for his headlines, it would suit me better (and I think the world, as he would attract much more varied readership).
Limited audience? How do you know?
Maybe he is committing career suicide. But he definitely is in the most excellent company. I don't know about Moyers:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
But I do know that Jim Lobe is Jewish too:
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=131
To name two.
To ask you a question you asked Phil: Whom do you read?
I found Baruch Kimmerling, by the way.
Exactly, Richard. That's the problem. Not for your purposes. But for humane fairness and USA best practices. Don't worry, your kids will never get drafted into the US Årmy. They can join the IDF whenever they want.
The tale of how Jews found the (now known as ) Palestinians to exploit is no different than the history of America's Manifest Destiny, as both Hitler and any honest (?) Jew would agree. The only real question is, when will the ordinary American see this?
When they do. Forget about it.
Everything dear to the USA is centered about this vision. The Jews will take down the USA. In the long run, both will be sorry,
though none will admit it.
Private Ryan, get ready for your death.
First that wasn't MY quote, that was the Amazon blurb.
"If Phil presented more boring less aggressive tone for his headlines, it would suit me better (and I think the world, as he would attract much more varied readership)."
Sorry, I do not believe you the above. You aren't worried about his readership (except for Richard Witty) but that his blog will augment antisemitism.
You are worried he tells us goys something we shouldn't know.
And now I am gone
"The tale of how Jews found the (now known as) Palestinians to exploit is no different than the history of America's Manifest Destiny, as both Hitler and any honest (?) Jew would agree. The only real question is, when will the ordinary American see this?"
Charles, I think it is completely wrong to read history backward through today's eyes. The early settlers treated the Palestinians no better than they would have treated the average 19 century European helper, rather patronizing and condescendingly. Ironically the later lefties were worse, they did everything themselves. Which meant no jobs for Palestinians.
It is easy to say NOW: They must have realized that their project led ultimately to the expulsion and dispossession of the natives. Most didn't know, before they arrived …
…
*******************************************
The settlements are something very different. The state of Israel offers help "incentives & cheap land"; for that the settlers have to turn into a different kind of occupational forces: to create facts on the ground. From Terra Nullius to Customary Land Rights … time … time … time … win time …?
It's not hard to understand. Take it from here: "What's good for the Jews?' Whether wrong or right, you have to start here.
.
"I find [Phil's] tone often quite negative. I dislike that he doesn't use the term "I" all that frequently, thereby hiding his own views. (Its his blog. He's a journalist.)" — R. Witty
In newspaper journalism, "I" isn't used at all. If no third party subject is available, a formula such "a reporter" (meaning "I") or some similar artful dodge is employed.
In a blog about ideas, the author isn't the main subject, except in his personal interactions. Phil gets the balance about right.
Negative? A post yesterday was titled "Light, light, light, coming into our lives." Some folks just don't like having light shined onto their activities, eh Richard?
Whom do I read now?
I'm reading three books right now.
Commonwealth by Jeffrey Sachs,
The Discoverers by Daniel Boorstin
The Heart of the Matter by Graham Greene
A couple weeks ago I read Portnoy's Complaint by Phillip Roth and The Great War and Modern Memory by Paul Fussell, .
A few weeks earlier I read a biography of Saul Bellow, Pale Horse, Pale Rider by Katherine Anne Porter, Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane.
On Israel, I read mostly the new historians. I'm most interested in the period from the end of the 19th century in Palestine to the independance/nakba.
Three authors in particular, Bennie Morris, Baruch Kimmerling and Ilan Pappe.
I avoid polemical material, or at least recognize it for what it is, including when Pappe selects.
Daily,
I read New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, Haaretz, Boston Globe, The Nation, American Prospect, Washington Monthly.
The web is very cool for the availability of daily newspapers.
I also read some professional literature.
I multi-task. Thats how I post so often. While my computer is posting data to our company's ERP system, I post on Mondoweiss.
RE: "Maybe at some point Phil will write an article on the population of anti-Zionists, an interesting inquiry that would certainly uncover odd bedfellows."
Yet they arise as one, hating bullies. What is character?
Finally Richard, we are getting somewhere.
You state:"I support the right of the Jewish people to live in coherent Jewish community, in Israel, and if that requires a state to be safe, then a state".
Which beg the question: "Why must Jewish people live in Israel?" Since you claim that to answer for "tribal reasons" is perjorative, you must have rational reasons.
Lets use the push-pull model. Tell me what legitimately pulls jews to Israel,if it means displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their land? If it means constant agitation for regional and even world wars for such a right?
Perhaps its the "push" aspect? Jews fear another Holocaust if there is no Israel to keep the OTHERs at bay? What are the scenarios for this? If they are deduced from the Holocaust then that argues for a pretty serious objective study of same, so we can learn to avoid such an event. Not some innuendos about Germans based on the "research" of Goldhagen. The problem is real intellectually honest research such as that of Raul Hilberg and Browning are marginalized by the zionists..
And that speaks volumes!!