A commenter on my antisemitism post pointed out that I am overly responsive to Richard Witty, and I think this is true.
Richard and I knew each other first when we were teenagers. We were like family, I remember playing on docks with him. His aunt was my mother's closest friend, Edith Fine, a Massachusetts judge who was the soul of fairness and generosity and decency, truly a great woman. In 1991 Edith in her robes married me and my wife in my wife's cousin's back yard, and a few years later she died in her 60s. My mother still grieves for her, and so do I.
My mother doesn't really approve of the stuff I write on this blog (not that she reads it all), and neither does Richard. I feel guilty about upsetting my mother so much, and Richard stands in in my mind for a lot of that feeling. I know that Edith adored Richard, and had great respect for his intelligence. I'm not saying it's good that I give Richard the power I do, but this helps to explain it.
I spoke at Edith's memorial service, and told a story about what great judgment she had. In the 1980s I worked on an article for The New England Monthly about the Harvard Crimson. The article involved going back to the newspaper offices where I had cubbed 10 or so years before, and surveilling their executive sweepstakes, a Lord of the Flys-meets-Eton ritual called "the turkey shoot." The Crimson kids hated my presence there, and in retrospect I don't blame them; I was a prickly pain in the ass, and I put a chair in their newsroom and defied them to throw me out, those kind of antics that will never get you anywhere as a journalist, or get you to a place that I don't think is worth getting. Anyway, I felt guilty about my behavior because of the contempt, and this bled into a confusion about the story I was doing, what justified this intrusion? And I went to Edith, who told me I had an absolute right to do the story. This is an elite, a very important one, even if it's just a rehearsal for the real show, she said, and the First Amendment is all about the right of journalists to inform the public about how elites are formed and what their values are. Needless to say, that became my mantra as I worked on that story, those words gave me great clarity. I only wish I'd emulated Edith's gracious bearing and kindness, too! I often think of Edith's words now, too, when I dare to examine the role of the Israel lobby in foreign policy and the importance to that lobby of Jewish wealth. I'm not saying she'd approve of my behavior entirely, but the principle was sacred to her.
In last year's shoot, Malcolm Glenn became the first black president of the paper in over 50 years — maybe contributing to Obama's winning the nomination for the Dems. I would footnote your post with this excerpt:
The Crimson, founded in 1873, is the only daily newspaper in Cambridge, Mass., and the oldest continuously published daily college newspaper. It chooses its leaders through an election process known as the “turkey shoot,” in which all outgoing editors are invited to participate. A successful candidate must receive at least 75 percent of the vote.
[end excerpt]
–
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
Some time ago, Phil wrote that Richard was "more spiritual" than him.
Does Richard actually believe he belongs to an exceptional people that was constituted by devine revelation?
I think Phil has a clear idea about the line that seperates the spiritual sphere from the political one. I doubt that Richard – as the 'truer' Jew – has.
Whereas I think you are not responsive enough, and by that I mean to the issues that I raise.
If "leverage" as in "power over" is relevant, I do know Phil's family personally.
Phil's mother spoke to me at a bar mitzvah recently about Phil's focus on Walt/Mearsheimer. I told her that I thought that Phil was a man with a good heart, and was searching, and that Walt/Mearsheimer expressed some points that Phil has observed and experienced in real life, and that appeals to him.
I told her that I also had strong misgivings about Walt/Mearsheimer's thesis itself, way it was presented, and to whom it was communicated to, and how they use it.
That is close to home. Even if I didn't know Phil's family currently, I am a real person in Phil's personal history, and at the least I would represent a relationship that would be typical of many of his colleagues.
While he is right to endeavor to think independantly, that is a different thing than entirely renouncing all of his past relationships as if they never or don't exist.
What we peer Jews are reacting to is real, and if Phil has any Jewish friends his own age, and they've read anything that he's written on the topic, he would have to deal with similar sensitivities.
Its NOT paranoia, its perception.
Witty is a Jewish Supremacist Racist. In other words, a Zionist.
I personally want Phil to be an effective voice for peace (not resentment) and back on the reservation, deserving trust from self-identified Jews and Zionists, if not always getting it. (I very often am called a self-hating Jew when I express support for the rule of law within Israel and occupied territories).
Currently, his public flirtation with some of the fascistic views that are expressed in the left and overtly in the left/right, even by cause celebre's that he admires, puts him out of the range of trust by most self-identifying Jews.
Phil,
Did you change your original post? I didn't remember comments about Edith in the version that I thought I was responding to.
I too mourn for Edith still. Even thinking about her now, I have tears.
The year Edith came down with liver cancer, my father was also sick.
At the time she announced that she had cancer, my father was under doctor's instructions not to travel.
She died 5 months later, and I'm told (not often) that she experienced a very unpleasant period. That contrasted with her amazingly vibrant lifestyle earlier. Very fit. We bicycled and hiked together a couple times/year. She walked three miles daily to her chambers.
When she died, my father was devastated, crying for days. He felt guilty that he gave the doctors the authority to justify his not getting on a plane to visit her.
He knew that he was dying too, and he thought, "if I'm going to die anyway, why the hell should I hesitate."
She was as professional and competent as you get in her work, and as informal and accepting in her home. (Much more than accepting, as Phil related.)
She was very political, without EVER diminishing her dignity. She actively supported anti-war Catholic Father Drinan in running for Congress, until the pope ordered him to step down or give up his priesthood. Pat Buchanan does not have a monopoly on Catholic worldview.
She was quite supportive of Clinton, partially out of pride for her daughter and son-in-law's prominent roles in his first campaign, and subsequent administration.
I was less supportive of Clinton, and we argued about his advocacy for NAFTA and GATT. She had lived in the third world for extended periods (Puerto Rico and Peru) and was aware of the way that closed bordered societies imposed neo-colonial suppressive relations on third world peoples.
She felt that cosmopolitan relations contrasted with the "America-first" inclination, and far more fostered mutual dignity than xenophobia.
And, at the time of our first conversation about it, she was more supportive of Zionism than I was. The occupation of the West Bank existed. The permanent stateless relationship of Palestinian refugees remained existed. She was sympathetic to their experience, and certainly was and would be more assertively pro-peace and pro-Palestine (in the pro meaning of the term).
But, she also valued the existence, promise, and accomplishments of Israel. She knew holocaust survivors personally, and did not adopt an ideological definition of their experience, but a sympathetic one.
About Richard Witty…
You could do a lot worse in the way of friendships, past or present, Phil. And much, much worse in the way of someone to give 'power over you".
As I read the responses others have to Richard Witty's comments, I usually end up asking myself if I am hallucinating; or more precisely, if those who respond to Richard Witty are the ones who are hallucinating.
Most of the individuals who respond to Richard strike me having learned the "rules of evidence" in a class taught by George Bush; i.e. "they have made up their minds, a priori, and will see what they want to see", regardless of whether or not it is actually there (and usually it is not). In the technical academic world, this is referred to as "scientific fraud", and rightfully so.
Look at 2 responses today, one from Klaus Bloemker (Does Richard actually believe he belongs to an exceptional people that was constituted by devine revelation?), as though, if he does indeed believe this, this somehow constitutes "guilty as charged"; though guilty of what we are not told.
The other comment from "matter", in which we are informed that "Zionism is Racism, Witty is a Zionist, ergo Witty is a racist". The logic is correct, but the initial premise is highly questionable. ("Witty is a Jewish Supremacist Racist. In other words, a Zionist.")
This is not intelligent discourse, it is nonsense, and much worse. It is astounding, in many ways, that so many individuals, who seem convinced of their own "Moral Superiority" vis-a-vis Jews and or Zionists, are unable to see any irony in their constantly accusing Richard Witty of thinking he is "morally superior".
If someone, anyone, could present some evidence to back up this "charge", so to speak, I will gladly read it. But I keep going back and reading Richard's comments, and I don't see it.
Another example…Richard has been accused, more than once, of being "anti Christian". Can anyone provide evidence of this? And if not, how exactly, was this conclusion arrived at? Not a very charitable accusation from those who never cease to accuse Richard of the same.
From the masthead of "The Dartmouth":
"America's Oldest College Newspaper. Founded 1799."
Thanks, Ozzie, for that background on the "turkey shoot".
BTW, I wonder if the appointment of Malcolm Glenn had anything to do with the appearance of that frank editorial by J. Lorand Matory last September–
Israel and Censorship at Harvard
Do you know if he was in office at the time?
If so, something tells me he may be both the first and last black editor at The Crimson.
"Klaus Bloemker ('Does Richard actually believe he belongs to an exceptional people that was constituted by devine revelation?'),
as though, if he does indeed believe this, this somehow constitutes
"guilty as charged"; though guilty of what we are not told.
Dom: You didn't quote the rest of my post.
If Richard indeed believes that, he doesn't draw a clear line beetween the spiritual sphere and the political one.
And that's indeed one of the problems of Israel.
To draw this line was one of the main concepts of the political philosophers of the Enlightenment. Their idea of the Social Contract – an idea that America is based on – draws this line! Israel and Richard don't.
"Richard has been accused, more than once, of being "anti Christian"."
Richard described Christianity as a "morphed sect of Judaism". Now whether or not you consider this to be "anti-Christian" is going to depend on where you're coming from. For example, I'm pretty sure Richard thinks of it as a compliment.
Why don't you tell us your own opinion on whether or not it's anti-Christian, Dom. So we can tell where you're coming from.
Thanks again Dom.
Its the blogosphere. Those are only a few comments, although the respectful ones are few and far between.
Also, its on a hot political topic that brings out those that are vehement, for honest dissent, and for opportunistic reasons.
As presented, the topic is more than hot though, more than statistically represented. Its loaded.
Reply to D…
"Richard described Christianity as a "morphed sect of Judaism".
As to "where I am coming from", I don't think I understand the question, perhaps you could elaborate?
As to Richard's description of Christianity above, I would say the following…I looked up the meaning of "morph" on Google, and there appear to be many definitions.
Assuming Richard did not intend to describe Christians as highly skilled bowlers (A pin that moves across the deck without falling over), but more likely intended something like "short for metamorphosis, meaning the gradual, yet complete changing of an image to one that is totally different", though "totally" may be more than he meant.
Sect "a subdivision of a larger religious group". At the "birth" of Christianity, this would certainly have been true.
Let us restate his phrase, Christianity is a "morphed sect of Judaism", to Christianity "evolved from, or grew out of, Judaism."
So what is it about this statement you find offensive, D? It is highly consistent with both (current) Protestant and Catholic theological teachings.
You may draw your own conclusions at to where I am coming from.
Thanks, Dom. That's all I needed to know.
(Good work with the Google.)
David,
Its odd to call me "ultra-Zionist".
If the only factor were yes or no, then I would be a yes. If the reality is that there are MANY forms of Zionism, then to equate me with Likud or Israel Beitanyu is just stupid.
I get the sense that much dissent stated is anger at the television.
I don't watch AT ALL. (One exception is streamed Sunday news shows.)
Richard, it's not just anger at the tv, which is definitely a corrupted and controlled zionist medium, but anger at the status quo.
I agree with you that anger is a poor substitute for reasoned dissent, but many times it is a stepping stone to political realization. Look at Mandela.
Me, I prefer the path of Twain or Mencken: Angrily ridiculing the ridiculous, and letting the people choose their way.
Re: Malcom Glenn
Glenn didn't take office until the beginning of the spring semester, 2008, so he didn't have a direct say in the appearance of Matory's op-ed the previous September. That editorial is so in point for this blog. When Tony Karon, a Jew from South Africa, compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians with apartheid in SA, the response (in his words) was:
…Still, this was a first. I could recite the kiddush from memory, sing old kibbutznik anthems and curse in Yiddish. I had been called a “bloody Jew” many times, but never an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew. What quickly became clear to me, though, was the purpose of that “self-hating” smear — to marginalize Jews who dissent from Zionism, the nationalist ideology of Jewish statehood, in order to warn others off expressing similar views…. [end excerpt]
Phil, I take it, is a Zionist, but strongly disagrees with ultra-Zionism and has this blog to express that disagreement. I support this position fully — Israel should be supported as one country among many, but opposed to the extent its actions appear aimed at domination over all other countries.
–
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
Phil has alternated between azionism and anti-zionism, and respect for two-state solution as practical politically but not religiously.
MM,
The status quo, like everything in the universe, is in a state of change. To be a supporter of change, is to say little. The important step is to assert what change, what criteria you seek.
Even the term "free from colonialism" or "free from domination" is a relative term. There is no status that is "free from colonialism" or "free from domination".
There are recognitions of enough though. Enough land. Enough paths. Enough good relations.
"What do you want?" stated in positive terms, that need to and CAN be met.
True, true Richard, but all the zen in your babbling brook won't change the fact that the status quo in the U.S.A. is one of advanced theonoma.
Like Sen. Bozo said himself, apparently in Colbertesque self-parody (but not): he feels his support for Israel rising "from his gut".
The prevelance of such a sentiment, which is a cover for the money zionism controls U.S. politicians with, rightfully ought to enrage.
Richard writes:
"Currently, his public flirtation with some of the fascistic views that are expressed in the left and overtly in the left/right, even by cause celebre's that he admires, puts him out of the range of trust by most self-identifying Jews."
Speak to me Richard. Tell me exactly in proposition form, just what these "fascistic views" are. Just cause you label something "X" Richard, doesn't make it so.
Lay it out for us, and we'll see.
Otherwise you are just playing little sophistic games.
Secondly, its a bit parochial Richard, to equate the Self of a human being, yes, even a Jewish one, with his or her ethnicity.
Surely you are aware that there are many sides of a person's psyche aside from his or her observance of tribal taboos..
It is astounding, in many ways, that so many individuals, who seem convinced of their own "Moral Superiority" vis-a-vis Jews and or Zionists, are unable to see any irony in their constantly accusing Richard Witty of thinking he is "morally superior".
Basically I think the mirror image can be found on both sides. …
If you allow me to ignore the polemical layer and substitute "morally superior" with having an ethic base, believing in self-improvement and accountability, I think that's very much Richard's perspective.
How do you read Phil's own coinage: "spiritually-evolved"? Isn't this close to "morally or ethically superior", if we avoid polemics and sarcasm out for a while?
How could he put pressure on Phil to change his perspective, focus of attention, point of view, without assuming a a higher ethical position to start with? Isn't moral superiority the basis of his actions on Phil's blog. To lead the sheep that went astray back into the fold?
avoid – "was leave out" first.
To speak the truth as I honestly understand it, and why.
To speak the truth as I honestly understand it, and why.
While constantly questioning Phil's truth "as he honestly understands it".
On what other basis but moral superiority, deeper insight, higher evolved humanity could your truth trump his?
********************************************
Besides Dom, this is a really amazing paragraph. Good you used quotation marks. We don't see it often that somebody equates prejudice with a priori knowledge or logic. And I wonder if Richard agrees?
Most of the individuals who respond to Richard strike me having learned the "rules of evidence" in a class taught by George Bush; i.e. "they have made up their minds, a priori, and will see what they want to see", regardless of whether or not it is actually there (and usually it is not). In the technical academic world, this is referred to as "scientific fraud", and rightfully so.
A priori
Did she do it again?
She did it!
Must avoid the thread like a plague lest the sarmatian makes a new pleura rupturing comment!
Hey Phil, if an ultra zionist (poor Witty!) has power over you then you should think about becoming an american politician. You're ready to go!
Must avoid the thread!!!
Must avoid!!!
Must avoid!!!
LeaNder, looks like after some big-macs the alluring boy needs the fig "leave" no more.
Now I must do as the fig and take my leave.
Hey, thanks that has almost Shakespearean qualities:
Now I must do as the fig and take my leave.
But surely Richard is no ultra-Zionist. What drives me nuts about him is the emotional pressure he uses, the way he tries to pedal Phil to conform to mainstream wisdom. With many of his mails it does not help to tell myself "he basically means well". Would I ever consider friendship as a right over somebody? No way, never ever. (from my subjective point of view it often feels he misuses his friendship; and I think that is at the core of my fight with him. And yes its not my business.:))
To return to Shakespeare. He started my deep interest in friendship as a theme and the basic tales over the centuries via: The two Gentleman of Verona-> The Governor (and way back)->Titus and Gisippus > …
Thanks for your work on David. Funny!
Oh indeed! I did it again.
Did I? Sarmatian???? Not sure where to file that. I file it here, if you don't mind?
No way to close it?
LeaNder,
The sarmatian is our brilliant MM.
The fat David wasn't of mine authorship. I bumped on him and thought you would have a laugh at it.
Yes, MM was very funny. Now sarmatian rings a bell.
I found out how my italic threads happened by the way. I only thought I closed the tag again, but seems I missed the slash in the closing tag. Almost happened again somewhere else.
I'll pay close attention on these matters from now on. ;)