A friend gave me the documentary, Man From Plains, about Jimmy Carter's 2006 book tour for Palestine Peace Not Apartheid. It came out a year ago. My wife and I watched it the other night. I would urge the good curators at Yivo to buy the film, for it is an important document in the history of American Jews, and the perceptions about us. Especially now, when we are the most powerful minority in America (as Avraham Burg states so directly in his beautiful new book).
The documentary, by Jonathan Demme, a true leftlibber, is at its heart about Jimmy Carter and the Jews. It is a kind of tour of Jewish establishment culture as Jimmy Carter tries to explain that there is apartheid on the West Bank. He is greeted everywhere by denial, outrage, and mockery. There is really little difference in the film between Terry Gross and Alan Dershowitz. In fact, I'd say the saddest moment in the film is when Terry Gross interviews Jimmy Carter and immediately starts regretfully bashing him for his use of the word "apartheid." I've mentioned this exchange before on this blog. Al Franken on "Air America" radio does something of the same thing. He starts out by joking about all the questions that have come up. "Like why do you hate the Jews?"
Demme cuts right there. It's all you need to know about that interview.
There are a lot of other Jews in the film, too. Wolf Blitzer makes nice to Carter and agrees that the fence confiscates Palestinian land, then as soon as Carter is gone gets Dennis Ross on the show to say that Carter is a plagiarist. There is an Israeli reporter who insists that Carter is misrepresenting reality. There are a bunch of Phoenix rabbis who refuse to allow Demme even to use their words. So they are pictured in a meeting with Carter with their heads all blurred out, as he speaks. Sad. There is Alan Dershowitz, walking around his Harvard offices like a wild man, sputtering about the Palestinians being like cockroaches and Nazis. Then legalistically retracting the word cockroach.
There are some good Jews in the movie. David Rosenthal, who also published Richard Ben Cramer's fabulous book, How Israel Lost, is on there; he published Carter's book. So is agent Esther Newberg–I'm guessing she's Jewish. I'm proud that they're there. Demme misses the Jewish Voice for Peace pro-Carter demonstrators at the Jan. 2007 Brandeis speech by Carter, which climaxes the film, but big deal. It is possible to have missed the pro-Carter Jews given the unanimity of the community in condemning him.
Again I say that the Jewish community will have to deal with this some day: how we denied the existence of apartheid when it was unfolding in the West Bank. I make this statement on the same basis that I always do, because I visited Hebron two years ago and saw horrors there and a South African who had lived through apartheid told me that conditions on the West Bank were worse than what he had experienced. Jimmy Carter says the same thing. Lately David Wildman of the anti-occupation tour has explained that a government system that grants vastly different conditions to one group over another on the basis of religious and ethnic identity must be described as apartheid.
One of the fascinations for me of the film are the scenes from Plains, Georgia. I have always said that Carter loves the Arabs because he can relate to them, as an agrarian, and my hunch is shown here to be accurate. The film begins with Carter talking about land that has been in his family for 170 years and what it means to feel connected to land, and just the complete shock of not being able to see your children on it. It is clear that the Nakba and the continuing ethnic cleansing (conveyed searingly, by a great Jew, Seth Freedman, writing here in the Guardian, which is an English newspaper of course) have worked on Carter's soul and brought him to this mission.
The film engages very large cultural forces. Jewish media power vs. traditional land-based culture. As Slezkine says in The Jewish Century, we have gone from an era of princes and peasants to one of merchants and priests, and Jews excel in the second category. Carter belongs to the first category. From an agrarian economy to one of symbols on paper. From entitlement to prestige, from the cultivation of lands to the cultivation of others. Carter is not very good at that. Let me be clear; I love the Jewish century, Jews didn't bring it about, the world did, and I can certainly play ball in it, I have the skill set. But cutting thru all of this is a simple fact: apartheid. Which the American Jewish establishment has refused to recognize. Even Ehud Olmert is way out ahead of us…
The only valid criticism of the term apartheid for the treatment of West Bank and Palestinians is that Israel/Palestine has DIFFERENT political dynamics than South Africa.
The danger that you and others indulge in, is then presuming that the remedy is the same.
Its not.
Another word is required.
On journalists using hard and direct questions.
THATS THEIR JOB!!
"a great Jew, Seth Freedman, writing here in the Guardian"
– barf bags always advisable when visiting mondo weiss…
"The film engages very large cultural forces. Jewish media power vs. traditional land-based culture. As Slezkine says in The Jewish Century, we have gone from an era of princes and peasants to one of merchants and priests, and Jews excel in the second category. Carter belongs to the first category."
By the looks of the economy set up in the "Jewish century," and the wide acceptance of Zionism within the Jewish community, Jews don't look to be such good merchants or priests. Maybe the "skill set" isn't all that great. And why is Israel my burden? Why should American Jews of any stripe be so tied to the issue? Eventually the Jewish place among the American elites has to be scrutinized. This can't go on.
I've moved the film to the top of my Netflix queue. Thanks for the recommendation.
The politics are the same. The difference is that the apartheid S. Africans did not dispossess the locals much, had no law of return based on official religious myth and de facto Shoah. Also, the white
S Africans claimed to be Christians, a faith sans tribalism or racism, with a key principle of universalism. In short, apartheid S Africa
could not forever maintain its hypocrisy in the face of world public opinion and its own soul.
Why should American Jews of any stripe be so tied to the issue? Eventually the Jewish place among the American elites has to be scrutinized. This can't go on.
Posted by: Todd | November 16, 2008 at 12:34 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I believe that has already started falling apart….because other people like Carter and W&M and Tutu and others have named it and laid bare the true nature of the zionist and Israel.
I will give you two examples of how the zionist think and in it you will see why everything they do brings them one step closer to destroying themselves and Israel and probably setting the Jews as a whole back by several centuries.
Straight from the horse's mouth. The Jerusalem Summit group is the expression of the zionist mentality. You will be shocked at some of the members of this group that live in the US, including one US senator.
Here you go….and note the kindergarden propaganda tied into democracy and religion and universal goals as a cover for their what I imagine is most like the rumored Protocals of the Elders and Hilter's Master Plan all wrapped into one.
The mental deficiency necessary to write first such hideous thinking and second to think it's deviousness isn't perfectly transparent to normal people is astounding.
That's why I so frequently say their stupidy is mindboggling.
First we have their rationale for the 'transfer' of the Palestines from Israeli "administered lands".LOL.
http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/hs_short_eng.htm
It's the "humane" version and twisted rational for the transfer of all Palestine to other countries. Seriously, they are sp stupid they think anyone cant see thru this "humane" solution.
It is the 21 century version of the Protocals of the Elders and Hitler wrapped into one. LOL.
A. Assessment
1. The conventional-wisdom paradigm for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has failed woefully, bringing nothing but misery and despair to both sides – but particularly to the Palestinians as individual human beings.
2. This conventional paradigm has attempted to solve the conflict by means of a Political Approach involving the establishment of a self governing Palestinian entity on territories in Judea Samaria and Gaza which have been under Israeli control since 1967 i.e. on the basis of a "Land for Peace" approach.
3. Dispassionate assessment of the history of the conflict and its current development will strongly suggest that persisting with attempts to attain a political solution on the basis the conventional paradigm are at best futile – and at worse harmful. Accordingly, alternative modes of resolution must be pursued.
B. Analysis
1. Analysis of Palestinian deeds and declarations over the years make it difficult to avoid the conclusion that they are in effect both unwilling and incapable of achieving and maintaining statehood.
(a) Palestinian Unwillingness: This is reflected in the fact that the Palestinians have rejected every single viable proposal which would have afforded them a state – from the 1947 partition plan to the 2000 Barak proposals.
(b) Palestinian Incapability: The Palestinian national movement has enjoyed conditions far more favorable than almost any other national independence movement since WW-II – widespread international endorsement of their cause, unmitigated support of a superpower in the decades of the Cold War, highly sympathetic coverage by the major media organizations, and over a decade of Israeli administrations who have acknowledged (and at times even identified with) the Palestinians declared national aspiration. In spite of this, the achievements of Palestinian national movement have been more miserable than almost any other national independence movement – bringing nothing but privation and penury to its people.
2. It is thus far easier to understand Palestinian conduct if one assumes that it is driven less by lack of Palestinian self determination and more by the very the existence of Jewish self determination; less by the aspiration to establish a Palestinian state and more by the aspiration to dismantle a Jewish state.
3. The latter, and seemingly more plausible, explanation of Palestinian behavior – i.e. rejection of Jewish self determination and the dismantling of the Jewish nation state – reflects an agenda totally unacceptable by any international standards and thus must be branded as devoid of any legitimacy.
4. Accordingly if the accepted version of the Palestinian narrative – i.e. a desire for Palestinian self determination and the aspiration for Palestinian statehood – cannot be reconciled with the history of Palestinian behavior, this narrative also must be branded as devoid of any legitimacy.
5. This issue of legitimacy of narrative is crucial. Indeed the very fuel of the Political Paradigm involving the establishment of a Palestinian state is the perception – or rather the misperception – of the presently prevailing Palestinian narrative as legitimate.
C. Conclusion
1. The establishment of a Palestinian State must removed from the international agenda.
2. However, removing the issue of a Palestinian state from the international agenda will not eliminate the humanitarian predicament of Palestinians residing in Israeli-administered areas.
3. This is clearly an issue that must be addressed and resolved. But it must be addressed not in political terms but in humanitarian ones.
4. Thus, to successfully resolve the Palestinian problem, the Political Paradigm must be replaced by a Humanitarian Paradigm. This, however can only be done if the current Palestinian narrative, which fuels the Political Paradigm, is de-legitimized.
5. Thus, the de-legitimization of the Palestinian narrative becomes a vital prerequisite to any comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian issue.
D. Proposal
1. A comprehensive Humanitarian Approach to the Palestinian issue would entail three major elements:
(a) The dissolution of UNRWA – which will end the discriminatory treatment of the Palestinians with regard to their status as refugees;
(b) The termination of ethnic discrimination against Palestinians , living in the Arab world – which will end the discriminatory treatment of the Palestinians with regard to their status as residents;
(c) Generous relocation grants to Palestinians living in Israeli administered territories on an individual basis and not via any official Palestinian organization.
2. UNRWA is an organization that perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem. It is an anomalous organization which exists solely to deal with Palestinian refugees, while all the other refugees on the face of the globe are dealt with by the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).
3. The organizations not only deal differently with the refugees under their auspices, they each have different definitions for classifying an individual as a "refugee".
4. This difference in definition has far-ranging consequences. For in contrast to the UNHCR definition, which results in a decline in the number of refugees over time, the UNRWA definition leads to an inflation of the number.
5. In fact, if the UNHCR's otherwise universal definition were applied to the Palestinian case, the number of refugees would decline from 4-5 million to 200-300,000 i.e. by over 90%!!
6. It thus appears that UNWRA is perpetuating the very problem it was designed to eliminate.
7. Accordingly, the dissolution of UNRWA is an essential prerequisite for any comprehensive, durable settlement of the Palestinian issue.
8. With the dissolution of UNWRA, the remaining, and drastically reduced, number of Palestinian refugees, should be placed under the auspices of UNHCR – in accordance with the accepted practice for all other refugee groups on the face of the globe.
9. Those Palestinians no longer classed as refugees under the new arrangements, must be offered all the privileges afforded all other peoples resident in their current countries of domicile in the Arab world — including the right to acquire citizenship.
10. In order to do this, a vigorous diplomatic and media campaign must be mounted to induce Arab governments to end their harsh discriminatory behavior towards the millions of Palestinians domiciled in their countries and absorb them into their societies as fully fledged citizens. After all, even the Palestinians assert (in the opening paragraph of their National Covenant) that they are “part of the Arab Nation”.
11. As for the Palestinians resident in Israeli administered territory, there is only one reasonable and feasible alternative that will facilitate:
(a) extricating them from their dire humanitarian plight;
(b) free them from the yoke of generations of misrule by their leadership;
(c) ensure the survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews.
12. This is a generous relocation and resettlement package to allow them to build a new life for themselves and their families in countries preferably, but not necessarily exclusively, with similar religious and socio-cultural conditions.
13. In order to minimize the ability of organized Palestinian interest groups to impede the success of such an effort, the offer of financial inducement to emigrate must be "atomized" – i.e. made to individual Palestinian breadwinners on a one-to one personal level and not on a communal level via some formal Palestinian entity.
14. A survey conducted among the Palestinians in Nov. 2004 indicates that only about 15% of the Palestinian population resident in Israeli administered areas would reject such an offer outright. By contrast, over 70% would accept some form of material compensation as an inducement to emigrate permanently from the areas currently under Israeli administration (see link to jerusalemsummit.org
15. The economic cost of such a policy of generously financed humanitarian relocation and resettlement would be eminently affordable and would compare favorably with almost all other settlement proposals on the table today. Indeed, its total cost would be around 50% of the present total US outlay on the War in Iraq!!
16. Indeed, given Israel's present level of GDP, it is an initiative that it could well undertake on its own over the next decade to a decade and a half. It should be realized that this is the period that has elapsed since the initiation of the Oslo process – which has brought nothing but failure and tragedy at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
17. Of course, if the US, the EU and other developed nations were to contribute to this effort, it could be implemented in a far shorter space of time and with almost no burden on the world economy.
18. Quite the opposite, the Palestinians arriving in their new countries of domicile will not be impoverished refugees but reasonably affluent émigrés. The funds that they would be bringing with them would provide a considerable boost for the economies of these nations – most of which would be developing countries with a pressing need for such a substantial influx of funds.
E. Summary
The proposed initiative constitutes a "win-win" proposal which will:
Alleviate, and even eliminate, the humanitarian plight of individual Palestinians
Ensure the continued security and survival of Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish people
Provide a Significant Boost to the Economies of the Developing World
Transform poverty stricken refugees into affluent émigrés
Then we have this one that aims at replacing the UN for all intents and purposes having to do with international law and decisions and establishing a new one in Israel.
http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/declaration_full.php
The United Nations Organization has betrayed its democratic principles, turning into a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third World dictatorships, eager to aid and abet radical Islam in any way possible. While the West is the founder and the financial sponsor of the UN, this agency in its present form cannot guarantee the survival of our civilization.
The radical disparity in the political maturity of member countries has resulted in the abuse of democratic rule by simple majority. Since the Jihad impulse of radical Islam inevitably leads to a clash of civilizations, it is the principal civilizations (Europe, United States, Latin America, etc.) that should be represented in a new kind of Council, with each grouping given one vote. This will facilitate common policies against radical Islam, which will not enjoy a majority as it musters automatically in other global forums.
The principal duty of this new Council will be to reach an agreement on common moral values and adhere to them in promoting brotherly co-existence of different nations on earth. It will support international laws, foster security and advocate equitable economic and environmental policies.
The emergence of the Civilizations Council will not render the UN obsolete; the latter can still perform a number of useful functions, including humanitarian tasks, though power should not be used to prop up totalitarian regimes whose very existence contradicts the UN charter and the laws of humanity.
II. ISRAEL AS THE KEY TO THE HARMONY OF CIVILIZATIONS
Billions of people believe that Jerusalem's spiritual and historical importance endows it with a special authority to become a center of world's unity.
Israel's unique geographic and historic position at the crossroads of civilizations enables it to reconcile their conflicts. Israel's unique spiritual experience enables it to find a golden mean between the fault lines dividing civilizations: between tradition and modernity, religion and science, authority and democracy.
We call upon all nations to choose Jerusalem, the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel, as a center for this evolving new unity. We believe that one of the objectives of Israel's divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets.
Most Islamic countries, regrettably, have sworn to destroy Israel. We call on the countries of the Free World to realize the following: if the people of Israel can live in peace in their Promised Land, peace will have a chance to reign in the whole world. If radical Islam succeeds in destroying Israel, there will never be peace, and Western civilization will fall to Jihad as well.
For the sake of the entire world and therein, the land of Israel must belong to the people of Israel.
III. PLO STATE AS A THREAT TO PEACE
Supporting the creation of a PLO state in Judea and Samaria is a historical injustice of colossal proportion.
A tiny democracy is urged to concede the only thing it lacks – territory – to totalitarian regimes in exchange for the promises of the only thing they cannot provide – peace.
In pressuring to attain this suicidal arrangement, the "free world" betrays the very principles on which it is based. Anti-Israel and anti-Zionist attitudes, which disguise primordial anti-Semitism, constitute one area where hypocrisy in international politics is most visible.
The genesis of a totalitarian PLO state would represent an act of surrender to radical Islam's false rhetoric and a capitulation to terror.
The totalitarian PLO state would become a safe haven for international terrorism, a new Taliban-esque refuge, replete with plots to destroy both Israel and the West. Thus the future generations of the Free World will pay in blood for their fathers' moral blindness.
We call on the government of Israel to provide moral leadership to the world in the struggle against terror:
Cease negotiating with terrorists and proffering mass releases of captured murderers.
Eliminate the terror-sponsoring capabilities of the Palestinian Authority.
Liberate Arabs residing in Judea, Samaria and Gaza from the Jihad propaganda machine, which has turned them into a morally depraved people who worship murder and terror.
Promote a viable humanistic alternative for just and secure peace instead of creating a terrorist PLO state.
We call on all free nations to:
Unite in order to remove from power despotic Islamic regimes and re-educate an entire generation of Muslim children to embrace the democratic traditions of normative Islam.
Recognize the PLO/ PA as the terrorist organization which it is.
Cease forcing Israel to negotiate with terrorists.
Encourage Israel to establish full sovereignty throughout the land of Israel.
IY. UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES IN THE WAR ON TERROR
To wage a war against terror consistently and confidently, we must underscore the following aspects:
A. Political
We must reaffirm our faith in our values and the righteousness of our cause.
Western civilization must assume the responsibility for the millions of people who still live under despotic regimes and do their utmost to liberate them. The regimes that refuse to fight terrorism actively will be considered terrorist, and will risk removal through regime change.
All of their circle of influence — government, clergy, media, and the armed forces — will be held accountable for the terror acts committed with their support.
Terrorism should be regarded as a crime against humanity, and not a criminal phenomenon that can be solved by political negotiations, social benefits or economic improvement.
Finally, the ideology of Jihad must be declared a form of racism and genocide.
B. Military
We must reject the doctrine of "symmetrical response". The war against terrorism must be total, with the objective being its complete elimination.
Regimes that sponsor terror operations and allow terrorists to hide among civilians will be held responsible for any collateral damage stemming from military retaliation or liquidation of terrorists.
Terrorists should not be dealt with through ordinary judicial procedures. Their cases require emergency legislation and trials by special military courts.
C. Economical
All nations should join the US in curbing "charities" that serve as a facade for terrorism. Since Middle East oil profits have become the means of sponsoring terrorism, we must seek to establish an international trust over the regional oil reserves and using them for the welfare and enlightenment of local people. These monies will also be used towards dismantling the so-called "refugee" camps, which are currently the hotbeds of terrorism, and the resettlement of their residents. Alternative energy resources in, by and for the democratic nations must be encouraged and developed as an urgent global priority.
D. Media
We are appalled by media attempts to establish "moral equivalence" between the blood of innocents murdered by terrorists and the casualties among civilians used by terrorists as a protective shield. We must draw a clear line between terrorist acts and counter-terrorist measures.
We must dismantle the slick propaganda machine of Jihad. This includes denying publicity to terrorists and their apologists, and taking harsh sanctions against media that persist in rationalizing terror.
We must find the way to tell the decent men and women of the Islamic world the truth about the real state of corruption and tyranny in Islamic countries in general and under the Palestinian Authority in particular, encouraging them to overthrow their domineering dictatorships.
E. Academia
We must reject moral relativism and confront creeping "anti-Zionism" on Western campuses.
We must actively sponsor those who suffered the persecution from radical regimes to tour campuses and lecture students about the real objectives of radical Islam and consequences of failure to resist it.
CONCLUSION
The front line in the war we are fighting rests in the birthplace of Judeo-Christian civilization. The stakes are high: if Israel and Jerusalem are fortified, they will become the center where mankind will gather to usher in an era of peace and prosperity. But the West's failure to save them may well spell doom for civilization itself.
Just as in the past the Free World stood together against Fascism and Communism, so it today must do to combat the third challenge: radical Islam. We prevailed then, and we shall prevail now. United around Jerusalem and armed with our eternal values, we cannot fail."
They will not last, it's only a matter of time and how much they destroy before someone(s)put an end to them.
If everyone reads my post above they will see where witty get his illogical, convoluted arguments on the 'exceptional' and 'holocuast certified' Jews and Israel. Same mentally deficient brain functions and delusions.
Just another Hitler mentality…in a smaller package.
You are misrepresenting my views American.
Close to 180 degrees.
At American,
I agree with almost all of what Richy Witty says and you do misrepresent his views. I and probably Witty, liberal Jews in general, support creating a Palestinian state.
I once saw a member of the farthest right wing party in Israel (which hasn't been banned) speak and your post is similar to his position. This proposal only gains ground in the margins of Israeli politics.
Your understanding of Israeli politics and what Israelis think is lacking. You should talk to some Israelis to see what they think.
That was an amazing document from the Jerusalem Center, American. (Although you should have just linked it.)
I knew that they held these goals, but I didn't know they had the chutzpah to write them down.
People say the Internet is changing the dynamic of the I/P conflict, but it's not just by letting the world see what's being done to the Palestinian people. The Internet is letting many people see for the first time how Zionist Jews talk among themselves and how they think of gentile society. Future sociologists will have a field day with the posts of SOG, Richard, and this very creepy Eurosabra.
Thanks for the support Michael.
Witty: "On journalists using hard and direct questions.
THATS THEIR JOB!!"
It's not the job of any reporter to ask a question that begs the question. Franken's question assumes that it's already been established that Carter hates the Jews and now the only thing left to determine is why.
It's the classic head fake. When someone accuses Israel of doing something immoral, the first thing Israel's defenders do is ask why that person is so anti-Semetic. If Carter was such an anti-Semite, he wouldn't have offered Egypt a $2 billion a year bribe in perpetuity not to attack Israel.
Israel's defenders don't like debating the issues because on most issues the facts are against them. Instead they immediately derail any real exchange of views by calling the critic an anti-Semite. It's an offensive and unprincipled tactic but Israel's defenders do it because up to now it's mostly worked.
Witty's right.
Apartheid is not the right word. Apartheid was real hate. Israel improved on the model and presented the world with pretend love.
ROTFLMAO……
"Witty's right.
Apartheid is not the right word. Apartheid was real hate. Israel improved on the model and presented the world with pretend love.
Posted by: Jacqueline_Hyde"
That is sooooooo perfect.
Posted by: D.
>>>>>>>
Yep I should have just linked it but I was afraid no one would take the trouble to read thru
I wanted posters here to see just how insane these people are..and no one would believe it without reading their actual words and plans…they would think I was exaggerating if they didn't see it for themselves.
I could hardly believe what I was reading myself the first time I saw it.
Well Michael W you must have the same problem as witty.
And dont' give me that crap about "liberal jews", as if you are 'liberal' you can't be a nazi on Israel and the zionist…it's utter bullshit.
What does liberal mean anyway to jews? That they vote for "liberal domestic programs" because they benefit from them? You aren't going to get away the typical..but I'am a liberal jew whine crap while you deny reality on what needs to be done about Israel-Pal.
The ditties below sound just like.. no, make that ..EXACTLY ..like the crap that witty spouts in his defenses of zionist and Israel. If you can't see how the rest of us see thru this sick kind of reasoning you aren't very bright.
http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/zionism_and_racism.php
American
Your posts are astonishingly long. Anything over four or five lines and my eyes glaze over. Your posts are 2,500 words long.
Except if you are familiar with Franken's interviewing style, he OFTEN opens interviews with satires of what the interviewee is publicly accused of.
Its a combination of satire of the common hysteria, and an opportunity for the interviewee to address the hysteria.
Its sad that you didn't get that Franken was more ridiculing the hysteria in his question, and instead took the ignorant literalist approach.
You shot first, asked questions later, same as you accuse.
The word is the wrong word because it misinforms.
Apartheid described a specific condition, specific historical, specific demographic pattern. And, the projection that dissenters adopt, is that even IF the conditions were parallel (there are similarities, NOT parallel), that the appropriate remedy would be the same as what looks like it worked with apartheid.
Its a thoughtless means of constructing strategy, that doesn't bother to examine the current, doesn't bother to examine the historical, doesn't bother to clearly articulate goals, and doesn't bother to consider alternatives.
What does one call "not bothering to get to know"? I'll leave that unnamed. You fill in the blanks.
But, in yourselves examine if you have done all four:
1. Objectively and fully examine the current
2. Objectively and fully examine the history (as means to illuminate the current)
3. Clearly identified a kind goal
4. Objectively and fully examined the alternative means and manner to reach the goal
Hi Phil,
I was one of those JVP pro-Carter demonstrators at Brandeis – we spoke at the protest pen. I was also disappointed that Demme didn't use any of that footage – he'd been denied entry to the event itself, and he spent a good part of the duration speaking with us, recording, filming – we all signed releases to use the footage. There was a glimpse of us in the final cut, and one quick shot of a JVP sign, but that was it. I looked on the DVD for us in the outtakes — nada. I know he was sympathetic to us, but I guess sandwiching glimpses of us on either side of Dershowitz was all he was willing to do. Oh well. By the way, there has been a split in JVP – chapters in Boston, Philadelphia, Madison, and Detroit are now part of a new network, American Jews for a Just Peace (AJJP) – yes it's unfortunate but I personally came to see it as inevitable.
American,
What is the Jerusalem Summit? Is it just a fringe group? I love the way they freely play games with demographics as long as they benifit and other people pay for it. That sounds familiar.
If you reverse the players in the quoted piece, a long one for sure,
it's really easy to see operating in the whole plan[ and reasons therefore as given point by poin ]what Freud called projectionism. The folkism
equally salient: Pot calling kettle black–and then some.
Witty is usually the first to respond to every post here. And while his grammar is strong, his arguments generally address the subject at hand tangentially at best.
There's plenty of room to discuss the nuances of this issue, but I've never once seem him simply admit: Land was stolen and the occupation is wron.
The Jerusalem Summit is a rather dippy right-wing group associated with Alan Keyes. It represents a rather cruder section of the Israeli Right and American neo-Con Right than the Princeton-, Harvard-, and Rutgers-educated Likud Jabotinsky-heirs at the Shalem Center. With its breezy negation of Palestinians' right to live in the West Bank, its policy on "minorities" thus resembles that of the PLO Charter.