In an interview on "Z-word," a Zionist site run by the American Jewish Committee, the writer Paul Berman rejects the idea that the Gaza assault was disproportionate, and suggests that Israel thereby averted "genocide."
[W]hich of these is the correct analysis - that Hamas poses a genocidal threat in the making? Or that Hamas expresses mostly the ugliness of the powerless, and poses a relatively small danger? Everything hangs on the answer to that question. People tend to assume that the proportionality of a military action should be measured against what has already taken place - that somebody who has been attacked has the right to counter-attack on roughly the same level. "The law of even-Steven," in Walzer's dismissive phrase. But it is the future that has to be taken into account.
Unfortunately, we cannot predict the future. We stand in the dark, and we make guesses. Those of us who look on the Gaza war from thousands of miles of away enjoy the luxury of speculating this way or that way. But if you were in the Israeli government, it wouldn't be so easy to gamble on the answer. So Israel is in a bind. No matter what the Israelis choose to do, they have to recognize that they might be tragically wrong - either in their failure to defend themselves, or in the suffering they inflict on other people.
This highflown manner is typical of Berman: he rises on circling verbal thermals and leaves reality. Because: hold on: Is anyone really standing in the dark about Hamas's threat? No: It is rockets that kill people in neighboring cities. They don't have nukes, or helicopters. Where is the "genocidal," i.e., existential, threat?
Berman is forced to anticipate this argument. Now watch as he goes back to the old standby: that Hamas are Nazis, and they are aided by-- uh oh, Walt and Mearsheimer.
Back in the 1930s, people used to assume that, once the Nazis had found their way into a position of responsibility for the well-being of Germany, they would stop saying wild things and would certainly think twice about putting their program into action. Power was supposed to sober the Nazis up. But maybe there is something about ideologies of group hatred that makes it hard to sober up.
Then again, I think that a certain number of people see nothing especially crazy or hateful in Hamas' arguments and goals. They see points that are fairly reasonable, even if Hamas' way of expressing those points seems a little crude. The Jews should not be killed, all reasonable people agree; but (so goes a very popular argument) neither do the Jews have a right to defend themselves. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a sophisticated document; but Walt and Mearsheimer's book "The Israel Lobby" is (in some people's view) a sophisticated document. And the sophisticated document makes the unsophisticated one seem like it is on to something. By reasoning in this fashion, people end up concluding that Hamas' doctrines have a purchase on truth - something that quite a few people believe. But they choose not to say it because they don't want to look unsophisticated or coarse.
Anyway, history does not lack for genocides, and we have to assume that a lot of people have figured that, for one reason or another, genocide is a good idea. The people who think in this fashion are not just the fanatics who engage in the massacres, but also a larger public that gazes from the sidelines without objecting, and sometimes even applauds.
It seems as if Berman is saying that Walt and Mearsheimer have intellectually licensed genocide against the Jews? Wow. And notice that he uses the word "massacres" for some anticipated assault on Jews, when Israel has just killed 400 children.
Berman is a sincere writer; another way of saying that is that every time I read him, I have the same feeling. But we're not living on the same planet. For him, it is always 1938. He speaks authoritatively here about antisemitism in the Middle Ages, and 90-something Bernard Lewis, and the world's unending discomfort with Jews as the pebble in the shoe. There is no reckoning with the incredible fact of Jewish power in American society--with all the Jews in the Obama administration and the Bush administration before that, with the fact that Steve Walt holds a chair at Harvard endowed by a Jew, and is married to a woman of Jewish heritage, and that John Mearsheimer has long taught a Holocaust course and denounced antisemitism. The whole interview is utterly disconnected from the fact that Israel rained white phosphorus on civilians and that many more people dislike Israel now than did a few months before.
The Turks for instance. When a Turkish delegation goes to Gaza and says that the destruction is "beyond description," do we write that off--and every other international condemnatoin--as a bunch of foreigners who hate Jews? Or do we see the common humanity of Turks, Palestinians, and Jews? For Berman, Jews are the eternal pursued minority. I don't believe this. We are deeply integrated into U.S. society; and the central issue is about Jewish exceptionalism, Jewish self-absorption. Can Jews see Israel as others see Israel? Many Jews can. Because this isn't about Jews, it's about a state that is out of control when it comes to threats, and that many of its neighbors now fear (per Roger Cohen).
61 years ago Chaim Weizmann wrote (per Richard Cohen) that he had no doubt that the world would judge Israel by how it treated the Arab population. This turns out to be accurate. And why isn't that a just standard?
Jewishness seems to be predicated on the existence of an eternal enemy (Amalekites in various forms) dedicated to the destruction of
Jews simply for being Jews; tribal solidarity is thereby enhanced,
and any and all means justified in vanquishing the foe.
Here's an article listing British mandate reports on Jewish terrorist attacks in one Palestinian town, fragment of the historical documentation–note how they liked to terrorize while dressed in Brit uniforms: link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com
zionist terrorism has long roots: link to palestine-info.co.uk
Chaim Weizman's description was accurate.
Its just that appeasement to intended and applied terror, is not the appropriate response.
The consequences of appeasement without real reconciliation, without sincere intent on the part of Hamas and its constituencies, is murder of the civilians that the Israeli state and its supporters are responsible for (genocide is too large a word, was it yours or Berman's?).
"Oh, as Irving Howe said, "There is no heart so warm that it doesn't have a cold spot for the Jews." We like to think of hatred of the Jews as a low, base sentiment that is entertained by nasty, ignorant people, wallowing in their own hatefulness. But normally it's not like that. Hatred for the Jews has generally taken the form of a lofty sentiment, instead of a lowly one – a noble feeling embraced by people who believe they stand for the highest and most admirable of moral views.
In the Middle Ages, Christians felt they were upholding the principles of universal redemption, and they looked on the Jews as terrible people because the Jews had refused the word of God – had insisted on remaining Jews. And so, the loftiest of religious sentiments led to hatred of the Jews.
In the 18th century, the Enlightenment philosophers looked on the Enlightenment itself as the loftiest form of thought – the truest of all possible guides to universal justice and happiness. The Enlightenment philosophers detested Christianity because it was a font of superstition and oppression. But this only led them to despise the Jews even more – no longer because the Jews had refused the message of Christianity, but because the Jews had engendered the message of Christianity. And the damnable Jews insisted on remaining Jews, instead of repudiating religion altogether."
The religious wars wreaked all kinds of damage on Europe. But the Treaty of Westphalia came along in 1648 and put an end to religious wars by establishing a system of states with recognized borders, each state with its own religion. The new Westphalian system embodied yet another Enlightenment idea of lofty ideals – the grandest guarantee of universal peace and justice. But the Jews were scattered throughout Europe, instead of being gathered together in a single state. The new state system was supposed to be a comfortable shoe, and the Jews were a pebble. And they insisted on remaining Jews, instead of helpfully disappearing. So one hated the Jews for failing to conform to the new system of states.
Today we have arrived at yet another idea about how to bring about universal peace and justice – the loftiest, most advanced idea of our own time. Instead of looking on well-established states with solid borders to keep the peace, Westphalia-style, we look on states as a formula for oppression and war. Lofty opinion nowadays calls for post-state political systems, like the European Union. Unfortunately, nowadays the Jews possess a state. Thus one hates the Jews in the name of lofty opinion, no longer because the Jews lack a state but because, on the contrary, they have a state. They seem keen on keeping their state. And once again the Jews are seen to be affirming a principle that high-minded people used to uphold but have now rejected as antiquated. "
Zionists deflect everything negative about them onto their 'enemy'. Human shields, Israel does that. Torture, Israel does that. Hostages, Israel does that. Terror, Israel does that. Genocide? Genocide is described as INTENT to blah blah, as per the UN.
Hence, it is ISRAEL who IN ACTION, is committing a genocide.
No one is saying it's the Holocaust with a capital H. And also no one SHOULD say that Israelis have become the new Nazis or Israel is Nazi Germany. Rather, they have become a radical nationalistic over-militarized country. A Facist State. A Racist State. A State whose guiding ideology is built on the hatred/destruction of another people.
That's true. They aren't the Nazis. In many ways they are worse. They only lose in body count – hence why the Nazis were uniquely insane. But in ideology? They Israel wins EASILY.
Moreover, the way Israel butchers the Palestinians while at the same time professing the desire for peace and blah blah is uniquely evil. Did the Nazis ever sweet talk the Jews? No, they just incinerated them. Israelis incinerate Palestinian children while putting out movies like Waltz With Bashir and while talking about peace and blaming Islamic terror.
@Phil
LOL. I love your defense of those authors. To sum up, "some of their best friends are Jewish".
BTW, out of curiosity, if a hostage taker was firing at civilians from behind a human shield, and the human shield was shot dead by police while they shot at the hostage taker, would you say the human shield was killed by the police, without any further qualification? Or would you say "was killed in a shootout between police and the armed hostage taker".
Human shield?
Like this human shield? link to haaretz.com
Or this? link to haaretz.com
Or this? link to btselem.org
Or this? link to news.bbc.co.uk
Here's a tip to all the rational observers. Ignore fanatical Zionists like Thom/Suzanne/Berel and google the nonsense they espouse. Look things up and find the truth. These clowns are getting more and more desperate.
Wow, Philip, you are right as rain, as always. Berman's absurd twisting of logic is shocking to the conscience — now the AIPAC apologists are compelled to mention Walt & Mearshimer in the same sentences as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?" The major problem for Berman, Abe Foxman, and their ilk, is that by raising the canard of anti-Semitism everytime their legitimate criticism of the death of innocents in Palestine (using flesh-melting white phospherous and limb-amputating DIME shrapnel-spewing weaponry), they dilute the power of the phrase. If criticism of Israel's pogrom in Palestine is anit-Semitic in Berman & Foxman's eyes, then bring it on. Berman can call his critics whatever name he chooses, but it does nothing to obscure the IDF's Nazi-like genocidal tactics in Palestine, as endorsed by Zionists, AIPAC, WINEP and Berman himself.
@ witty
"Its just that appeasement to intended and applied terror, is not the appropriate response."
So you agree that the powers at the time shouldn't have catered to zionist terrorists? Should have held Zionism to the Balfour letter's desire to protect the natives, and make sure Israel did not come at the expense of the natives? And, now you support reigning in the greedy zionist state power?
" The consequences of appeasement without real reconciliation, without sincere intent on the part of Hamas and its constituencies, is murder of the civilians that the Israeli state and its supporters are responsible for (genocide is too large a word, was it yours or Berman's?)."
The consequences of the appeasement sans real reconciliation, sincerely intended, is that Israel and its enabler the USA have become rogue states in the post-Nuremberg-post apartheid S AFrica-post Jim Crow world.
"Oh, as Irving Howe said, "There is no heart so warm that it doesn't have a cold spot for the Jews." We like to think of hatred of the Jews as a low, base sentiment that is entertained by nasty, ignorant people, wallowing in their own hatefulness. But normally it's not like that. Hatred for the Jews has generally taken the form of a lofty sentiment, instead of a lowly one – a noble feeling embraced by people who believe they stand for the highest and most admirable of moral views.
Or, as Goebbels said to Magda, "There is no Jewish heart so warm it has no cold spot for the Gentiles–read their sacred scripts, get to know them better, and you will marry me. Do not stay idealistic, for they will take advantage of your high principles, your spiritual nobility, to grab and keep what and whomever they can–no one loves high lofty phrases than the Jews, the better to conceal their true nature. They invented double-talk, I learned how to send a message from an American PR jew. He
got them to smoke cigarettes."
"In the Middle Ages, Christians felt they were upholding the principles of universal redemption, and they looked on the Jews as terrible people because the Jews had refused the word of God – had insisted on remaining Jews. And so, the loftiest of religious sentiments led to hatred of the Jews."
In the middle Ages most Christians experienced Jews in their socio-economic role only, a role that
definitely did not aid the average gentile peasant or serf. Further, the jews didn't want anything to do with average gentiles other than conduct jewish business, with the force of kingly goy knights backing them up.
"In the 18th century, the Enlightenment philosophers looked on the Enlightenment itself as the loftiest form of thought – the truest of all possible guides to universal justice and happiness. "
Yes it was the age of reason, not fairy tales.
"The Enlightenment philosophers detested Christianity because it was a font of superstition and oppression. But this only led them to despise the Jews even more – no longer because the Jews had refused the message of Christianity, but because the Jews had engendered the message of Christianity. And the damnable Jews insisted on remaining Jews, instead of repudiating religion altogether."
No, the Enlightenment philosophers detested all religions as equally backward; they wanted rational progress in the human spirit and mind. They did notice the bigoted propensity of jews "to dwell alone."
"The religious wars wreaked all kinds of damage on Europe. But the Treaty of Westphalia came along in 1648 and put an end to religious wars by establishing a system of states with recognized borders, each state with its own religion. The new Westphalian system embodied yet another Enlightenment idea of lofty ideals – the grandest guarantee of universal peace and justice. But the Jews were scattered throughout Europe, instead of being gathered together in a single state. The new state system was supposed to be a comfortable shoe, and the Jews were a pebble. And they insisted on remaining Jews, instead of helpfully disappearing. So one hated the Jews for failing to conform to the new system of states."
Only a fool walks around all day with a pebble in his shoe? So now the Palestinians are scattered, not gathered in a state of their own. Israel, the new state system–why should the Pals feel comfortable
in a shore made for Jews? The Pals, the pebble left in the Israeli shoe, after that shoe crushed and
booted them out, are hated by the Zionists for failing to conform to the new system.
"Today we have arrived at yet another idea about how to bring about universal peace and justice – the loftiest, most advanced idea of our own time. Instead of looking on well-established states with solid borders to keep the peace, Westphalia-style, we look on states as a formula for oppression and war. "
And not without good reason–hence the anger at the USA and Israel these days. Some people have not forgotten the moral lessons learned through 1945. They actually take international consensus on what constitutes a war crime seriously. Such earnest folks are not represented by the USA or Israel's
regimes. We are hoping for more from Obamarama.
"Lofty opinion nowadays calls for post-state political systems, like the European Union. Unfortunately, nowadays the Jews possess a state. Thus one hates the Jews in the name of lofty opinion, no longer because the Jews lack a state but because, on the contrary, they have a state. They seem keen on keeping their state. And once again the Jews are seen to be affirming a principle that high-minded people used to uphold but have now rejected as antiquated. "
Lofty opinion nowadays applies moral-legal principles agreed upon by most of the world to Israel's conduct, and finds it the height of hypocrisy.
–State of Israel conduct occurring under color of law and state sovereignty as compared to zionist terrorist conduct in the mandate prior to 1948
The problem was the step up from Kassams to Grads. Grads strike farther into Israel and kill people in cars and houses, rather than only in the open. It was the transition from harassment to gain concessions (a level of force that contained a germ of deniability) to the potential for genocide. At this point, explaining that to Hamas supporters abroad is a waste of time. Hamas is seeking escalation dominance, thus Israel's only option is to contain Hamas pending a settlement (with which the level of force used in Gaza is congruent) or deter it (as Hezbollah has apparently been deterred) or destroy it as King Hussein dismantled the PLO in Black September.
The other option is gas-tipped rockets on Tel-Aviv and hiding behind Gharkad trees.
"When a Turkish delegation goes to Gaza and says that the destruction is "beyond description," do we write that off–and every other international condemnatoin–as a bunch of foreigners who hate Jews?"
No, we take it as a muslim group showing solidarity with another muslim group. We know the destruction is not beyond description. we know they exagerate for effect.
(genocide is too large a word, was it yours or Berman's?)
Richard, I don't like this feature, it suggests prejudice to me. Why don't you simply go back to the article and check for yourself, if you don't want to read the sources? Phil quotes exactly the statement that contains the word.
This is absolutely wrong:
Considering the prominence of the Nazis in their writing it is actually interesting to see how history is always slightly distorted to serve ideological ends. [Although the above argument has been used lately for the European extreme right, and may well be true in a basically democratic process. Meaning these parties are forced to act much more moderately in a parliamentarian context. The problem is the Nazis didn't have to bother about these standards, they simply changed them.]
Fact is: the Nazis in Nov. 1932 lost 2 million votes, ending up with 33% in the last "democratic election", the second election in 1932. en.Wikipedia makes a little difficult to get the bigger picture. Compare here. The problem may well lie in the not too good English article on the Machtergreifung
What's missing here is the: Enabling act and Reichstag Fire Degree. Besides shortly after the take over the Nazis closed down the papers of the left. They were the first send to the camps. Under this terror the supposedly free election in 1933 took place, which gained them a majority. All this couldn't have happened without the implicit support from leading political circles on the right and NOT the people.
If it was people and not certain political elites on the right who thought so, there wouldn't have been a need for all these activities. But it is a standard rather than some kind of aberration to blame "the people" and not their leaders.
"The fact is that Palestinian Arab terror against Jews began in the 1920s, and expressed itself in riots in 1921, in the Riots and Massacres of 1929 including the Hebron Massacre, and the the Arab Revolt of 1936-9 as well as numerous minor incidents that turned terror into a way of life beginning in 1929 and continuing until present time. Jan 1, 1952 – Seven armed terrorists attacked and killed a nineteen year-old girl in her home, in the neighborhood of Beit Yisrael, in Jerusalem.
Apr 14, 1953 – Terrorists tried for the first time to infiltrate Israel by sea, but were unsuccessful. One of the boats was intercepted and the other boat escaped.
June 7, 1953 – A youngster was killed and three others were wounded, in shooting attacks on residential areas in southern Jerusalem.
June 9, 1953 – Terrorists attacked a farming community near Lod, and killed one of the residents. The terrorists threw hand grenades and sprayed gunfire in all directions. On the same night, another group of terrorists attacked a house in the town of Hadera. This occurred a day after Israel and Jordan signed an agreement, with UN mediation, in which Jordan undertook to prevent terrorists from crossing into Israel from Jordanian territory.
June 10, 1953 – Terrorists infiltrating from Jordan destroyed a house in the farming village of Mishmar Ayalon.
June 11, 1953 – Terrorists attacked a young couple in their home in Kfar Hess, and shot them to death.
Sept 2, 1953 – Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and reached the neighborhood of Katamon, in the heart of Jerusalem. They threw hand grenades in all directions. Miraculously, no one was hurt.
Mar 17, 1954 – Terrorists ambushed a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, and opened fire at short range when the bus reached the area of Maale Akrabim in the northern Negev. In the initial ambush, the terrorists killed the driver and wounded most of the passengers. The terrorists then boarded the bus, and shot each passenger, one by one. Eleven passengers were murdered. Survivors recounted how the murderers spat on the bodies and abused them. The terrorists could clearly be traced back to the Jordanian border, some 20 km from the site of the terrorist attack.
Jan 2, 1955 – Terrorists killed two hikers in the Judean Desert.
Mar 24, 1955 – Terrorists threw hand grenades and opened fire on a crowd at a wedding in the farming community of Patish, in the Negev. A young woman was killed, and eighteen people were wounded in the attack. Apr 7, 1956 – A resident of Ashkelon was killed in her home, when terrorists threw three hand grenades into her house.
Two members of Kibbutz Givat Chaim were killed, when terrorists opened fire on their car, on the road from Plugot Junction to Mishmar Hanegev.
There were further hand grenade and shooting attacks on homes and cars, in areas such as Nitzanim and Ketziot. One person was killed and three others wounded.
Apr 11, 1956 – Terrorists opened fire on a synagogue full of children and teenagers, in the farming community of Shafrir. Three children and a youth worker were killed on the spot, and five were wounded, including three seriously.
Apr 29, 1956 – Egyptians killed Roi Rotenberg, 21 years of age, from Nahal Oz.
Sept 12, 1956 – Terrorists killed three Druze guards at Ein Ofarim, in the Arava region.
Sept 23, 1956 – Terrorists opened fire from a Jordanian position, and killed four archaeologists, and wounded sixteen others, near Kibbutz Ramat Rachel.
Sept 24, 1956 – Terrorists killed a girl in the fields of the farming community of Aminadav, near Jerusalem.
Oct 4, 1956 – Five Israeli workers were killed in Sdom.
Oct 9, 1956 – Two workers were killed in an orchard of the youth village, Neve Hadassah, in the Sharon region.
Nov 8, 1956 – Terrorists opened fire on a train, attacked cars and blew up wells, in the North and Center of Israel. Six Israelis were wounded.
Feb 18, 1957 – Two civilians were killed by terrorist landmines, next to Nir Yitzhak, on the southern border of the Gaza Strip.
Mar 8, 1957 – A shepherd from Kibbutz Beit Govrin was killed by terrorists in a field near the Kibbutz.
Apr 16, 1957 – Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and killed two guards at Kibbutz Mesilot.
May 20, 1957 – A terrorist opened fire on a truck in the Arava region, killing a worker.
May 29, 1957 – A tractor driver was killed and two others wounded, when the vehicle struck a landmine, next to Kibbutz Kisufim.
June 23, 1957 – Israelis were wounded by landmines, close to the Gaza Strip.
Aug 23, 1957 – Two guards of the Israeli Mekorot water company were killed near Kibbutz Beit Govrin.
Dec 21, 1957 – A member of Kibbutz Gadot was killed in the Kibbutz fields.
Feb 11, 1958 – Terrorists killed a resident of Moshav Yanov who was on his way to Kfar Yona, in the Sharon area.
Apr 5, 1958 – Terrorists lying in ambush shot and killed two people near Tel Lachish."
etc. etc. etc. Arab terror goes on and on.
link to zionism-israel.com
Julian, don't forget that that was 'organized' palestinian islamic arab terrorism.
Israel is seeking escalation dominance, and ever more land, thus Hamas's only option is to resist the best it can and appeal
to the wider world that is not economically coerced by world-wide zionism implants.
Israel, like Caligula, decided better to have people fear you than respect you.
If you go to the urls Alan freedman and Alice provided above, you will see lists of jewish terrorist attacks with date, place, results, and those lists don't even include the really big jewish terrorist events. And let's remember the Palestinians during all these attacks were the natives, not the colonial settlers.
Hamas has the problem that it has convinced Israel that it will use any and all weapons it obtains to strike Israeli civilians, and that it is not susceptible to conventional theories of deterrence.
Eventually Hamas strikes may destroy or endanger the Israeli power plant in Ashkelon and cut power to the Gaza Strip.
Truly the tale of the frog and the scorpion.
Why do we not judge the Arabs by the way they treat the Jews???
The hell with that, let's judge them on the way they treat each other. Whats the latest total number of suicide bombings and shi'ite dead in Iraq?
Lets judge each side by the number of children they kill.
One needn't isolate hardcore jewish-zionist Americans to find perspectives such as these.
Jut look at one of the hippest liberal magazines of the day: GOOD Magazine. Its Senior Web Editor, Andrew Price, posted this piece recently, titled 'Gaza Context'. In it, he suggests that we take into consideration Mcnamara's rationale re: America's 'defensive' annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki using atomic bombs. This, to help us consider the prespective that sometimes disproportionate force is necessary for the survival of the aggressor! This is what he meant by 'context' for Gaza! That we need to contextualize the murder of 1300 people as protecting many more!
For me to think that, as context, he was going to talk about the historical origin of Gaza's refugee camps and such trivia!
But wait, there's more GOOD stuff! A prior post from GOOD's Deputy Editor, Morgan Clendaniel. Why, for him, things are less 'fuzzy'. He outright says that those nasty Gazans deserved Israel's destruction of their lives and homes and villages, because they voted for Hamas.
This is from a hip & progressive magazine called GOOD, full of stylishly heart-warming stories and ideas for a better life for all humanity–except for the sub-human Gazans, they don't count.
I don't know if Price and Clendaniel are tribalist-Jewish Zionists. I pretty much doubt they are. Because you don't have to be a Zionist or a ethnocentric Jew to be "Progressive Except for Palestine". You can be as liberal and white-bread as they come!
Great information, spud wiser, thank you.
Anyone else notice the quite explicit anti-Semitic remarks made by posters on this site, wedged between remarks by people making the claim that Jews blow out of proportion anti-Semitism? Read HAMAS' charter.