One of the goals of this site is to promote critical discussion and debate on US foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We want Mondoweiss to be a place that everyone feels comfortable visiting, to read and comment, regardless of political perspective. People might not always like what we post, but everyone should feel invited and encouraged to join the discussion, share their opinions, and engage in debate.
Unfortunately, more and more we are hearing that people are not comfortable participating in the site because of the noxious and often abusive language that proliferates in the comments section. We've tried the hands-off approach, hoping the site would regulate itself. This hasn't worked.
For this reason we are putting in place the following ground rules:
1. No racist or sexist comments. This includes anti-Arab, Islamophobic
and anti-Semitic comments (and yes, Christian-bashing too). This includes comments that disparage,
intimidate or attack a person based on perceived ethnicity or gender.
2. No gross obscenity. Along with racism and sexism the prevalence of obscene and scatological comments on the blog has forced people away. This has to end—though yes, the occasional curse word is alright.
3. No personal attacks. We encourage spirited,
passionate debate, but if you have to resort to vicious personal attack, you're
not advancing the discussion. Stay on the issues.
4. No imposture. You can use any pseudonym you like, but if you represent yourself as someone you're not, you're outta here.
We'll be implementing this starting today. If we judge that you have broken one of these rules you will be banned. We will ban the IP address you are posting from and if you try to post from another IP address we will ban that as well.
We like to think that this site has become a dynamic and necessary forum. Your help will ensure that it continues to grow and develop.
Thanks,
Phil & Adam
Related posts:
{ 66 comments }
I'm all for this. I remember when the site's biggest troll was just Witty and we could at least argue with him rationally and with civility. These new trolls/sockpuppets are YNet/JPost/StandWithUs-trained, hence the foam-at-the-mouth style of Zionist propaganda.
Okay, the last three are I think straightforward, but think hard about the first one, below:
This includes anti-Arab, Islamophobic and anti-Semitic comments (and yes, Christian-bashing too). This includes comments that disparage, intimidate or attack a person based on on perceived ethnicity or gender.
Unfortunately, there's no hard line between criticism of Islam, Muslims and Islamophobia, and the same with the other categories. As you note yourself below re. the Israeli Apartheid poster, there's a lot of people appealing to the norms of civil discourse in an attempt to close down discussion of this issue, and harsh, unvarnished, full-throated criticism is exactly what jewish colonialism needs. So you need to err on the side of allowing a lot here, including a lot you don't agree with, even if you turn the screws on gross obscenity, imposture, and personal attacks.
LD, these rules apply as much to those who would seem to support the political perspective of the site as much as they do to those who oppose it. While referring to people as "trolls" and "sockpuppets" or saying they have a "foam-at-the-mouth style" isn't particularly vicious, it also isn't particularly helpful. We need to be debating the issues, not making attacks.
Otto, yes there is a clear line. It is quite possible to criticize a Muslim person for something without blaming Islam or making broad generalizations about an entire religion or the "innate" qualities of a group of people. This is the same for Jews or Christians, etc.
We are not looking to shut down discussion, only to make it more useful. We invite your "harsh, unvarnished, full-throated criticism" but just make sure its targeted at the right people, institutions and practices, and not just gross generalizations.
This is long overdue. There's been plenty of both anti-Jewish and anti-Arab bashing going on here. I'm very curious, though, where you are going to draw the line.
I'm not for censorship or bannings. Insults involving wives, sexual acts or racial and ethnic slurs should be deleted. Otherwise, we're all adults. I know that the point is to keep viewer numbers as high as possible, but people will come and go due to the subject matter. Israel v. Palestine gets very repetitive and depressing very quickly, and I think bannings will hurt more than help. How hard is it to scroll past something you dislike? Afterall, most posters are easily identifiable after a few words.
And not before time. Approve wholeheartedly!
Fewer, better comments would be a great improvement.
ok…so question here for clarification.
The remarks about zionism (and its implied Jewishness) will, of course, continue.
So what is going to be considered fair game when discussing radical Islamist ideology? Am I going to be banned if I refer to the fringe left/fringe right/ Islamist jihad (note I make a careful distinction between Islamic and Islamist)? Because honestly, there is a coalition, loose confederation, whatever, and I'm not going to pretend it's not there.
The remarks about zionism (and its implied Jewishness) will, of course, continue.
This is telling. Suzanne cannot separate zionism from judaism.
Suzanne, judaism is a religion. Zionism is a political movement of the ethnic nationalistic variety.
One is off-limits, the other fair game.
I'm opposed to censorship, too. I suspect one of the appeals of this site is its ribald comments section, which despite everything also moves the conversation forward.
If a banning policy HAS to be enacted, my suggestion would be a three strikes policy, so people can know when they are crossing the line, and also as a teaching tool for others as to what the proprietors regard as inappropriate.
Thanks Phil, It has become rude here with name calling et alia. Suzanne, can't you distinguish between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism? I love to talk about this stuff with Israelis, especially sabras. I am not allowed to talk about Israel with American Jews. I am outraged by the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis. My taxes support the aggression and I have an obligation to protest. I also enjoy this blog.
I think this is a great idea. I trust Phil not to be too heavy-handed in his moderation. There is no reason to let those who refuse to actually engage in discussion ruin this site.
A hat tip to most all of Phil's regulars as I have never seen them unwilling to defend their positions, answer serious questions put to them, or revise their own views if someone manages to persuade them to another way of thinking. They provide a great deal of reference material that is both interesting and informative (much like Phil's site).
I hope the trolls don't suffer too much withdrawal symptoms from not being able to fling their poo (that word OK?) so freely (actually, that's a lie – I hope they go through severe discomfort having all their bile back-up to the extent it is bound to).
Thanks for making this change, Phil. I think it will end up quite an improvement.
For the record, those thanks go to Adam as well.
Sam and Jim—please, let's not play games here. Very few here have distinguished between Jews/Israel/Zionism. You've already made it very clear what your true feelings are and what drives your politics. It's documented all over this blog. Don't insult me with your bs. Be honest or piss off.
"Otto, yes there is a clear line. It is quite possible to criticize a Muslim person for something without blaming Islam or making broad generalizations about an entire religion or the "innate" qualities of a group of people."
You give yourself the easy distinction, between criticising an individual and making comments about 'innate' qualities of a group. Well done for keeping that line clear! The more difficult ground is criticising qualities demonstrated (not, of course, 'innately', which is something of a red herring here) by broad groups of people. For example, the idea that there is pervasive chauvinism towards arabs amongst american jews. Discussing that pervasive chauvinism is much of what this blog is about, I'd say. And in it's discussion it goes far beyond criticising a particular person, just as a discussion of pervasive white supremacy in the US South pre-1965 would not just be about particular people. It would be about broad structures of chauvinism strongly associated with race (and religion).
The remarks about Zionism (and its implied Fascism) will, of course, continue.
Suzanne, to answer your question. First, I think Sam made a good point on the difference between Judaism and Zionism and I agree with his conclusion. On the question of Islamist ideology I see no problem in discussing it. Its a phenomena in the world that deserves to be discussed. The danger would be in extending analysis of this ideology to all Muslims or to an essential definition of Islam itself. That would be reductive and inaccurate.
Several years ago someone wanted to know what to call the fighters opposing the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Traditionally, Americans have called Islamic freedom fighters Mujahideen, but that was when they were allied with America fighting against the Soviets. Now that Islamic freedom fighters are opposing American occupation they are called terrorists, which is also the term used to describe Palestinian and Lebanese resisters to Israeli militant domination.
Conflict, especially conflict that has devolved into violence, is going to elicit not only condemnation, but an emotional response representing the horrors of the violence perpetrated. Keeping a response to the horrors of violence civil is a particularly difficult task because it reduces the emotional tension needing a release through communication with one's peers who are both protagonists and antagonists. I prefer to see all of the emotion exposed, as well as to occasionally resort to emotional outbursts myself, because this mental state becomes worse if it is not made conscious to both the individual and her interlocutors.
Otto, I think you just did a great job to demonstrating the difference between making a thoughtful statement and a generalization. I totally agree with what you're saying about the pervasive beliefs of a group of people. This deals with group sociology, politics, and history among other things. There are broad trends and clear exceptions that can be make. This is a very interesting discussion and much different than just saying "Jews think (blank)."
Expecting a comments section on a web site to be "self-regulating" is just silly. I've seen this over and over again on various sites. It never works. You have to regulate in some way. What you're doing here, moderating comments after the fact, is one way. Another is to not allow comments to be posted until they have been moderated. A third is to require people to log in to a registered account to comment, and delete their account if they prove unwilling or unable to abide by norms of civil discourse.
Adam, I strongly disagree with some of what you're saying in this thread. In specific:
"While referring to people as 'trolls' and 'sockpuppets' or saying they have a 'foam-at-the-mouth style' isn't particularly vicious, it also isn't particularly helpful."
When it's accurate, it is helpful. To take only one example, SOG's involvement on this site consists pretty much exclusively of trying to stir up flamewars and distract attention from valid issues. That's internet troll behavior in a nutshell and there's nothing at all unreasonable about saying so. It's not as if rebutting him point-by-point would do any good; he isn't here to learn, and in fact rebutting him would give him what he wants. Better to simply dismiss him as a troll and move on.
"It is quite possible to criticize a Muslim person for something without blaming Islam or making broad generalizations about an entire religion or the 'innate' qualities of a group of people."
Often this is true. However, religions do have teachings and those teachings have implications for action. To pretend that religious teachings are unconnected from the behavior of the religion's adherents is ridiculous. It gives the impression of an overly PC approach to life, pretending that religion is just a matter of private belief that does not have real-world consequences, and that all people are utterly unique individuals who do not share qualities with others of similar background. Sure, any generalization will be considerably less than 100% accurate, but it may still have value.
I'd put the name before the post, so we can scroll past the offenders. Other than that, let people see how the Zionists behave. Their behavior does more to wake people up than anything else. It's what woke me up. Media hides this behavior and Americans are shocked out of their media-induced trance when they first encounter it.
I thought I had made a thoughtful generalisation! Generalisation and thoughtfulness are not mutually exclusive. And in addition, I think I should be able to make lots of these generalisations (thoughtful, in as much as I can pull it off) without too many caveats and of-course-there-are-exceptions blather.
In any event, thanks for the blog.
Adam, your answer was as dishonest as Sam's. Were you aJ ew who identified himself as such, religiously, you would know that zionism is part and parcel intergral to Judaism. Zionism is the yearning of the religious Jew to return to Israel and Jerusalem. That it is now a reality, is the fruition of zionism as part of Judaism.
Reference to zionism being fascist in nature are of course an antisemitic remark. If you can't see that with your eyes open, then you are blind.
Allowing LD, Ash, and lance continue their childish baiting will merely continue the abuse cycle with the supporters, of the Palestinian Islamic genocidal goal of the destruction of Israel, receiving the short end of the stick.
Craig, your first point is well taken. I was referring specifically to LD's post, but I agree with you in general.
On you second point I think its less clear. There is so much diversity in how religions are understood and practiced that I think there is very little value in trying to draw broad conclusions. Yes, I think that the people are a moved to act by religion and that they think they are carrying out the commands of their faith. I also know another member of their religion would most likely totally disagree with them. This is true for every religion. I have no problem pointing out that people are moved by religion or are following a widespread and popular interpretation or teaching, it just doesn't make sense to say that all (Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc.) think or act a certain way. That is all I think we need to avoid. It is useful to point out important and popular trends within religious, and non-religious, thought.
Thanks Phil and Adam–good luck with this policy.
Accusations of antisemitism against criticisms of Zionism are of course a Fascist tactic. If you can't see that with your eyes open, then you are blind.
Allowing SOG and Chris Berel to continue their childish baiting will merely continue the abuse cycle with the supporters of the Zionist fascist goal of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, receiving the short end of the stick.
@ Chris:
Is there any other country in the whole wide world that is is racist to criticize?
Give me a break. This change in policy isn't about me. It's about the Chris Berel's, the Suzannes, the SoGs, the Thoms.
It's about the people who after EVERY single blog post, have to cry antisemitism or call Phil, Pig Weiss. Or have to bait other posters into off-topic debates OR inanely stupid ones that lead nowhere.
Suzanne may not use vulgar language, but she's just as stifling and as much a roadblock to rational and thoughtful discussion as Chris Berel or the more vulgar posters.
I think between this policy and a general refusal to not feed the trolls, the level of discourse will be elevated. I look forward to it. It amazes me how some will waste time doing nothing other than confirm many of the stereotypes, when they could just as easily join in the discussion and actually argue their points if they felt they could rationally make a case for them.
That they do not is telling in itself.
HEY, LOOKS LIKE IT'S WORKING A LITTLE
chris berel did not make any personal vulgar racist comments. He merely stated his assumptions that
all real jews are also zionists, and that no zionist can be a fascist. Pretty easy to refute his assumptions.
In fact it's been done many times already on this blog. So, berift of his potty talk & rasicist, ethnic slurs, chris is just redundantly boring. I agree with the commenter who suggested the commenter's name be
put up first, so we can just scroll by people like chris & berel like bumps on the road to actual issue
discussion.
PS: Suzanne: "Very few here have distinguished between Jews/Israel/Zionism"? This is simply not true. Anyone can go back over the blog and see how accurate or not Suzanne is in this respect.
Thanks Philip and Adam. A shift in policy was indeed needed. I commented fewer in the recent weeks because of many obviously vile comments.
Of course, it will be interesting how this new policy is implemented. It won't be easy for you to always find the thin red line of justice, so I wish you good luck.
Now on to topics which have been raised.
Chris:
"zionism is part and parcel intergral to Judaism"
Yes? So what about the Jews not moving to Israel? What about groups like Neturei Karta who are of the opinion that Zionism in its current manifestation is against Judaism?
Are all of them fools who don't know their Judaic belief?
And he, if Zionism is "return to Israel and Jerusalem", what Israel does it refer to? Biblical Israel? Well if that's the case, there's an obvious discrepancy between religious law and international law.
Is there any other country in the whole wide world that is is racist to criticize?
Iran, Saudi Arabia…I dunno…are they nice in Dubai?
Whose been put to the test really with a warring hostile minority?
LOL
I think the name-before-post would be a good format too, but wouldn't Berel and Suzanne and the rest say that's antisemetic, like akin to wearing a star or an ID tag!?
Oh noes!
lurker–yes, please DO go back over the blog. I once said that anti-semites can't smell their own stank…but everyone else can…pppeeeeeeee-yew. Even Phil acknowledged that he'd attracted some unsavory bedfellows here.
Zionism is part and parcel integral to Judaism
This is common knowledge to the Canaanites, but others can disagree that Judaism is a religion based on territorial acquisition solely for the benefit of Jews. Nationalism describes the zero sum conflicts over territorial rights, not theology. Incorporating nationalist virtue as Judaic is what leads to comparisons with other nationalist movements. Nationalistic violence cannot be excused or protected from criticism just because it has been combined with a religious ideology. Arab pan-nationalists face the same condemnation as Zionists and others when they resort to violence to enforce their cause, even if they justify their aggression as religious. Using religion to justify aggression is surely a result of priestly sophistry, which should be condemned with the strongest possible rhetoric because, in my opinion, it is an original source of mankind's long enduring misery.
@ Suzanne
"One of the goals of this site is to promote critical discussion and debate on US foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "–Phil & Adam
This blog is made in the USA, by an American. Given the comparative amount of financial and media/government support given to Israel unconditionally, as compared to other states, including all those you mention, why wouldn't the USA's morally and ethnically, as well as realpolitik concerned citizens and taxpayers (all bankrupt) dwell especially on Israel's policies? Isn't that the other side of the coin, the coin face up, constantly extolling Uncle Sam's "special relationship" with Israel, the only democratic state in the Middle East? Why trot the tired "you are picking on poor little Israel" canard when everyone who attends this blog even a bit regularly knows there is two sides to every coin, even the special coin minted for Israel by Uncle Sam?
@Tommy:
"Nationalistic violence cannot be excused or protected from criticism just because it has been combined with a religious ideology"
Well said. Thank you.
@Suzanne:
Iran and it's Jews are going along fine, despite Israel trying everything it can to get Iranian Jews out of there. Iranian Jews protested against the accusations coming out of Tel Aviv and Washington re Iran's allegedly anti-Jewish president.
Hasn't there also been a problem recently with apologists for Israeli war crimes in Gaza who are part of the Zionist movement's organizational network being encouraged and/or paid to flood various blog sites that are critical of Israeli militarism with disinformation?
Also, in response to the rapid growth of support for Palestinian self-determination rights on U.S. campuses, certain U.S. universities whose boards of trustees are linked to the Lobby have apparently been firing professors who criticize Israeli militarism, such as Joel Kovel.
typo correction: ethnically–I meant ethically
Yes, bobf, you are right, Kovel is a recent example of the cost to anyone with the slightest influence criticizing Israel policies. Shame on Americans.
And re: ""Nationalistic violence cannot be excused or protected from criticism just because it has been combined with a religious ideology"
Too bad chris berel doesn't realize this truth.
"How hard is it to scroll past something you dislike? After all, most posters are easily identifiable after a few words."
Exactly! Why do people waste their time and pollute their minds by reading the rubbish that is completely lacking in substance and is only put here as a red herring? Simply ignore it.
"[the] ribald comments section, which despite everything also moves the conversation forward."
No it doesn't. Not at all. In fact, it does the exact opposite. It moves the conversation away from substance and causes it to deteriorate into name calling and personal attacks.
"1. No racist or sexist comments. This includes anti-Arab, Islamophobic and anti-Semitic comments (and yes, Christian-bashing too)."
It might be worth banning people who habitually accuse others of being islamophobic/anti-semitic etc as well.
Neturei Karta are zionists. It is obvious that you are ignorant of Judaism. Calling zionism fascism is antisemitic. That is not to say that the odd zionist or two is not also a fascist, but zionism is not fascism.
Iranian Jews are hostagges as are Syrian Jews. They require high level protection. Iran itself brags that the Ayatollah is their personal protector of the Jews. If they were not in danger, why must they be protected by the Ayatollah?
Just ban or at the very LEAST, suspend people who do not contribute ANYTHING other than stock-comments, like Berel or SoG or Suzanne. Berel and SoG being the more vulgar and overt Israeli apologists. While Suzanne, is the same minus the middle school rhetoric.
Another voice here in opposition of heavy handedness in moderation (which I know is not the intent), and I also agree with Ed regarding three strikes policy. Admittedly, the Berels, Suzanne's and SOG's are a distraction, but these are easily skirted. If that's all we must endure, it is not bad. I am actually impressed with the way commenters on this site have, by and large, resisted attempts at hijacking, flaming, etc. and personally, I take comfort from the seething I sense in troll-land.
By way of warning, the subject matter of this blog will naturally attract attention from certain quarters. We are all aware of the campaigns to shut down spirited discussion on the internet on the topics of AIPAC, israel/zionism, one state solutions and even, Judaism in general. The way this campaign is being conducted is not always overt. At times it's done using a disingenuous appeal to "civility" and to "staying on topic". I've seen (and been researching) how community moderation a-la DailyKos can work effectively to shut down honest and open discussion on certain subjects – to the point that serious commenters will rather not waste their time. That is, after all, the purpose – to drive away substance, leaving nothing but fluff. And fluff always works in favor of the right everywhere, since that mindframe works best in darkeness. That is one of the ways the MSM was practically cowed into catatonic silence, That's also what turned the talkback section in haaretz into a bore, with some of the better commenters having all but disappeared. The battle is now raging over the Cif of the Guardian.
I realize this blog here is not like haaretz (be that it were – then phil and Adam could get paid). But caution in exercising moderation is called for, IMO, because the "other side" will, in fact, stop at nothing, and will swoop in the second they sense a crack in the door. Honestly, I'd rather put up with a few innanities by berel etc., with the perhaps some culling of the obvious obscenities.
Iran and it's Jews are going along fine, despite Israel trying everything it can to get Iranian Jews out of there. Iranian Jews protested against the accusations coming out of Tel Aviv and Washington re Iran's allegedly anti-Jewish president.
cmawwwwnnnn, please stop. I'm not dumb. There are Iranian Jews in the States. There's a community where I live.
Things aren't ok. Most of them left. The ones in Iran are MOSTLY the elderly who got left behind, didn't want to pick up and start a new life etc. They're not living in refugee camps…but they are walking on eggshells.
And right after the Islamofascist revolution, Iranian Jews were accused of being Zionist and were executed.
Sent my donation in finally. I'm thankful for this blog. It's one of the sites I look forward to visiting regularly. Very intelligent and thoughtful writing from Phil/Adam/etc. is reinvigorating the debate for me.
I don't think the lobby will shut this blog down. I think we're outside their jurisdiction.
lol@ LD trying to ban anyone who disagrees with its fringe left/fringe right/Islamist jihad triad sensibilities.
How about banning whiners who keep whining about the same thing????
"I don't think the lobby will shut this blog down. I think we're outside their jurisdiction."
The only person I'm aware of who threatened to shut this blog down was a virulent anti-zionist. And arguably this new policy is in deference to that threat! :-)
I think Otto has a point about all but the first of these ground rules being sound, sensible ones, but that the attempted prohibition on "racist," "anti-semitic," or "anti-Islamic" or "anti-Christian" comments or etc. is unworkable. After first leading only to complaints of bias then, I suspect the rule will inevitably have to be stretched in some way, which will then lead to accusations of failing to live up to the rule and the use of bias all over again.
In defense of that first ground rule Adam wrote:" "It is quite possible to criticize a Muslim person for something without blaming Islam or making broad generalizations about an entire religion or the "innate" qualities of a group of people."
The problem with this however is that one cannot then make even the most considered criticism of, say, Christianity (to pick the group I belong to so as to be as fair as possible), of which I freely admit great and valid criticisms might be directed at. In short I don't know how you talk about broad general things—which after all are the most important things—without also using what lots of people would consider "broad generalizations."
I do think Adam might have hit on the key to the start of a possible solution though when he talked about banning comments that seem to say that some certain characteristics are "innate." E.g., while it would still be okay (if still dumb) to say that "Christians are *raised* to be greedy," it would be banned if the commentator said that "all Christians were *born* greedy."
The reason I think innateness ought to be the touchstone standard is obvious: It's just stupid to believe that one's DNA makes one born greedy or whatever. But it's a far different thing to say only that one's *culture* has badly influenced a person in some way, because of course culture can be changed and people can choose not to be badly influenced by their culture.
The problem still exists however with blank, ambiguous comments such as "Christians are greedy." But maybe the solution is to just warn that suspected violations of the "innateness" rule means that such remarks will be banned, leaving it up to posters to make sure that if they are going to make broad critical comments about any group they damn well better make sure to qualify them as stemming from the "culture" or etc. of the group and not from DNA. And it would help if the "innateness rule" as well as the others were always made visible on each page here.
That way it seems to me one can freely and perhaps interestingly talk even about "the culture" of Christians or whomever, or indeed even about, say, "the culture" of white Anglo-Saxon Americans (which after all is a valid subject I think, just as all cultures are), without being racist. Certainly many such comments that made it through this test would *still* be stupid, but at least by definition they don't seek to condemn on an innate, unchangeable basis.
test
I attended the AIPAC conference and was in the room when the protesters acted out and were removed. Unlike the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, etc. who state that they want to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews who live there. I have NEVER heard any Israeli leader say they want to kill all Palestinians. If and when that day ever came, I would stop supporting AIPAC. If the Palestinians are such peace loving people who deserve our support, why don't they talk about peace? Why do they spew murderous hate? Why do they dance in the streets when 16 year old students are murdered? You can talk all you want about Israeli "oppression", but you can speak for peace and murder at the same time.
Bad Jews? I think our definitions differ. Unlike the vast majority of my Orthodox rabbinic colleagues I refuse to consider intermarriage as a tragedy. Intermarriage is the consequence of synagogues not doing enough to fully engage their mitpalelim "congregants" with meaningful answers. This is as true of Conservative synagogues as it is of Orthodox ones. Intermarriage is the consequence of Jewish "communities" instead of "qehillot", real communal organisations with a diversity of opinion. My colleagues should start blaming themselves and their narrow-minded, simplistic approaches to Israel, the Holocaust, and being Jewish in a pluralistic democracy. Meyer Lansky was a Bad Jew. Reb Arie
It looks like you will have to stop supporting AIPAC. Watch video and read quotes. Here is a Pro-Israel Rally during the Gaza attack. It took place in NYC, 1-11-09. Lots of talk of killing Palestinians….and lots of dancing over the deaths of innocent Palestinian men, women and children. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FABqq_jjRRo Quotes from Israeli leaders on killing all Palestinians. “We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves.” Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983. “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” Israel Koenig, “The Koenig Memorandum” “We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own.” “You Gentiles,” by Maurice Samuels, p. 155).
and a few more quotes: "The idea is to put Palestinians on a diet but not make them die of hunger," commented Dov Weisglass, senior advisor to Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Enud Olmert" “I imagine that if I were a Palestinian of the right age, I would, at some stage, have joined one of the terror organizations.” – Ehud Barak, Israeli general, and Prime Minister 1999 – 2001 “What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived.” – Moshe Dayan, Israeli general, 1956 “No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate?” – Bertrand Russell, 1970 “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 New York Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1
and the last, and in some way the saddest…. “There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy.” Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001
If ethnic cleansing and occupation were bad for Judaism, the rabbis would say so.
I would like to congratulate Blumenthal and Dana on one of the most naive and destructive pieces of biased editing (or worse) I have ever seen. I can hardly wait for their next contribution to worldwide antisemitism. Representing this as the Israeli response to Obama's speech is beyond sophistry. The label applied to Blumenthal, "Righteous Jew," is particularly, if unwittingly, apt . The obvious origin of this phrase, of course, is the high honorific, "Righteous Gentile." This appellation referred to Gentiles who supported the Jews against the Nazis. It did not refer to those who did what was "right" by someone's subjective standards; it had a specific implication. By simple analogy, does a Righteous Jew support the Nazi's (or their modern analogs) against the Jews? This footage of drunken Americans, posturing for their cultural homeland, selected (or invented) for vulgar and adolescent invective is, at best, incredibly naive propaganda that serves the virulent antisemitic cause in the world, particularly the United States. Even granting the possibility that their motives are noble (in their minds) and the editing, selections, and presentation merely for illustration, the incredibly distorted picture serves only to misrepresent the situation in the most destructive possible manner and furthers the interests of those who openly admit their desire to destroy Israel and, literally, kill all Jews. It is hard to imagine mere self aggrandizing motives and naivete as responsible for this video. It appears more sinister. However, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and attribute their actions to a dreadfully ignorant and misguided attempt to display what they truly believe to be an expose' of improper Israeli attitudes, despite the fact that there probably wasn't an Israeli actually involved in the presentation. Their puerile and naive sanctimony is frightening. Never forget? Hell, you have to learn and understand something before there is danger of forgetting it. I lived through World War II; they heard about it. I hope they are not fostering another such situation that they and their children will have to actually experience, but I fear that they are. With friends like these,…?
There were, and are, misguided, vicious, immoral, and wholly unworthy Jews. However, I suggest you weigh the predominantly long ago comments of a handful of intemperate fools among us against the current, official, advertised, disseminated, and formally taught policy of a controlling faction of the Muslim world.
Right on, Reb.
I agree totally.
Hell, you have to learn and understand something before there is danger of forgetting it. …the incredibly distorted picture serves only to misrepresent the situation in the most destructive possible manner and furthers the interests of those who openly admit their desire to destroy Israel and, literally, kill all Jews. May I suggest an alternative view? Stop using the Jewish people as a scapegoat. You are offended? I am offended. It offends me to have my deepest beliefs mocked as "political correctness", dismissed as decorum, denounced as "western morality." We disagree. We disagree down to what one would call those youthful people: I identify them as Israeli-Americans. One understands other Israeli-Americans also are offended; some are shocked to find that youth they consider 'their own' act in such a manner. Some become more self-critical on recognizing what has been taught to these young people. Others blame the messenger for the message. Your words appear to motivated by fear of others. Such fear is frightening to behold, especially when transmitted from one generation to the next. None of us has the right to be safer than others. All of us have the capability to agree to peaceful relations with others. What future do you desire for your children? What are you teaching them? subscribing to all new comments
My opinion may be completely subjective to some as Donna Edwards is my first cousin. I don't know what her position is regarding Israeli occupation-Palestinian support. I do know that in my lifetime she has been a voice of great reason regarding human rights. Each of us has a powerful influence in the lives of individuals that we come in contact with. Donna has and will be fair and just to all that she represents. Maryland is unaware of the gem they have in this extraordinary woman. Campbell Anderson, MS
The video to which Altcocker refers is naive and biased. It is very easy to achieve a targetedresponse by approaching the right candidates. In thiscase, it was pissed Americans (some Jewish, some not) on a night outin Israel. I appreciate what Blumenthal et al may have wanted to achieve, but perhaps some follow-up reporting with the hungover Americansthat were so happy to express their opinions while under the influence. Blumenthal et al should have also attempted to offer some balance to the piece – purely in the interest of a solid piece of proper journalism/documentary. (pto)
(pto from earlier)But, aside from this,while i have been under the influence, i have never felt the need to express racist attitudes towards world leaders (or indeed, anybody else). Drining makesme a little bit louder, but it does not change my political or racial attitudes. The commentsin the Blumenthal et al video do represent something, if it may not be an overt attitude held by those interviewed, it may represent something that the interviewees know is not right, but that does exist within them. The video, taken in context, is useful. Much in the sameway the 'The heart of Darkness' is a provocative text when understood in the context of its composition, but as regards modern standards, is an overtly racist text.. I am under the impression that Blumenthal is aware that he wants to show something, but that he is unaware that producing such an obviously biased piece of material means that his real message is lost behind a clearly flawed production. Lets hope he learns. Best, Paul
What about all of the Arab women who were raped during Cast Lead. Who will pay to take care of the thousands of iilegitimate children that have been produced? Who will compensate all of the women of Gaza who have been raped? What will the women tell there future husbands on why they are not virgins? There is not a girl over 10 who has not been defiled. Is this not a war crime? Where is the UN/? Why is this not brought up in the Security Council?
Comments on this entry are closed.