This piece, by Howard Friel, about the bullying by Alan Dershowitz of Hampshire College following its divestment agreement, shows that Dershowitz frequently uses the word "bigot" to describe critics of Israel. He uses the word or its derivatives 6 times in one Jerusalem Post piece attacking the Hampshire student activists.
(Five of those references: "There must be a price paid
for bigotry"; "singling out only Israel for divestiture is bigotry
plain and simple"; "this bigoted resolution"; "Students and faculty [at Hampshire]
too must understand that bigotry has its cost"; "decency cannot survive
with the kind of double standard bigotry directed only against the
Jewish state")
But Friel also suggests that Dershowitz has been effective. He quotes the fawning open letter to Dershowitz from Hampshire president Ralph Hexter and chairman Sigmund Roos, a Boston lawyer:
If "discipline is an internal process that is not shared with the public," as Hexter and Roos wrote, why would they pledge to sanction the SJP students in an open letter to Alan Dershowitz, in order to pacify Dershowitz, but who is obviously not an administrator at Hampshire College? And immediately after ominously signaling that the Hampshire students would be thrown under the bus, Hexter and Roos concluded with a final plea for a stay of execution from the despotic Dershowitz:
The question is, Why is Dershowitz so effective? He is one 70-year-old professor. It is not sufficient to say that Roos's father is active in the Jewish community in Boston, or that Dershowitz's son went to Hampshire. The answer is: Hexter and Roos are afraid of Dershowitz's influence over the donor and media community. They are afraid of Dershowitz's power over Establishment opinion. That a man who throws around the word "bigotry" so casually has such influence is a reflection of the entrenched power of the Israel lobby in our public life.
But, Daddy, he's not wearing any clothes.
I'm confused. Why would the college take "disciplinary action" against its pro-divestment students? Is the college agreeing with Dershowitz that these students exhibited "bigotry" and thus are deserving of punishment?
Wow. I thought it was just a difference of political opinion. Is this how it is on college campuses these days? Anyone who criticizes Israel risks discipline from his school?
I guess Dershowitz really does have power. Shameful how the Hampshire administration grovels.
*Act Now to Support Divestment. Hampshire College Needs You!
*From: US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation (uscampaign@mail.democracyinaction.org)
"Two weeks ago, Hampshire College announced that it was divesting from a mutual fund which has holdings in six corporations that support Israel's military occupation. Now Hampshire's administration is caving to pressure from Alan Dershowitz and trying to reinvest in two of these corporations – Motorola and Terex. Write to Hampshire College's President, Ralph Hexter, and tell him to stand strong for divestment."
*To send him an email – link to salsa.democracyinaction.org
I think the answer has to do with the larger picture. Liars like Dershowitz have a protected status. Truth-tellers such as Dr. Finkelstein are continually vulnerable.
I'm sure that doesn't go unnoticed by anyone thinking about joining the debate.
I take Phil's question to be largely rhetorical. I think he knows why Dersh is so effective, as I know he has read Kevin Macdonald.
If you don't know why Dershowitz is able to dictate the terms of this conversation, have a look at the work of Professor Kevin Macdonald of Cal State University Long Beach starting here:
Phil,
Isn't that the third time you referred to the Friel article? At what point are you spamming your own site?
I had dinner on Friday night with the family of a girl that is organizing one of the pro-peace events in Amherst next week, a Hampshire student. I didn't get to speak with her directly.
Her parents are not simplistic pro-Israelis. Her father, much more critical of Israel than her mother, stated that he observed an irony relative to his daughter. That is in response to the radical stridency of the Hampshire anti-Israeli agitation, her peace-seeking daughter felt compelled to defend Israel, against lies or half-truths presented by the radicals.
She got pushed to the right slightly. I left her a note to stay committed to the peace approach, rather than join the right in response, that the only basis to do so would be when under actual attack, which does happen.
Its a description of the nature of litmus-testing rather than study and respect, and disagreement.
If you enter an attitude of war, determined to "succeed" at taking down the Israeli state (in contrast to reform), please note that that is what you are doing, and do not be surprised at reprisal.
It is an aggression, either pretending to be dissent, or so careless relative to the communication task as to be very very bad "diplomacy".
Dershowitz is effective because he is right. He has the facts and he has the experience,
When you compare that to idiots like Lance and Eva, or bigoted lunatics like MacDonald, Avi, Dicky, Rowan, or spam artists like Adam and Phil…, Dershowitz can do nothing but win.
You Israel haters can dish it out, but you can't take it.
When are M&W going to stand up and debate Dershowitz and defend that sloppy bit of garbage? I would guess never.
God Witty, you always manage to say a whole lot of nothing.
You went to dinner with a pro-Israel family. The father is more critical than the mother.
The daughter is organizing a pro-Israel rally or is attending a pro-Israel rally. She is a Hampshire student.
She is leaning toward the right in reaction to what YOU call the radical pro-Palestinian constituency.
You'd like her to stay committed to what YOU call the "pro-peace" side, as if that implies because she's in opposition to those "radical" pro-Palestinians, then she'd automatically be designated "pro-peace."
What this Zionist "pro-peace" camp really is, is a smokescreen. It's comforting to say you want peace while at the same time murdering 1300 people – mostly civilians, mostly children. It's easy to say you want peace when you're the one occupying another people. When you're the one killing more civilians at a ratio of now higher than 5 to 1 and killing more children at a ratio of now higher than 10 to 1.
It's easy to say you want peace when you steal Palestinian land and resources. Even water.
It's easy to say you want peace when you commit crimes against the Palestinians without any punishment – 40% of complaints by Palestinians get heard, 6% of that 40% make it to a form of oversight and possible trial. The longest sentence has been 2 years if I recall correctly. (Yesh Din[sp])
You manage to whitewash the entire reality of the conflict in that little story about your dinner with the so-called liberal Jewish family with their daughter, the poor liberal Jew who is now pushed to the Right due to those 'radicals'. She's been radicalized.
Hey I wonder if those Palestinians are radicalized?
I mean, if that poor once-liberal Jewish girl with the well-to-do nice proper Jewish family you had dinner with, can go to the right in response to these RADICAL protesters, then I wonder if the surviving Palestinians of Gaza who weren't incinerated by White Phosphorus/weren't murdered by the IDF along with those 500 children will become radicalized?
I mean if that poor liberal Jewish princess was pushed to the right over people with a different point of view who you deem RADICAL, then I wonder what the Palestinians will do next.
I remember seeing a picture of S'derot(sp) compared with Gaza. Was quite accurate. In 8 years, the rockets killed 20 people. The rockets were fired due to the Occupation/blockade of Gaza/persecution of the Palestinian people/etc. So to truly capture the horror of these rockets they showed a Jewish Israeli resident crying at the sight of a rocket stuck in the road, a dud. Then the next picture was of a Palestinian policeman, one of the few who survived the bombing of his graduation by the cowards in the Israeli airforce, carrying a Palestinian child – covered in blood.
Yes, but that poor Jewish once-liberal princess has succumbed to the Right due to RADICAL protesters.
You're a disgrace Witty and the archetype for this so-called 'peace-camp'. The so-called pragmatists. Take your hypocrisy and shove it.
I see Phil's Phools are out in Phull Phorce. LD continues to miss the fact that Hamas is firing missles with the hopes of slaughtering Jewish babies. This also appears to be LD's fondest desire.
You do know what the penalty for advocating genocide is, LD? Or are you the biggest Phool of all?
Debate Dershowitz? He's an imbecile. Chomsky destroyed him. Then Finkelstein destroyed him. The only thing Dershowitz is good at is pulling strings with the Israel lobby which just comes down to money. That's all he is.
You Zionists don't know the facts. You're still at the Joan Peters level of discourse.
Irony is that Terex has plummeted 40% or so in the last few weeks, and Motorola hasn't done too well either. So regardless of SJP's motives, it looks like Hampshire college benefited financially from their divestment advice.
Very insightful on witty's little tale, LD. Kudos.
Witty scolds his boyhood pal Phil for entering an attitude of war, determined to "succeed" at taking down the Israeli state (in contrast to reform), so that Phil should not be surprised at reprisal. Witty's own assumptive attitude here conflates protest against Israel's occupation policies with protest (not addressed by Phil or the divestment students) against the legitimacy/existence of the state of Israel itself. So who's got the hidden litmus test?
And he accuses Phil of spamming him his own blog because Phil has written a number of articles parsing the on-going
new fledgling divestment issue at a small liberal college known for historical courage regarding divestment in the former apartheid
regime of S Africa.
Here, again, who has the hidden litmus test?
Disingenuous, thy name is Richard Witty.
Dershowitz is a world renowned lawyer. "The Fink" would have have made a dynamite kapo in a concentration camp. And you LD, are obviously the product of serious inbreeding.
"I see Phil's Phools are out in Phull Phorce. LD continues to miss the fact that Hamas is firing missles with the hopes of slaughtering Jewish babies. This also appears to be LD's fondest desire."–chris berel
As somebody noticed on this blog a few weeks ago about the leader here of Chris's Stools, he and they need to take Etiology 101. He and they continue to ignore the cause (occupation) and treat the symptom (homemade rockets).
SOG, you gest. The inbreeding was a result of chance occurance, so many cousins in one trailer with a broken TV. Who knew they were actually brother and sister?
Dershowitz is a world renowned liar.
He put a fraud of a book, called A Case for Israel – which was plagiarized from another fraud of a book, From Time Immemorial.
He copied the book so shamelessly that he even copied the same mistakes.
Upon further examination by lawyer Frank Menetrez, it appears Harvard did not follow up on these isssues.
Norman Finkelstein is often insulted by foam-at-the-mouth Zionists because taking him on legitimately is far too difficult and revealing.
I'd debate Dershowitz. I'd destroy Dershowitz. My sister, who's 12, will debate Dershowitz.
Please, let's make this a serious point of contention rather than some drive-by trolling.
"I'd debate Dershowitz. I'd destroy Dershowitz. My sister, who's 12, will debate Dershowitz."
Then why are Meirsheimer and Walt ducking him?
Ah, but Soggy, no lawyer schooled in the American-Brit adversarial law process would play both advocate
and judge or jury. Every lawyer knows that violates the basic premise and process of the law, most especially trial law. It's grounds for immediate disbarment. In contrast, in the field of public opinion, which for example, has flaccid rules (what's good scholarship? Or good journalism?), if any, of evidence, and no limits on who is to be judge or jury, The Fink's reputation far surpasses Dershie's bad and fraudulent scholarship.
Julian, just because someone refuses a challenge does not necessarily mean they did so because they felt they'd "lose."
For example, watch the Chomsky v. Dershowitz debate. Chomsky is repeatedly shouted down. Dershowitz – when he's desperate, which is often – refers to this 'place' where Chomsky lives, akin to Mars apparently, called Planet Chomsky. On Planet Chomsky, Dershowitz posits, Chomsky is right and everyone else is wrong.
It was embarrassing to watch, kinda like that episode of Trading Spouses. "DARK SIDED~!!! THEY'RE NOT CHRISTIAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"
In any case, here's a simple test. Look up the facts yourself. Present them here. And lets take it from there.
Running your mouth off on so and so's academic pedigree means zilch when they are a complete buffoon, reducing serious debate to shouting matches. Dershowitz is a sideshow. A freak.
As Norman Finkelstein says, when the debate gets too serious, send in the clown – Dershowitz.
Hence, all the 'Planet Chomsky' nonsense and the ad hominem(sp).
Roos's 'Dear Alan' letter echoes Bush Senior's fawning 'Dear Shoshana' letter to Shoshana Cardin, after the Conference of Presidents [the real presidents?] threatened him with involuntary orchidectomy for yanking Israeli loan guarantees that were financing illegal settlements.
Why is Dershowitz so effective? Because extortion, absent effective law enforecment, works. With its franchise eroding, look for the ZioMafia to become ever more desperate and violent in its waning years, as it fights for its 'right to exist' [as Jewish gangbangers].
I'd say that LD is a world renowned liar except… the world could give a shit less about LD. LD debate Dershowitz? LD can barely stutter, let alone hold up in an intelligent converstion. Out of all of Phil's phools, LD is the most phoolish.
Thanks for posting, LD. You give us all someone to laugh at.
'The inbreeding was a result of chance occurance, so many cousins in one trailer with a broken TV. Who knew they were actually brother and sister?'
Chris Berel revives Julian for another beautocks round, as they conduct an all-night 'session' in his parents' basement.
Nice picture Jimbo. You look really menacing in the hood. Is that some sort of psuedo-KKK for idiots and assholes.
The choices are for a dissenter:
1. Strident overly simplistic condemnation of Israel thereby initiating an adversarial status that will never go away lightly
2. Attempting to reconcile towards treating each population decently so as to create a good neighbor to good neighbor relation (whether in single state or two state)
3. Strident overly simplistic condemnation of Palestine thereby initiating an adversarial status.
The Hampshire divestment movement is in the first category, though thinks of itself as "rational" rather than "ideological".
Another point of my posts, is that I personally KNOW some of the parties, some of the ACTUAL relationships on campus and in the local community. Its not an abstraction, not just interesting news that supports a position.
One reason that Dershowitz is effective is that his primary thesis is true, accurate and relevant.
That is that the dissenting community unnaturally single out Israel for condemnation, when MUCH MUCH worse behavior is routinely conducted in many other locales, and even towards Palestinians.
So Dershowitz wonders if prejudice towards Jews as Jews is an element of the selection.
If the reason that Israel is singled out is that Palestinians have achieved the ears of the world through intent education, then that conflicts with the oft-stated accusation of the conventional press that they are systematically ignored.
Perhaps there is another reason. Certainly its not that 1500 Palestinians lives are more important to God or dissenters than 400,000 Sudanese.
1000 Palestinian lives ARE important, and it is a good thing that people that are informing of Palestinians' condition are doing so.
Its a BAD thing when it is accompanied by denial of the existence and significance of a strategy of terror directed at civilians.
"If you enter an attitude of war, determined to "succeed" at taking down the Israeli state (in contrast to reform), please note that that is what you are doing, and do not be surprised at reprisal.
It is an aggression, either pretending to be dissent, or so careless relative to the communication task as to be very very bad "diplomacy".
Hear, hear! It's guerrilla warfare–and the liars here know it. War is not a ping pong ball match. Unfortunately it doesn't end until one side loses their stomach.
Israel is more concerned with its survival than winning a popularity match…so we are going to see the demise of the Gazans unless they shift gears.
Right now there is a strong shaheed element…and until that element is totally demoralized it's going to be a constant downhill for the Gazan community at large.
I don't see this turning around any time soon, so I guess I've signed off on them. A peace treaty means nothing with a politically and economically unstable neighbor. They're the walking dead, frankly.
And what's worse, the dimwits on this blog and elsewhere have done NOTHING to try to turn this around in any realistic sense. Some friends of the Palestinians you are.
Isn't it kind of funny how these same ambulance chasers used to be in favor of African American radicalism. Except they got their arses tossed out of the inner cities. Blacks saw right through their sorry phony baloney. So now they're in Gaza, ensuring that Gazans remain in victim mode too. Well done, people. Well done.
Bleeding heart liberals in search of an unloved "victim"?
Suzanne, you've hit the nail with the hammer, yet again.
Wow, I thought this site was now being moderated?
Kudos to LD.
Regards Jerkowitz, I read a good part of his rebuttal of the W&M paper and it was just plain terrible. It read like it had been thrown together from a far distance. It's also full of footnotes, genre: "He called me a so and so, and then I called him an %^&%&*%)8, but then he called me an SOB, so I said he was mothaf*ckin' liar". A footnote apparatus as a series of extended feuds…
Really appalling academic standard, like his "From Time Immemorial – the sequel".
Truth remains that on the existence of the Israel Lobby, the Israel Lobby lost the debate, no amount of Jerkowitz's screeching prevented that. Asshat.
Witty: "If the reason that Israel is singled out is that Palestinians have achieved the ears of the world through intent education, then that conflicts with the oft-stated accusation of the conventional press that they are systematically ignored."
Singled out?
That's a very dishonest thing to say. It presupposes that this attention is unwarranted. First let's define what exactly this attention is.
We live in the West. Israel considers itself a part of the West. It is a Western country no doubt, but does not share the same values as the US or Britain. The Israeli Arab population is subject to all sorts of marginalization and discrimination. And we all know what kind of monster Israel is in the OT.
But what matters is in Israel proper, because that level of perception is what most people will see. So, we already have several caveats.
A) Most Westerners do not have a grasp on the ins and outs of Israeli society. They do not know how Arabs are treated in Israel proper. We are bombarded with this image of Israel as 'American' and even the Zionist clowns here go on and on about how both our country and Israel share 'Judeo-Christian' values. This ties into the topic at hand concerning Dershowitz. Dershowitz who said that American support for Israel is a 'secular' religion? I think that was his phrasing or something weird like that.
Anyways, the very idea that we can sum our country's success up as due to Judeo-Anything or Christian-Anything is ridiculous. We have had several popular movements throughout our nation's history by the undesirables and the supposed 'inferiors' who have risen up and changed the country for the better.
Blacks, women, gay and lesbians, etc. All these movements have little to do with the supposed Judeo-Christian 'values' that idiots like Suzanne insist we were founded upon.
Although Southern slaveowners justified their actions by stating that the Blacks were the 'Children of Ham'.
And I'm sure no one here thinks that when our founding fathers wrote "all men" created equal blah blah, that they meant the 'coloured folk' and obviously not the women.
Our country was born in sin. We were born a discrimnatory/racist State that had wiped out the indigenous population of the land.
We wiped out the indigenous population. We enslaved an entire people. We denied them rights. Blah blah blah.
All our freedoms and success was won by the people in the streets over time. When an injustice occurred in our midst we rose up and struck it down. It's not the same when it comes to our foreign policy.
There are plenty of reasons for this. I mean, if that 'enemy' entity appears and STAYS 'alien' to us, then we can't relate to it. If we can't relate then we can't care. It's that simple. Gays, blacks, other minorites, etc. We were able to solve these issues of discrimination because we were immersed in that alien entity. They were among us. It took a long long time for us to even begin to accept them and to change our own behavior.
Israel on the other hand has no legacy of freedom or liberty or blah blah for people of different backgrounds. It is a JEWISH State. It's defined by this need to remain Jewish. Not the same with the US, where we immerse ourselves in various races/religions/etc.
That's not to say the US is so great, but it's great for it's size and when you take it all in context, it's inspiring how far we've come.
I don't see that happening in Israel. The Christian identity in the US is not espoused the same way or with the same inclusiveness as the Jewish identity in Israel. In fact, that's the whole point of Zionism.
I wrote a lot on this very simple point. Israel is an ethnocratic State. Democracy for the Jews. Jewish for the Palestinians. Meaning persecution/death/destruction.
The funny thing is, given the standards of human rights/etc./sociological analysis and understanding, you'd think the Zionists would be able to deal with the Palestinians much better. I think Israel may be able to overcome it's ugliness. If there is a One-State solution, Israel may end up like the US one day in the sense that I described.
The other nonsense that Suzanne and Witty wrote is also easy to refute. I actually want to take the time to respond to it all. I'll get to it later.
Gert, the blog is not moderated. If it were, racists like LD and Rowan would be gone.
LD keeps forgeting the actual point. Israeli democracy is for its citizens. All Israeli citizens, Jews, Muslims, and Christians, have equal rights.
Of course LD can easily refute the truth. He does that by lying. How easy.
Richard Witty:
" Strident overly simplistic condemnation of Palestine thereby initiating an adversarial status."
Richard, please give us an example of this, your 3rd catagory.
Also, are you saying the Sudan situation is equal in desirable and intense focus to the I-P situation in terms of the USA's best geo-strategic interests?
Further, Are we funding with our bankrupt dollars any group or regime in the Sudan region (or any region] of the world in a way remotely comparable to how we unconditionally fund Israel, and to the extent in dollars we do? Is that "picking on Israel"
too?
Do parents have a right to expect more from a child that they've given all the breaks than from the other children? Or is that picking on the so spoiled child too much?
Yet another crisp and weighty issue-addressed comment by LD.
"Bleeding heart liberals in search of an unloved "victim"?
If they truly wanted a peaceful solution, they'd be working towards it. But they're not.
In fact they criticize the moderates on both sides working for a fair solution. What more do we need to know about them?
The question was about Dershowitz' relevance.
In spite of Finkelstein's libels, Dershowitz' thesis is still relevant.
It is confusing to Jews, to Israelis, why when they expand by 6 sq miles, it evokes divestment threats, while when Russia invades sovereign countries (Georgia for example, 600 sq mi), silence. Worse than that, condemnation of critics for their "hypocrisy" at some Israelis' present in Georgia.
Its not that the deaths of 1500 is a good thing by any stretch, or that the expansion by 6 sq miles is a good thing. Its just disproportionate.
Or, the contrast between the deaths of 1500 in some response to shelling of civilians (and quite focused targeting, not good enough, but in the 99.5% percentile), the deaths of 400,000 in Sudan or 12,000 in Zimbabwe, or hundreds of thousands in Rwanda.
It seems like hypocrisy, which some try to understand and explain. The color on the palette of some residual anti-semitism beyond the application of other principles is considered.
The family that I wrote about whose daughter attends Hampshire told me of their trip to Egypt last year, in which they were treated kindly by the local Egyptians that they met, but told of the holocaust that they didn't think it happened. Their explanation as reported to me was "You believe what you want to. We'll believe what we want to."
Not exactly historically accurate.
Israel, and Dershie are like Charlie Brown– Charlie Brown works on his costume diligently, but it turns out to be a debacle. As he trick-or-treats with his friends, he only gets rocks, while others get candy. "Why's everybody always picking on me?" he laments.
I wonder if the fact that everyday Arab folk does not believe in Holocaust has anything to do with volume of other things that they are told about as true which are blatantly NOT true.
Democracy in Israel, selfless persuit of peace by Israel in Occupied Territories, America as honest broker, America as a friend of Middle East, America as an exporter of human rights to third world countries….. .
Faced with hasbara of lies (Livni's "there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza due to operation of Cast Lead"), they simply extend this wisdom of NEVER believing anything that links with Israel.
This, IMHO, is a disaster for humanity, because the only weapon humanity has to prevent another genocide/holocaust is to recognise the symptoms of one approaching by studying the steps that society takes to become "X's willing executioners" in XYZ country.
I am here because I firmly believe that Israel is repeating steps leading towards genocide of Palestinians – but I have benefit of knowledge of what society was like in 1930-ties.
If Arabs do not believe in Holocaust they are deprived of very essential early warning system agaist the society turning genocidal. (Individuals are often not listened to as case of Alison des Forges in Rwana clearly demonstrates – keeping society civilised requires combined effords of it's intellectual class)
If you enter an attitude of war, determined to "succeed" at taking down the Israeli state (in contrast to reform), please note that that is what you are doing, and do not be surprised at reprisal.
Didn't Phil's use of the word "fawning" trigger vague memories, Richard?
First, the Hampshire student's explicitly did not target the Israeli state, but companies profiting from Israel's occupation and settlement of Palestinian land (according to a huge international consent–with only minor exceptions. A fact that both you and your hero Dershowitz, and quite possibly the girl you describe try to hide in the critique of the student's actions.
Can you tell us, why this is so?
I have to leave now.
Witty, that death toll argument cuts both ways. Why should anyone care about Israeli deaths, if the number of Palestinian deaths is so tiny compared to the death toll in Darfur?
You know damn well that there are several reasons Israel/Palestine gets so much attention relative to other conflicts, but you want to insinuate that it's really just anti-semitism. It's true that the conflict is just a run-of-the-mill example of sordid land theft, inevitably accompanied by atrocities on both sides. The reason Americans pay so much attention to it is that on the one hand, we are continually told (as LD says) that Israel is One of Us, the Good Guys, The Only Democracy in the Middle East, our heroic allies, blah, blah, blah. So we have to give them lots of money and cheerlead for them or else we're called anti-semites. When people find out how much of this is pure crap, they tend to get angry. In some other universe I suppose the US could be heavily invested in the civil war in Sri Lanka and we'd probably hear all about how awful the Tamil Tigers are and hear little or nothing about the crimes of the Sri Lankan government, and then if we found out the reality was more complex you'd find lefties getting angry. But since most Americans care little about either side in Sri Lanka, we don't have people propagandizing for one side or the other.
BTW, if you do want to bring up atrocities in other countries both Israel and the US have much to answer for. Israel and the US both supported some of the biggest mass murderers on the planet during the Cold War era–Israel helped train the genocidal Guatemalan military, Israel was an ally of apartheid South Africa (which in turn supported the extremely bloody wars in Angola and Mozambique) and for the most part we heard little about this. Israel might have even helped apartheid South Africa acquire the Bomb, which if true was a shockingly irresponsible thing to do. As for Russia's invasion of Georgia, surely you know by now that both sides were guilty in that conflict, though in the mainstream US press, Russia was painted as the villain and Georgia as the innocent victim. Sounds familiar.
It's true that there's also an element of anti-semitism in the criticism of Israel, and you can see some of that in some of the commenters at this blog, but people on your side of the fence are far too eager to use that as an excuse to insinuate that everyone who criticizes Israel more harshly than you is an anti-semite. That's contemptible. Anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred and prejudice, even among "liberals" who fancy themselves free of bigotry plays an enormous role in how the conflict is discussed in the US and you don't say anything about that. A great many liberals have been socialized to think that any criticism of Israel beyond a very limited degree is anti-semitic, but they nod along with extremely harsh criticism aimed at the Arab world. There's a double standard here.
I think there is some criticism of Israel by non-anti-semitic lefties that is a little too unbalanced in the anti-Israel direction, but it's an over- reaction to the decades of pro-Israel propaganda. Let people become familiar with the atrocities and lies of both sides and then maybe we can have a serious fairminded discussion about how to achieve peace. We're a long way from that in the US, and it's because of the propaganda of the so-called defenders of Israel–in other countries (notably the Arab ones), the main problem will be anti-semitism, but that's not the case here.
BTW, the new posting rules apparently mean nothing. The comment section is going to sink right back into the sewer it always was, with all the usual racist comments and vicious personal attacks.
If anybody should know something about genocide its you Eva. I ask again. How much money did your family steal after you gunned down your Jewish neighbors in Kielce and Jedwebne. Why don't you answer?
Or are you too busy giving LD blowjobs.
@Chris:
"Gert, the blog is not moderated. If it were, racists like LD and Rowan would be gone.
LD keeps forgeting the actual point. Israeli democracy is for its citizens. All Israeli citizens, Jews, Muslims, and Christians, have equal rights."
Labeling critics of Israel as 'racists' is a ploy that doesn't work anymore. Quit it, like you would a bad habit.
Non-Jewish citizens of Israel have rights, yes, but not equal rights. The way Israel treats its minorities isn't comparable to how e.g. Britain or US deals with theirs. You can bet your life that if the Jewish majority ever gets demographically threatened (a realistic scenario, even within Israel proper) they will take action of sorts: mass-importing some more Jews from anywhere in the world, expelling Arab Israelis or seriously curtailing their rights. That's why Israel is a racist state: it's its founding principle to be a Jewish state. I know moderate Israeli zionist left-wingers who consider Israeli Arabs a ticking time bomb.
And the treatment of Israeli Arabs isn't even the main problem, not by a long shot.
If you're still in doubt as to whether Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu supports a two state solution, make no mistake about it: he doesn't.
The US and Britian don't have minorities that are dedicated to destroying their respective countries. And if anybody is racist it is the Arabs. but your so addled by Jew baiting you can't admit it.
My anonymous critic,
On Dershowitz, your formula of "but people on your side of the fence are far too eager to use that as an excuse to insinuate that EVERYONE who criticizes Israel more harshly than you is an anti-semite." is an innaccurate summary of his views and presentation.
I agree with you that the conflict in Georgia was not one-dimensional. HERE, it was described, even by Phil, as inconsequential, not anything resembling an unlawful intrusion by Russia. (They occupied 600 sq miles of uncontested areas of Georgia, analagous to Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon from 1982 – 2000.)
He points to either the ignorance or the lying of those that focus on Israel.
I disagree with much of his comment, but I don't take issue with that thesis. In contrast, I agree with Finkelstein's acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist in recent speeches (not always before) and need to negotiate a fair and viable Palestine, but we end up at PARALYZING loggerheads even in agreeing to goal.
Chris,
I’ll acknowledge that from a certain perspective, Macdonald could be considered “bigoted”, if you’ll simply recognize the same is clearly true of Dershowitz. This is coming from a heretofore liberal Democrat multi-culturalist. If you can’t fess-up to that, you’re corroborating Macdonald’s work regarding Jewish morality among strongly identified Jews—namely that it’s moral particularist, i.e. the pre-eminent question is: Is it good for “the Jews”?
Macdonald’s work blew me away in some ways. In others it merely helped to connect the dots. It blew my mind with its deconstruction of the indoctrination I received as an undergrad and later in graduate school. In retrospect, I can only consider much of my higher education in the liberal arts brainwashing.
Consider these fantasies brought to you by strongly identified Jews, clearly promoting Jewish interests throughout the 20th and into the 21st centuries:
* All people have the same biological potential for accomplishment and no culture is better than any other. As a result, we can easily mold people into ideal citizens (Boasian anthropology).
* We can create a classless society in which there will be no conflicts of interest and people will altruistically work for the common good (Marxism).
* We can create a society in which people will be in tune with their sexuality and free of neuroses, anti-Semitism, and "racism" (psychoanalysis).
* We can create a multicultural paradise in which different racial and ethnic groups will live in harmony and cooperation (the Frankfurt School of Social Research).
* We can easily transform other societies into democracies and should wage war to remake other societies in our image (Neoconservatism) Which brings us full-circle…
I came upon his work in the same way I came upon Phil, looking for answers to the whys of the Iraq War. In both cases, I think they’re on to something.
This is from a former loyal subscriber to The Nation and current subscriber to the American Conservative Magazine.
@ witty
"Its not that the deaths of 1500 is a good thing by any stretch, or that the expansion by 6 sq miles is a good thing. Its just disproportionate."
The situation you refer to in Georgia is much larger that you acknowledge, ditto the 6 miles. You hang on a loose thread like a gnat, ignoring the whole dress.
Only someone that didn't read my post could honestly post your comment.
Here's the biggest problem in a nutshell–it's jews like SOG, the USA armchair IDF fantasy man:
"BTW, the new posting rules apparently mean nothing. The comment section is going to sink right back into the sewer it always was, with all the usual racist comments and vicious personal attacks.
Posted by: Witty's anonymous critic | March 01, 2009 at 02:02 PM
If anybody should know something about genocide its you Eva. I ask again. How much money did your family steal after you gunned down your Jewish neighbors in Kielce and Jedwebne. Why don't you answer?
Or are you too busy giving LD blowjobs.
Posted by: Sword of Gideonthe point. | March 01, 2009 at 02:34 PM"
Pat Buchanan, of the America Conservative Mag, thinks that Hitler was forced into the war by an evil Winston Churchill. And Phil Weiss agrees with him. Not to mention the fact that it is charming to shoot Jews.