In the last couple of days, many commenters have taken exception to Richard Witty's views of the Clark University censorship of Norman Finkelstein. Some of them have been abusive and vicious. We've eliminated those comments. We're pleased that Witty spends time here and admire his fortitude (though yes, we disagree). The site would be much less interesting without him. We care a lot about the environment we've helped to create here, which hateful commenters can do so much to destroy. Please just leave; you're not welcome here. And we urge others to alert us when comments break the rules stated to the right.
Phil & Adam
Oh, just saw this. Well, okay, if you say so. But I just this instant saw the post.
Phil,
Couldn't agree more. I don't know many leftish Zionists and the dissonance is fascinating. In large part because Richard is an intelligent, caring individual torn in differing directions. I would miss reading his posts. I would also miss most responses to him. I would, however, not miss abuse of him.
i couldn't agree more as well.. witty strikes me as a thoughtful person, which is what the world needs more of, not less..
While I've been known to criticize Witty in fairly harsh (though not merely abusive) terms in the past, I actually thought his comments on the Clark Univerity situation were reasonable and interesting, and I appreciated that he wrote to the president of CU to ask that Finkelstein be allowed to speak.
People are being tortured and massacred, children torn to pieces by Witty's friends the Israelis but god forbid he should have his feelings hurt.
That would be a second holocaust.
By the way, Phil..I'm curious why my comment about Hillel was removed. I called them a hate group because that is exactly what they are.
Definitely agree with Phil and Adam about this. I also like Richard Witty.
And with no personal offense intended at all, Rykart, how does insulting Richard Witty save anyone's life?
I don't think I insulted witty, despite the obvious temptation. I agree it doesn't make for stimulating discussion.
I did refer to the Israelis as sewage, which is not an insult but a simple statement of fact. I also said that I thought Hillel and Chabad should be forced off campuses unless we declare ourselves comfortable with having university chapters of the Ku Klux Klan and Nazi skinheads. None of these hate groups should have a place of refuge at an institute of higher learning. It's an abomination.
Rykart,
"a simple statement of fact".
Idiocy.
Thanks Phil.
I see Witty is as free with insults as he is short on facts, honesty, decency and credibility.
"We're pleased that Witty spends time here and admire his fortitude."
Great.
How about Charles Manson?
Do you admire his fortitude too?
What is it about the fortitude of ghouls and degenerates you admire?
Honestly, I'm curious.
I don't see a point in getting nasty on a blog, but Witty should understand that he is bound to piss people off when his primary loyalties are to a foreign nation (a hostile and destructive one in Israel's case) and his small, insular and largely self-serving minority group.
No problem. Mild personal attacks like calling somebody an idiot, or I assume a moron, are not beyond the pale under the comment policy. It would be useful for Phil to post some of the offending comments regarding Witty, hopefully to both those in the camp of "Phil's Phools" and "Chris's Stools." You know, good 4 the goose, good 4 the gander?
Seems to me in general one side has been a lot more abusive than the other; in context, any viciousness directed at Witty has been over all mild in comparison, especially when compared
to comments posted by the likes of SOG, Chris Berel, et al.
Still, Witty does not deserve similar attacks as he has never, to my knowledge gone beyond his
recent use of the label idiot. If I was an offender, delivering some abuse such as SOG or Chris
Berel give out, then I apologize, Mister Witty.
The erroneous slur of antisemitism is just as vicious as any other form of verbal abuse and will no longer be passively accepted by those who complain of Israel's crimes.
I'll forego commenting on exactly what Witty and other apologists for burning children with phosphorus "deserve."
Suffice to say a tongue lashing doesn't begin to cover it.
Witty is a valuable gauge on this site because he represents a very real – and non-negligible -contingent on the zionist left. They hate some of Israel's actions and sincerely wish they could back a more humanistic government, one they could be proud of. They worry that the two-state option is slipping before our eyes, in the process ripping the jewish community apart, and giving an opening to some of the worst instincts to come crashing through the doors (from all directions). When I think of witty, I imagine the dutch kid with his finger in the dam, trying to save the village. Of course, all ended well in the dutch story, but we all suspect – and dread – that the I/P story will not have a happy ending for anyone. personally, I sense the rumblings of a tragedy in the make not too far in the distance. I need witty (and others like him) to be my canary. Most of the people who read this blog are keen to prevent said tragedy from happening, as phil and blog mates clearly are, as is, I believe, witty.
That being said, the fact that I may disagree with him regarding his reading of the israelis is hardly a reason to abuse the man. I too cringe at some of the vitriol I see in comments here (on both sides), which sometimes clearly go over the line. Referring to people and/or countries as sewage is entirely unnecessary (reserve that for wall street bankers – where true toxic waste is both visible and in abundance?). The English language (unlike hebrew, BTW) is rich in adjectives – it is a language well adapted to nuance. Those who are lucky enough to have been born native speakers should exercise that gift. Those who are not, should make the effort to learn.
One more comment: I do appreciate Phil and adam not exercising overly heavy hand in moderating comments. It is a brave policy – one that not too many other blogs dealing with the issues maintain. This way we get to see the many sides this terrible conflict brings out – from the most civil to the least. personally, I learnt a lot from reading through some of the comments here and have no trouble whatsoever skipping the ones that add little to the conversation, other than emotional flame fanning. I am content to see some of the worst comments removed, especially when the commenter specifically heaps abuse on other individuals posting here or on the blog owners. For example, I'm vehemently opposed to the poster named berel but as long he keeps his comments within bounds, I'm happy to skip them. Every blog should have a couple of juveniles – preferably at least one of each side. It'll make us feel better as as adults…
Thanks Citizen.
Tommy, Rykart and Todd though are back to rationalization.
My primary loyalties are to my family, Americans, Canadians and Europeans. I have sympathy and hope for Israel, not "primary loyalty".
Rykart, You really equate me with Charles Manson or anything resembling a nazi ideology or practise? I don't know what you use to gather reality checks, but it would be useful to in this case.
An erroneous slur of "anti-semitism" is a wrong. The question is how you determine if an accusation is true or not. I generally won't call someone an anti-semite (there are exceptions), but I will describe what are forms of anti-semitism.
I assume that progressive individuals desire to be free of hateful prejudices, and describe the definitions as an aid to that exercise.
I'm not sure if they are complete, or if that is the best approach.
There is anti-semitism that is already at the harm level, not at the considering harm, and perhaps should not be appeased.
I will try to avoid responding to Richard Witty. Yesterday I realized that we have different understandings of the same words. He is in a different world than I am.
Witty is an apologist. I'd say Berel/SoG/Julian are just idiots.
I didn't read the thread in question so I'm assuming he was ragged on more than usual?
The reason he may upset people is because he presents his arguments without being obviously idiotic like the aforementioned trolls. So we actually take the time to read what Witty says.
Anyways, I agree w/ Jim.
Witty
Sympathy for Israel is not normal.
One has to have some kind of very serious defect–mental, moral, spiritual…I'm not sure what. It's looking at the LA cops beating a handcuffed victim to a pulp and saying "I have a lot of sympathy for those cops." It is, as I said, a form of degeneracy. I'm not calling you an idiot. I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence. But normal people sympathize with the abused and downtrodden, not with their sadistic victimizers. The fact that this form of degeneracy, pasteurized with racism, is common in our society and ubiquitous in Israel is a tragedy.
Hope that helps.
Including me with criticism of Rykart is an effectively vicious rhetorical tactic for equating verbal abuse with criticism of Israeli military aggression.
Israel is at the harm level, and has been for a very long time. Israel should not be appeased.
Richard, don't back down now. I don't have exact quotes, but I doubt that I've misunderstood you.
Rykart, why do you find it necessary to sling insults and epithets at Richard Witty and others? If you don't have the tools to refute their arguments on substance, they why not develop those tools. I assure you it is much more satisfying to knock their assertions and arguments full of holes than to wildly sling mud at them.
Shirin
If you can point to an argument Witty has made..I'm happy to rebut it.
How do you rebut his constant refrain (as one of endless examples one could cite) that Hamas broke the cease fire?
That's not an argument.
It's just a shitty lie.
Or Witty's claims of rampant anti-semitism "already at the harm level"
Is it too much to ask for one SHRED of evidence for his outlandish claims, as people in these forums have asked him repeatedly to no avail?
Witty is perfectly well aware of the fact that every investigation of this "rampant anti-semitism" (for example at Columbia) has shown that it's a fraud cooked up by Witty's Zioinist pals to shut down criticism of israel.
you want me to go on?
The guy is NOT an honest debater. But how could he possibly be?
Israel has no case.
"Hope that helps. "
Of course it doesn't help. I do not describe Hamas as animals. I describe them as human beings making faulty decisions that end up harming civilians (both in Israel and in Gaza).
I don't know Hamas true motivations. I'm not sure anyone does. And that is one of the very big dilemmas for someone that desires and urges reconciliation.
Its not currently knowable in the slightest that Hamas is truly willing to even co-exist with Israel, even conditionally. The reason for that lack of confidence is the very very different statements that they make to western authors from the statements that they make to Iranian press for example.
Certainly, the same is true for Netanyahu and Lieberman (the Israeli foreign minister).
I actually didn't state that Hamas broke the cease-fire, in the manner that you suggest. They did break the cease-fire early, in conducting and/or allowing a month and a half of shelling, in spite of their agreement. When confronted by Arab states and Israel, they did relent and successfully enforced the cease fire on their end. In early November, the tunnel issue remains ambiguous. It is unclear if the tunnel was in fact offensive and in fact extended near or over the Israeli border. And, the subsequent two weeks of mutual hostility was certainly violations.
But, the cease-fire was restored for one full month, after those skirmishes. And on December 18, Hamas permitted Islamic Jihad to fire into Israel, and a couple days later resumed shelling and escalated the shelling to Ashkelon and then Beersheba, BEFORE Israel responded militarily.
There was no formal cease-fire to break at that point, but Hamas did INITIATE the resumption of violence. (I know that the blockade is considered a violence, and that may or may not have merit.)
The two consequences of Hamas' decision were the resumption of violent response rather than verbal (even through intermediaries), and a swing to the right of the Israeli electorate.
Hamas choice was admittedly a very difficult one. It is true that Israel desired and desires that Hamas becomes utterly insignificant politically. I personally don't understand how a faction that did undertake terror on civilians as chosen method of "dissent" over a 12 year period, can be considered political (rather than solely criminal).
Hamas has many wonderful committed people primarily in their social services. Most of those opposed the resumption of violence. While the blockade was more than difficult, they preferred even the prospect of calm as better than the certainty of violence.
So, of the points that I made, there are three relevant types of responses.
1. No, the sequence of events is not accurate.
2. No, the interpretation of the events is not accurate.
3. No, the significance of the events is confused.
I would not consider either of those three refutations an abuse.
And, if you desire a settlement that facilitates Palestinian self-determination at the green line, their day in court for title claims, then perhaps we can get past the "you are a racist, idiocy", and proceed to strategy that does not alienate more than it motivates.
If Witty were somehow elected Israeli prime minister, but still surrounded by "Phil's Phools," and Mondoweiss, I have little doubt he would be a vast improvement over what Israel has produced for the last 50 years.
On the other hand, he would not be surrounded by this bunch, but rather by virulent Zionists, and so he would quickly turn less thoughtful and more vicious, tribal, and aggressive. His Jewish constituency would demand it, and turn on him the second he became more thoughtful and objective.
There's a "containment" metaphor in there somewhere, as well as one about bringing belligerent "victims" to a point of semi-reasonableness via a firm hand. Containment isn't always a pretty picture, but its usually better than the alternative.
witty quote "I don't know Hamas true motivations. I'm not sure anyone does. And that is one of the very big dilemmas for someone that desires and urges reconciliation." same can be said of israels motivations, especially in light of their actions witty..
another witty quote "Its not currently knowable in the slightest that Hamas is truly willing to even co-exist with Israel, even conditionally. The reason for that lack of confidence is the very very different statements that they make to western authors from the statements that they make to Iranian press for example." said can be said of israel as once again their actions speak in direct opposition to all the words that we usually get from them….
the dilemma is not one sided, with many rationalizations beign built on a lack of appreciation for this as well…
Palestinians should "have their day in court for title claims" Witty endlessly repeats. (Never mind that under International law, the israelis are not entitled to ONE sand grain of the West Bank, Gaza or East Jerusalem. )
In plain English, he proposes that Palestinians should be permitted to live in their homes and farm land they have been on for generations only if it is approved by Nazi interlopers from Forest Hills and Novosibirsk who are besieging them from air, sea and land, massacring their children and rounding up thousands and thousands of innocent people to torture in their dungeons.
Shirin has a point. I have no argument against that point of view. I can only identify it for what it is: Nazi vomit. If you can find a more agreeable term for Witty's perspective, I'm all ears.
"How do you rebut his constant refrain (as one of endless examples one could cite) that Hamas broke the cease fire?"
You rebut it exactly as I did yesterday, by stating specific facts connected to sources that are difficult to impeach (in this case, the IMOD, and the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center.
"Or Witty's claims of rampant anti-semitism 'already at the harm level'"
Easy. Challenge him to provide evidence, and when he can't, he loses.
"The guy is NOT an honest debater."
Which makes it very easy to shred his claims if you know the facts, and have the ability to think logically.
"Israel has no case."
Then it should be easy as can be to expose that, shouldn't it?
So, why resort to personal invective and mud-slinging? Do you think doing that makes your case look any stronger?
Shirin
100 people did the same thing, only to have Witty return to his asinine claims that Hamas broke the cease fire and are responsible for "the resumption of violence."
This is absolutely typical of the apologists for Israel.
HRW says israel commits atrocities against civilians.
Physicians for Human Rights says israel commits atrocities against civilians.
Amnesty International says israel commits atrocities against civilians.
Ha'arets says israel commits atrocities against civilians.
Bt'selem says israel commits atrocities against civilians.
The IDF Nazis say israel commits atrocities against civilians. They give eye witness testimony.
Israel's response?
"We're the most moral army on earth and go to agonizing lengths to protect civilians."
The entire crew of the Liberty says that there is no question whatsoever that the attack on their ship was deliberate.
Israel: no—a tragic accident.
Journalists found the casings for israel's phosphorus shells fired at children in Gaza.
Israel: no. never used phosphorus.
Their ENTIRE platform is Nazi vomit and lies.
But I'm sure you know all this.
Maybe 15 years ago it was different. Today, only freaks speak in defense of israel.
Only Garbage.
Only Filth.
Witty: "I personally don't understand how a faction that did undertake terror on civilians as chosen method of "dissent" over a 12 year period, can be considered political (rather than solely criminal)"
here, I'll try and help using the story of the exodus. As the bible teaches – and the Hadaddah celebrates – terrorism against civilians is the preferred method of god – and its prophets -when leading a people from slavery to freedom.
You cannot be a good jew – and celebrate passover without supporting the proposition that it's OK to visit major calamities (quite specific too) upon civilians resulting in significant lose of life among the innocents, including babies who had the misfortune of being born first. Does the fact that the calamities were creative – and [supposedly] condoned by god – make them any less hideous? did it lessen the magnitude of the atrocities? or is it OK only when it helps the jews? even if the story is a parable and myth – it's still a teachable moment. Maybe we should all learn to read exactly what it says, not what we think it should have (yes, I mean the talmud)
Besides, what exactly is the difference between the early israelites and modern day jihadists? maybe god is up to its old tricks, this time hardening Israel's heart, so it can visit further misfortune upon the enslavers and free its newly chosen – the palestinians? who just may, BTW, be far closer genetically to those early israelites leaving Egypt than any of the jewish hasbara supporters, who may well be jewish by name only. As for the israelis – their claim on Judaism is even more tenuous than the diaspora friends, given the wide-spread total ignorance of what being jewish actually means among the israeli populace.
I say, hamas may be the new moses, for all I know.
Will "WTF?!?!" still be allowed?
It seems to encompass a rational response at times.
Mr. Witty does engage in dialogue generally though he will occasionally ignore pointed questions put to him. I am glad he is here but wonder about his delicate sensitivities and special pleading for protection from those who might be a little more course in their responses.
I will go along with whatever the site-owner wishes.
My particular "F-you!" post was more of an example of an exasperated exclamation rather than vitriol directed specifically at Mr. Witty.
I'm sure Richard's commentary on this blog is designed to stimulate discussion and that it does. Civility is always desired in any discussion and I would hope if Ahmadinejad were blogging civility would be maintained. Having said this, I learned as a child that "sticks and stones might break my bones, but words will never hurt me" obviously not all children learn this. Richard has never impressed me as a whimp or thin skinned. I disagree with censorship whether it's imposed by others or self imposed. But it's your blog Phil, it's your ball.
So, they repeat the same lies over and over and over again. Makes it really easy to refute them. Just repeat the appropriate facts and realities in response to their lies.
I get that it is frustrating – I've been dealing with Zionists on one level or another for years – but you gain nothing for yourself and do the Palestinians no favours by turning ugly and resorting to name calling. In fact, how does name-calling make you better than they are?
Ignore them, or refute them with facts and logical analysis. Those are the choices.
And on top of it, whatever your opinion might be of Zionist apologists, Hillel, Chabad or whomever, they are all human beings, and ought to be treated as such.
And by the way, I am very good friends with a very prominent and dedicated anti-Zionist Jew (whose name some here might recognize) whose life was saved by Chabad at one time.
A level of civility needs to maintained on this blog and more specifically when discussing this issue. Anger and name calling do nothing to further to progression of discourse. I also think Witty is a good representation of the opinions on the Zionist side and people need to learn how to debate him.
Shirin
Agree with much of what you say.
Still, if I happen on someone beating a cowering dog which is suffering and wailing in pain, my instinct is not to explain to the fellow why this is wrong, but to take the stick away from him and bash his skull in with it.
This too is part of being human.
I believe the cumulative effect of Witty's posts is to declare Jews a sort of ubermenschen and Arabs a subhuman class which can be murdered at will. How else to explain the outrage and hand-wringing over capture of Gilad Shalit while thousands of civilians are killed and maimed by Israel? This is aggressive racism. The mindset in my view is considerably uglier than anything I've managed to come up with in response. It is this ugliness, this poorly camouflaged Nazism which needs to be confronted. The facts surrounding the I-P situation are long established and hardly require rehashing at this late date.
@ LT: "I am glad he is here but wonder about his delicate sensitivities and special pleading for protection from those who might be a little more course in their responses."
LOL. Isn't that increasingly the attitude most Americans are taking towards Jewish Americans in general? Sounds extremely reasonable to me.
For what it's worth, I am glad that the verbal diarrhea regularly ensuing from Berel and Suzanne and the rest (you *know* who you are!) has subsided somewhat.
Do not know if they're being filtered now or just got tired being Hasbara parrots here and ran off to play elsewhere the megaphone beckons.
Witty steadily and consistently demonstrates his complete contempt for us by never, ever incorporating any of the facts presented to him by anti-Zionists.
But I'll have to re-adjust my definition of anti-Semitism to include anything which might hurt Richard Witty's feelings.
Funny, though, the Zionist supporter death wishes come in for Phil, and Witty never feels compelled to speak up.
First, Rykart, Richard Witty is using words to express ideas which you might find despicable. This is a far cry from beating a cowering dog. If he were beating a cowering dog you might be justified, based on an emergency situation, in bashing his skull in to protect the dog. No one is in immediate danger from Richard Witty's words, therefore a more measured response is appropriate.
Second, one of the classic Zionist debate techniques is to put a stop to reasoned discourse by invoking an emotional response in the opponent. Then they can point out how irrational, or abusive, those on the other side are.
Third, I think it is very difficult for most of us to understand how deeply ingrained, and therefore how gut-wrenchingly difficult it is for most Jews to face reality about Israel and Zionism, and how many internal and external pressures militate against it.
My aforementioned prominent anti-Zionist Jewish friend went through several very, very painful years during his transition, during which time he was quite literally rescued from himself by Chabad. Another long-time friend of mine also went through a very lengthy and painful transition beginning with a conversation with me, at the end of which he became a near-pariah to his family. Personal invective and name-calling does nothing to assist anyone to make the transition, nor does it make one's argument any more persuasive.
And finally, never forget when arguing with a Zionist that you are unlikely to change their minds, but you might persuade those who are listening to rethink their assumptions. That is why I will never debate a Zionist except in public (with rare exceptions, such as my aforementioned friend). Keep in mind that if you argue effectively, based on facts, reality, and logic, you can make good use of the Zionists in our midst. They will provide you with a platform, and because the facts are on our side, not theirs, sooner or later that will become obvious to at least a percentage of those who are witnessing the debate, who will then start to question what they have been led to believe.
"Zionist side and people need to learn how to debate him."
Witty debates? Witty does a lot of things, but one he does not do is debate.
And I have nothing, quite frankly to debate with Zionists supporters, and I have no intention of apologising for anti-Zionism.
Shirin
Very nicely put. It's tough to counter your sensible suggestions, which I mostly agree with. I probably ought to stay off the topic entirely.
The Zionists baffle me. I too grew up in a Jewish household (though non-religious) where Israel could do no wrong and was surrounded by bloodthirsty savages who hated them for the crime of being Jews. But I never argued with anyone on Israel's behalf because i really didn't know a thing about the history of the conflict, the land in question, the Ballfour declaration, the partition, the separation wall, Arafat, Hamas, Itzahk Rabin, Moshe Dayan, David Ben Gurion, Menachem Begin, the settlements, Oslo….I didn't know anything. At some point i started to wonder about it. The Arabs are really that terrible? The Israelis are all good? Once I started reading about it, it was almost instantaneously apparent to me that Israel was the aggressor and is legally and morally in the wrong. It was instantly apparent that it was Israel's intransigence that made peace impossible.
Today things are far MORE grotesquely obvious. I don't get what it is that keeps people from seeing this. It's a religion. Debating religion indeed seems fruitless.
Well, rykart, that leads me to something that I am still trying to figure out. What quality is it that allows some Jews, inculcated from birth with the same Zionist, Israel-can-do-no-wrong, Arabs-evil-Jew-haters beliefs, to come eventually to the same understanding that you, and my two aforementioned friends came to, and what qualities prevent so many others from doing so?
I have met in my life a number of Jews who made aliyah, took a look around, quickly woke up to reality, became utterly appalled, and either left in disgust, or became dedicated activists on behalf of Palestinian rights. Darlene Wallach is one such person, although ultimately Darlene's conscience would not allow her to continue to live in Israel.
And then there was my aforementioned friend. We ran into each other one day by chance after not seeing each other for years, and for reasons I do not now recall we talked for the first time about Israel, and I layed out the history for him, including the ethnic cleansing, and so on. He listened respectfully, and at the end of our conversation, he acknowledged my obvious sincerity and conviction, but made it clear he was not convinced. I said he must come to his own conclusions. We did not see each other again for two or three years, and then ran into each other again. To put it briefly he thanked me for opening his eyes, saying he had not been able to get the things I had told him out of his mind, so did some research, and found it was all true and then some. After that he had no other path but to anti-zionism, though it caused him enormous problems with family and Jewish friends.
So, what is different about you, and Darlene, and my friend, and people like you, and those who simply cannot face reality, and therefore deny it, or twist it, or find excuses for it? Or, as many "liberal Zionists" are forced to do, criticize Israel while refusing to recognize Israel and Zionism for what they are?
Some psychologist ought to do a study.
Thanks Shirin for that eloquent defense of reason and level-headedness
Phil Weiss, demonstrating again his evenhandedness in dealing with vitriol. I recall his comments about SOG, Bill Pearlman, who has called me a "dago", "wop", etc. because of my views, not because of any personal attack I made on him. I laughed it off, but the comments he made about Joachim's wife pissed me off, and should have been more than enough for a lifetime ban. Did Phil admonish him or ban him? NO! Phil Weiss admitted that SOG was a name-caller, but he rose to his defense, praising him for keeping Phil up to date on sports, or some such bullshit wrapped up nice in a box and tied with a ribbon.
Funny, I couldn't see him doing that for some goy using words like "k*k*", or some other ethnic slur against Jews equatable to those I mentioned above against Italians. Imagine it!!! Yes, he called Abe Foxman a dirty k*k*, but hey, he gave me his latest analysis concerning how many games Chien-ming Wang will win for the Yanks this year, so I think he's kind of cute.
Think about it Phil.
PM
Shirin
I can only speak for myself. My father is a scientist and really instilled a love of science in me from an early age. I guess I found a certain joy and a certain thrill in having cherished ideas overthrown. I came to appreciate the value of this. Of course Nietzsche said: "A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions." …also a good point of view! So I count myself as extremely fortunate and I ought to keep that more in mind when I talk to others–I need to be more respectful, for my own sake as much as for theirs. It's a struggle. What's happening to the Palestinians is really obscene. The support of it is very hard to stomach and leads me to say things I shouldn't.
Witty debates? Witty does a lot of things, but one he does not do is debate.
It's all about balance with IDF narratives:
check – countercheck quarrelsome
to borrow a term from duel regulations via Shakespeare.
More sublimated of course. No anger please. Rage is dangerous.
"Third, I think it is very difficult for most of us to understand how deeply ingrained, and therefore how gut-wrenchingly difficult it is for most Jews to face reality about Israel and Zionism, and how many internal and external pressures militate against it." – Yes of course we must understand the Jewish situation how very difficult it is for them. They suffer, they have enormous pressures, how utterly insensitive of us non Jews. Perhaps it's time for the Jews to understand how the rest of us feel.