Typically, because I saw so much wisdom in it, I pushed Bruce Wolman to publish the short note he sent me yesterday, It's gotten a lot of comment, as you can see. Wolman is a more considered writer than I am, and he wanted the opportunity to expand and respond:
I wrote this note to Phil based on my own experiences. After decades living overseas, I returned to the US and spent a great deal of time studying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and in particular the peace negotiations. It was my original intention to join and contribute to the debate within the Jewish community.
Much to my surprise (call it naiveté), I discovered there was almost no willingness to have open discussions in any of the mainstream Jewish organizations and media. Even more shocking was the McCarthyite tactics used to shut up opponents of Israeli policies. Finding yourself listed on a public website as a "Self-Hating Jew" is a wake-up call, I can assure you.
My extended family is probably split 80% liberal, 20% conservative, but all except maybe one or two are only comfortable talking within the confines of the hasbara narrative. They may be unhappy with what they hear about Gaza and the new Israeli government, but none of them wants to receive e-mails which might create any cognitive dissonance with their picture of Israel.
As a result I am here on Mondoweiss talking with Phil.
It's not that I wouldn't want to have a non-coercive discussion with the Jewish community, but time and resources are limited. Being pragmatic, if we want to be agents for real and timely political change, there is no evidence to suggest that we will be able to convince mainstream Jews within the necessary time period. Leave it to J Street to fight that battle, and I wish them the best of luck and will even give them limited support.
On the other hand most non-Jewish American liberals I know are either not that interested in Israel-Palestine or have become reluctant to speak out, especially when in the presence of Jewish Americans. They are, however, very bummed out by the Iraq war, and they need to understand that Israel and the major Jewish organizations in the US this time are pushing openly and hard for military confrontation. The media and the politicians are falling in line on Iran just like they did during the run-up to the Iraq war, on just as flimsy false intelligence. This time actually contradicting the published viewpoint of our own CIA.
Obama has filled his administration with both Israel-firsters and "realists", the latter viewing our current level of support for Israel as counter to American interests. These two groups are fighting it out to shape Obama's Iran strategy. This is why we are seeing conflicting signals out of the Administration. Obama may feel he can control the situation, but he has contributed to the debased public discussion with his politically calculated, false pronouncements of Iranian intentions.
Military action against Iran is as serious an issue as there is out there, and that is why I urged Phil to use it as the wedge to raise the Israeli-US relationship. Discussions on all aspects of I-P will naturally follow.
The other reason I suggest concentrating on non-Jews is that I believe the mainstream Christian churches can serve as natural allies in demanding fair treatment for Palestinians. Unlike the fundamentalists, fair treatment is consistent with their theology. Check out the positions on I-P of the Methodist Church for example. With some investment, there are good possibilities for joint efforts to lobby Congress and alter the media bias, countering the AIPAC-Christian Zionist axis.
Finally a reply to Richard Witty:
"Progressive anti-Zionist is also an oxymoron" is an empty sound bite. It might have meaning, but you have not provided any. At least explain how it is such.
I was not suggesting Phil should not focus on Gaza. Phil is exactly right in raising Gaza as much as possible, although I can see why you would prefer the topic buried. Gaza is the turning point as far as faith in Israeli hasbara is concerned. Even my Hadassah-member mother no longer believes what is coming out of the mouths of IDF spokespeople.
Phil needs to ground all his writing with the concrete. When it comes to Israel-Palestine there is too much arguing over the abstract. For me, much of what you write fails to influence as it is all too often devoid of the concrete, with no attempt to quantify your equivalences. Do what I did: go through the entire list from B'Tselem of deaths from this conflict since 2000 and their sequence, and then draw some conclusions based on all your ethical pronouncements.
Charging Phil with flirting with fascist themes is a slur. You need to be much more specific to make that charge. I saw quite a good deal of fascist rhetoric over at Realistic Dove as the commenters piled on Mondoweiss, but I didn't see you warning them of their fascism.
And as Americans, the issue is the relationship between Israel and the US, and the Palestinians and the US. Our demand for US government action/non-action is based on the fact that America is intervening to the hilt in the disagreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and that the intervention is decidedly one-sided and unjust. Without US support, world politics would have forced the Israelis to compromise decades ago. Your warnings about intervention are absurd.
Persuasion is good, but it can only occur in a non-coercive environment. The use of military and economic power to determine issues negates the effectiveness of persuasive dialogue. Until you provide us with some method of dealing with the fact that the United States and Israel want an I-P settlement to be based on which parties have the most power rather than based on rights under international law, your recommendations sound more like cover. How about advocating for compulsory arbitration of the conflict based on international law? That is how civilized states settle conflicts. I doubt the Palestinians would object.
To MRW:
As I explained above, I believe there is more to be gained by concentrating on the mainstream churches initially. The fundamentalists appear to have a heavy theological investment in Greater Israel.
If no debate is allowed, than they will stay nice and silent while you expound your conclusions, and your' ideas for change.
Why do you need a debate? So you can be convinced you are wrong?
Or so we can talk about doing sopmething forever and never do anything.
Any change in Israel is going to be very threatening, if not harmful, to many people. Is it right and necessary, or not?
Forget AIPAC. Forget the ADL or the JDL.
Stroll into any jewish Community Center. I bed there's one across the street from you. You can not find me ONE in the entire United States that stands for solidarity with the Palestinians and condemnation of Israel's abominations in the Occupied Territories. That's pretty incredible, but true.
He's accurately describe Witty. Witty's arguments are hallow. And why didn't he wag his finger at the commentators over at Realistic Dove like Suzanne/SoG/etc.?
I've said similar things about Witty in the past and these views have been affirmed by other commentators.
I also can't think of another blog (Angry Arab is too much like myself, minus the Arab, and I prefer a calmer voice like Phil/Adam, Norman Finkelstein's site isn't a blog, Anthony Lowenstein's commentary is often too short and sort of boring but I respect him, etc.) that is as effective as Phil's…
Greenwald's maybe? Walt and Mearsheimer? Maybe that Colonel guy..
"Progressive Zionist. Isn't that an oxymoron?
Posted by: MRW. | April 19, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Progressive anti-Zionist is also an oxymoron."
You did get that juxtaposition, Bruce? This is a statement often made in the left, often accompanying the statement that an even-handed approach to considering issues on Israel/Palestine is PEP.
If you equate my comments with "hasbara" then you are incorrect.
I assert that a progressive view on Israel INCLUDES support for Zionism as the self-determination movement of a people (similar in population relationship to Ireland, of which there are more self-identified Irish in the states than in Ireland). It also includes support for viable Palestinian sovereignty (two-state).
Phil's flirting with fascist themes. Its NOT a statement of investing in fascism, I hope you noticed the distinction. The themes invoked include: "Jews control the media", "Jews control the money", "Jews manipulate states behind the scenes", "Jews are racists", "Jews think of themselves as privileged and entitled".
Stated to Phil's family and friends, the ways that he speaks of those issues are self-inquiring. When he compulses on them they are a little irritating. When he speaks of them to an inquiring audience, they are stimulating questions. When he speaks of them to an amalgam of individuals that periodically gather AROUND fascist themes, he's gone a step beyond self-inquiry.
If you've read here a while, you'd notice that there is FAR FAR more attempts to silence those that disagree with Phil, or Walt/Mearsheimer, or Norman Finkelstein, than any direct or indirect accusations of anti-semitism for example.
Its not uncommon among left groups on Palestine, many of which are willing to be vicious to those that disagree with them, and it doesn't serve their cause.
The lectures to Phil (sorry for the tone), are to remind him that criticism of Israel habitually, extends into territory that is not dissent.
Its not just the veracity of supporting documentation that is important, its the actual intent.
What is it that you and he are attempting? If you are attempting to state your compassion for a community (Palestinians) that are currently harmed and suppressed, and have a path for their improvement, that is a wonderful goal.
If you are attempting to reconcile your personal confusions about Jewish identity, by ridiculing those that have a different approach, or committed religious or association approach (in contrast to the political critical analysis approach), then better that you don't do that where there is the possibility of great harm in a pendulum swing.
On intervention in Israel/Palestine, its a dilemma no? Did you understand my point about the US dictating to Israel/Palestine the terms of an agreement? (Hopefully with the external support for enforcement of an agreement, consent of the parties would firm up). But if that consent of the parties didn't firm up, and remained along current lines, then the US would be in another Iraq, permanently caught in the middle of contending factions, employing lethal force.
Its a very big dilemma. Please don't diminish it.
And, please don't diminish the dilemma of Hamas. There is no justice if it doesn't end in peace. I know that sounds odd, but it is true. Justice (whatever definition) that ends in a continued state of active or deferred war, is just self-talk.
Maybe after the next death from a rocket, Hamas or Islamic Jihad will say, "We've received our recompense. We're done with the violence. We never knew what was the count, now we acknowledge that."
And, if they concluded that, then the next Israeli military assault on suspected terror cells (and rationalized civilian targets), would also be enough. Done.
But, more likely, like me, my last bowl of ice cream wasn't.
How do you get Hamas to change? They and Hezbollah have repeated that their resistance and requirement to remove Israel from the map, are unconditional. That they will never recognize Israel as having the right to live in peace.
Also, I know it will surprise you, but I've been frequently called a self-hating Jew for similar reasons as you experienced.
How do the concrete examples that you've observed over time, add up to the conclusions that you've derived?
I only see the conclusion but not the math of it.
If you laid that out, there can then be discussion of the facts, the interpretation of those facts, and conclusions as to proposal derived from those interpretations.
I wish you would respect more that the reasons for the dilemmas on the issue, how it is reported, how it is resolved or not, are NOT primarily issues of power only, but are substantive conflicts of understanding.
Finally, on the why didn't I yell at Pearlman or Suzanne or others?
I don't. Judgement is the Lord's, not mine.
I stated clearly what my impressions of Phil's process were, relative to Dan's original post, NOT relative to the posters that you referred.
Irony alert:
I wish you would respect more that the reasons for the dilemmas on the issue, how it is reported, how it is resolved or not, are NOT primarily issues of power only, but are substantive conflicts of understanding.
Yes, Arabs missing to understand where the power lies. The later they agree to take what is offered the less they will get.
Never missing an opportunity …
How do you get Hamas to change? They and Hezbollah have repeated that their resistance and requirement to remove Israel from the map, are unconditional. That they will never recognize Israel as having the right to live in peace.
Yes, in the end, the Palestinians simply do not understand.
You think that the reason for the knot is only power relations?
Witty, man, is there some common ground we can all find to achieve peace? No one here wants to see Israel harmed, but we can no longer tolerate the racist policies of Lieberman, Netanyahu or the IDF's ethnic cleansing of citizens. You obviously care about establishing a "truth," otherwise you wouldn't spend as much time as I do hanging out at the Mondoweiss water cooler.
Though I must say, I'm not a fan of your personal swipes at Phil, suggesting that the site is merely an exploration of his identity as a Jew. It strikes me that he's very comfortable with who he is, and he senses he has a bigger purpose in this world. I commend him for taking the initiative to create a dialogue where the MSM won't (except involuntarily in the "comments" section of pro-Zionist columns of WashPo, HuffPo, TNR, Goldberg's columns in The Atlantic, the op-ed postings of NY Post, or Roger Cohen's brilliant columns in the NYT.
That said, I do respect many of your responses to some of the more strident anti-Zionist posters here. We can agree to disagree, but I prefer we find some common ground upon which we can agree.
"Maybe after the next death from a rocket, Hamas or Islamic Jihad will say, "We've received our recompense. We're done with the violence. We never knew what was the count, now we acknowledge that."
And, if they concluded that, then the next Israeli military assault on suspected terror cells (and rationalized civilian targets), would also be enough. Done.
But, more likely, like me, my last bowl of ice cream wasn't."
What the hell does this even mean? As best I can tell, Witty says Hamas is violent (true) and is putting all the blame for the cycle of violence on them. Yeah, whatever. Once again it's all the fault of the Palestinians, because Israel only responds to their unprovoked attacks.
You'd have a legitimate point if you said that supporters of the Palestinian cause need to be careful about putting too much faith in Hamas. I agree. But the same is true of all the mainstream Israeli political parties–not just Likud, but Kadima and Labor as well.
"Finally, on the why didn't I yell at Pearlman or Suzanne or others?
I don't. Judgement is the Lord's, not mine.
I stated clearly what my impressions of Phil's process were, relative to Dan's original post, NOT relative to the posters that you referred."
So apparently Phil and his commenters deserve your judgment and one can't wait on the Lord in their case, but Dan and his commenters (some of them as racist as the worst antisemites that have ever posted here) can be left safely in God's hands.
Mutual respect would be the common ground.
Address issues realistically and accurately.
For example, actually address the arguments of the neo-conservatives, RATHER than name-call.
Did you read my comments on Realistic Dove.
Any assertion that I piled on Phil there are ludicrous.
Maybe after the next death from a rocket, Hamas or Islamic Jihad will say: We've received our recompense. What a shocking statement, Richard Witty!
12/27/08 – 1/18/09
Israeli deaths: 313
Palestinian deaths 1417
Why do you choose recompense as the motive for the Kassam fire? Can you provide a source where someone who represents the Palestinians has said this? I don't recall ever encountering an indication that the rocket fire is intended to be compensatory, for what would the rockets be in requital? While not an actor in this situation, the thought that deaths in multiples of ten might somehow be considered recompense for Israel's repeated murderous actions, which have resulted in somewhat below 7,000 Palestinian fatalities, enumerable casualties and widespread destruction, just does not make sense. I often use the word reciprocation; I get almost a physical sense from that word – as in the phrase, push-back, and I think of it in terms of stimulus-response. Perhaps my meaning is equally obscure to you. More clear, I hope, is the statement that I feel the only recompense possible for the Palestinians is freedom from Israel's bondage.
Wolman,
I agree. And it was a great expanded post, I might add.
Fear of an Iranian strike has been my most terrifying fear for three years. Most terrifying, bar none. I calmed down when Biden made his statement recently. Not because someone can soothe me with Biden, but because of the way it was said. A warning almost. And it came off the cuff. It indicated a shift in stated policy, which Obama's previous statements failed to do.
So what are your suggestions about how to proceed?
Margaret,
If their counting is the same as yours, then the war will be an endless one.
The key concept is "we're done with killing".
This is a criticism, Witty.
Richard, look, what I find lacking consistently in your posts are factual historical details — historical also means yesterday — and an unwillingness to look at troubling hard data. You dont do your homework sufficiently. And it’s easy to do with Google.
You emote admirable feelings for the honor and elevation of man, mutual respect, and American values of fair play, but they’re platitudinous to many of our ears here because they’re a tarp over the hard realities beneath that the rest of us are trying to sort out. Logically. We use this site as a collective swap file to get at the truth, and throw our frustrations in with it.
You think there would be bitching and moaning about Israel from the people on this blog if the tables were reversed? If the Palestinians were doing to Israelis what the Israelis are doing to Palestinians? Do you think we would be siding with the Palestinians? Do you think this is an ideological battle? Every single sentient being on this blog would be excoriating the Palestinians if the reverse were true.
That’s what Wolman means when he uses the word ‘concrete’. A throws rock at B. B uses white phosphorous missiles to melt A’s babies. A levies Quassam rocket onto B’s street. B drops megaton bomb onto A’s schools.
Those are facts. Those are concrete. You then investigate: was it a megaton bomb? Was it a school? Where’s the proof? Where did the Quassam rocket land? Who was killed? Where is the proof? Is anyone lying about these events?
Facts come first. Then we can all lah-de-dah about the maybe-shouldas of what they ought to be thinking and feeling, and how we should make sure that mutual respect abounds. Mutual respect is a possible consequence of getting at the truth; it doesn't precede it. And no one is anywhere near that because there are distinct and malicious news embargoes put on vital info that we need to know about, especially, especially when we’re paying for these weapons out of our pockets, and more importantly as Wolman accurately points out, we run the risk of an imminent Iranian strike (and I maintain nuclear WWIII if that happens.)
The paucity in this dilemma is the truth. This ain't no sandbox with play-nice ground rules in the park. People are dying. These are lives.
So when you write Address issues realistically and accurately, the buck starts with you. Your writing is too perfumey, which means your thinking is too. You’ve got to get a little more hard-boiled. Facts are a great place to start.
Richard Witty,
I will start with your latest comment first.
If the key concept is "we're done with killing," then what are you doing here on this site?
None of us here are doing the killing, so why waste your valuable time? What can come out of you critiquing us on how to tell the Israelis and Palestinians to stop the killing.
Since your arguments are not going to convince any Palestinians, you should be spending your time on pro-Israeli sites convincing them that the killing has to stop. There have been two recent deaths of non-violent Palestinian protesters engaging in just the kind of behavior you approve of. Should be a good place for you to start.
A basic rule in business or therapy, but just as applicable to international relations, is that it is unrealistic to expect to directly change a situation by convincing others that it is they that must change. You only have control over your own actions. To change a situation you have to change your own behavior first and by your own actions induce change in others.
In other words, you need to get your own people to take the initiative and change.
Good luck!
What is your goal, Bruce?
"To change a situation you have to change your own behavior first and by your own actions induce change in others.
In other words, you need to get your own people to take the initiative and change."
Actually, your second statement contradicts the first, not supports it. You can change your personal behavior, how you speak for example, not how others speak.
MRW,
On the sequence of the Gaza war, you got facts from me. You interpreted them differently than I did.
I prefer not to comment on incidents, largely because I prefer not to gamble on either the veracity of sources. I don't know the facts, and won't browbeat someone else that I respect about content that I am not certain. Very frequently here, the sources quoted are more rhetorical than factual, but still believed.
On the headline of this post.
Of course there is debate within the Jewish community on Israel/Palestine, and there are paths to facilitate that debate. There is difficulty I expect.
Bruce,
For settlers that reside on land that was owned by Jews prior to 1948, what do you propose for them? Do you think they should retain title to the land, or should they leave?
T0: Phil the Assimilationist
I'm proud to be one of your acolytes! (LOL)
Richard has his own charm of self-aggrandising his own personal views and making it seem like this was the best way forward and if only each side took his advice (if only we all did) then it would all be fine and dandy. No emotions involved (except for sympathy for Zionism and all its discontents), just drop everything, here's our starting point (meaning this exact moment where settlements were built for forty years, thousands of Palestinians were killed and thousands held in prisons, and all they've ever done to each other is meant to be okay from now on because we're meant to forget about all of it since it's unhelpful for reconciliation) and let us begin anew. He does make important distinctions from time to time and he is FAR from the typical progressive Zionist image that is an apologia for all of Israel's crimes and Bruce I do think your criticism of him is unfair.
What I has been repeated over and over is his obsession with all things Hamas. "How do WE (key word here) get them to change?" The onus is on us to make people change now? I didn't think WE were capable of doing anything to change Hamas or how they think or what they do. It's sort of like how people think we can get Netanyahu to change because we don't like it. It's not up to us to make them do anything. It's up to them themselves, it's up to those directly involved, those who have a stake in this issue and those who would have a say on how their policies will reflect and react on themselves (ie Palestinians and Israelis alike). The biggest insult is the fact that there has been many instances on offer and on paper and on print and on and on… it's either (a) you don't want to believe them because they're Islamists or (b) they haven't proven themselves yet (mainly because they're Islamists). But what really is on offer is total capitulation, not concession for concession. A weaker power only has so many things on their side Richard, and legitimacy, or the refusal of it, is perhaps the biggest card to play. Without anything concrete from Israel to show any indication that they are willing, yes WILLING, that means not only stopping the killings (that is hard for them to do), but also stop imprisoning Hamas members in the West Bank and ceasing the spy activity that aims to assassinate Hezbollah members in Lebanon (yes, that type of shit happens ALL THE TIME), gradual opening of the borders with the possibility of a total porous border with Egypt… I don't want to go on about this but the downtrodden only has his rage to rely upon here. You want to make them change, how about changing how you treat them, not as criminals, gangs, lesser humans, not worthy of trust, but as ones who have rights and who you respect.
"Finally, on the why didn't I yell at Pearlman or Suzanne or others?
I don't. Judgement is the Lord's, not mine."
Have you not judged Phil, many times?
And I vividly remember you calling Joachim Martillo a fascist pig, which is, well true. You cannot compel yourself to cast that same stone to Bill Pearlman?
Witty,
But you need to comment and ask for sources. Eg: when the NYT quotes "an unnamed admin official who wishes to remain anonymous" red lights should go off.
If, on the other hand, an incident is reported in the Middle East and the dateline is from one of those cities in the ME and it's a news wire service for a foreign agency like Xinhua or AFP, you know you're getting one perspective from someone who was actually there. Couple that with AP or Reuters running a different set of facts, and your gut should immediately register 'something's up'. More so if the dateline is New York or DC. This isn't brain surgery. Run the article's title through Google and see what you get in 40 seconds. The facts should be the same. If it's a big story, they run updates as more facts are found every few minutes. That's when the danger of accurate reports disappearing starts. I've got a line of tabs for the global newswires for big breaking stories, which I prefer over RSS feeds. I run the same search set through each one of them as fast as I can to preserve screen prints at least….then see what I've got.
As for veracity of sources, as long as you have a name, you can verify. I've caught so many lies because the source didn't exist. I started doing this after that Blair (?) guy manufactured stories for the NYT. Believe me, I dont do this all the time, but when the story is important, I do.
Dont accept 'rhetorical' sources. There's no such thing. You're either pregnant or you're not. You're either dead or you're not. Something happened or it didn't.
The replies to the pro-Israel crowd from posters like tree, MRW and many others have been well written and acutely on target, but seem to me to misjudge their adversaries completely.
Richard Witty and the rest of his sordid gang approach this issue in a completely different manner than we do and that must be absorbed and fully appreciated. The situation is very closely analogous to the debate between the scientific community and the purveyors of Intelligent Design. Honest and rational people look at facts—both historical and contemporary, and base their conclusions on the body of available evidence. The ID crowd and the defenders of Israel approach things in exactly the opposite way. The facts must be either fit to the preexisting conclusion (God created the world, the Israelis can do no wrong) or the facts must be rejected, re-written or simply invented out of whole cloth.
What people here are missing is that Witty and those like him don’t believe what they’re saying any more than we do. They feel duty-bound to defend their tribe (either Christian or Israeli) and will bring whatever gimmick to bear that they feel will be effective. Maybe they’ll use Hamas or just call everyone in earshot an anti-Semite. But these are gimmicks, not arguments.
Why anybody affords Witty the respect they have by trying to have a logical discussion with the man is well beyond me.
I've been reading his mind-numbing, condescending lectures about how anti-Zionism is violent and vindictive – all the while ignoring and actively obstructing any – ANY – evaluation of the ever growing number of Zionist atrocities.
And then will reassure us that he has spoken out against Israel and has even been called a 'self-hating' jew – as if that means anything to those of us who read your self-serving narrative and infinite critique ad nauseum.
WHEN have you, on this board, written something ANYTHING in condemnation of Israel?
He has one role: deflect criticism of Israel.
On Realistic Dove:
Bill Pearlman Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Phil Weiss takes pleasure in the deaths of Jews. He thinks that shooting Jews is charming. Ad he thought that we got into WW2 on the wrong side. So what do we have here. A guy who married out, no kids. Wouldn’t be caught dead in a synagogue unless it was to hear Rahid Khalidi. He thinks that Yom Kippur is a fine time to go ti a :nakba event and has easter dinner. He is an advocate of the destruction of Israel and the death and dispersion of the Jews therein. He counts the number of Jews in any situation so he knows who is who. And his fan base is worse than he is. Not to mention that he is quoted on stormfront and David Dukes site. Last but not least he gives credence to a total lunatic Joecham Martillo. So I ask you Dan and Rich. What is the redeeming feature that you see here. Give me something.
Suzanne Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I think the idea of humans shedding cultural identity, is, among other things, scientifically improbable. We’re hard wired for it.
Related to that, Phil and utopian ilk annoy me because they seem to think culture was prefabricated and forced on people (and they want to do the same but with a different outcome)–whereas in reality, culture is a slow marinade. It occurs when a group of people share a social infrastructure. Self identity grows from that experience. You can’t stop it.
Bill Pearlman Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Dan:
You say Phil is a friend. Well, my jewish friends don’t take pleasure deaths of other jews. Phil does. They don’t engage in the promulgation of the blood libel. Phil does. If they hear about a gun battle between the IDF and Hamas. They want the IDF to win. Not Hamas. Phil is the opposite. They don’t denigrate their people and their religion at every opportunity. Phil does. What say you. What do you learn from him. And do you think that Israel is an evil that must be expunged from the earth. The way he does.
Now to the military service argument. Personally I think that Jews are undercounted but even so they aren’t serving in the same percentages has the population. No argument. But I think that this is a function of the all volunteer army. And that not many Jews had fathers and grandfathers that made it a career after they got drafted. My father came back from Korea and that was it. Plus. I think that we skew democratic and it don;t think that democrats value military service the way republicans do.
Suzanne Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
It’s interesting to me how some Jews give anti-semites credence by acknowledging the reasons why they are disliked.
Should blacks be doing the same by publicly pondering what it was about them that caused whites to go on lynching rampages?
I have no problem with self-examination IF EVERY GROUP agrees that they too have flaws up the wazoo.
I guess I don’t quite understand the compulsion to masochistically self-scrutinize in front of people who hate you.
It’s like the Jewish equivalent of white guilt. WTF? There are plenty of privileged people in this county who aren’t Jewish–get over it.
And…there are plenty of Jews who are simply middle class–even blue collar.
This idea that resentment against Jews is a class thing is a smoke screen. Not buying it for one minute.
1. Suzanne Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 4:29 pm Bill made a valid point…I live on the east coast and practically no one who is urban & college educated contemplates serving in the military. That’s for the rural, blue collar, more conservative folk. I can think offhand of 2 Jews who served. One is my cousin’s kid (whose father is a republican protestant New Englander)–and the other is republican (and a female).
2. Suzanne Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 4:32 pm ok…admittedly my cousin’s boy doesn’t self identify as exclusively Jewish. Nor was he raised observant. So maybe that doesn’t count because I don’t know if he feels any identification with his roots.
Y. Ben-David Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 5:52 am
Phil Weiss’ obsessions with the Jews and how many are in so many positions of influence reminds me of a joke popular among Russian Jews in the 1970’s when the struggle for aliyah to Israel was at its peak:
Nixon meets Brezhnev and Nixon tells him that Brezhev must understand that there is concern in the US among Jews and non-Jews alike about antisemitism in the USSR. Brezhnev replies “what antisemitism? There is no antisemitism in the USSR. I’ll prove it to you: 52% of the students at Moscow State University are Jews, 44% of the students at Leningrad Univesrity are Jews, 39% of the students at Kiev University are Jews , 47% of the students at Odessa University are Jews. In addition 36% of the engineers in the USSR are Jews, 29% of the lawyers are Jews, 45% of the physicians are Jews. 38% of the people in the Bolshoi Ballet are Jews and 54% of the musicians in the Moscow Symphony Orchestra are Jews. How many Jews do you have in the New York Philharmonic ?
Suzanne Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 6:35 am
claskov wrote:
“Philip has a need to portray himself as a lonely, brave prophet, daringly challenging the status quo that prevails among the ethnic group to which he belongs.”
Dayem… he thinks he’s Jesus. lol! (maybe some of his right wing pals think so too)
Bill Pearlman Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Dan. What is your definition of a jew baiting anti-semite. And telly me why you think Phil Weiss doesn’t qualify has such. I think he does. Tell me where I’m wrong?
1. Bill Pearlman Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 12:10 pm Rich:
I’m curious. I say that your pal Phil Weiss is an out and out jew baiting anti-semite. Has bad as anyone that I can think of. . What say you? Tell me where I’m wrong.
2. Richard Witty Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 2:02 pm Bill,
You also bait Jews, me for instance periodically.
He fears that his comments will evoke harms to Jewish civilians, but is not sufficiently careful in my mind to achieve that.
He strongly opposes dehumanizing Palestinians, which I do as well.
He’s confused about what political proposal to endorse, or how.
I think you are confused about that as well
Suzanne Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
ugh…I find it hard to take any so called leader seriously who insists (without proof) that Arafat was murdered [by Israelis]. This is whom Israel has to deal with.
It’s a joke.
These guys don’t inspire confidence on any level. What am I missing here?
As for Phil and other Jews by birth who develop antipathy for their own: has anybody studied the psychology behind this?
I’m constantly coming up with my own hare brained theories (lol)…but it would be interesting if someone did actual research and was able to uncover a pattern or whatever.
It fascinates me. I know someone personally who is kind of like this (they also have left wing/socialist leanings)–so I am REALLY interested in this.
Does it go on in other ethnic groups?
I mean, these folks can’t be the Bill Cosbys or Thomas Sowells of Jews, can they????
1.
2. Bill Pearlman Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 2:39 pm Not a great analogy Suzanne. Cosby nd Sowell have pride in who and what they are. They don’t wish for the deaths of their fellow blacks. Phil wishes for the deaths of Jews. Nor are they quoted admiringly on Dukes site or stormfront. Weiss has deep issues with his accident of birth.
3. Bill Pearlman Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 2:50 pm Rich your being more than a little disingenuous. Your buddy hopes that Jews are injured and killed. He says so all the time. His proposal, it is the destruction of Israel and the dispersion and the deaths of the jews therein. He is very clear about that. And I maintain that your pal his has much an anti-semite has anybody I can think of out there. And he has a great following among the lunatic fringe. You still haven’t told me where I’m wrong.
4. Richard Witty Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 3:36 pm I’m seeking a reconciliation.
I don’t know specifically what Phil seeks. I’ve never heard him advocate for the injury or death of Jews.
I think he is negligent, gambling, more than malevolent.
On Abbas and the Old City of Jerusalem. There is NO WAY that Israel will give the Kotel or the Jewish section of the walled city to a Palestinian state.
If that is to be an either/or position, then it will end badly.
5. Richard Witty Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 3:37 pm That’s rather than malevolent.
6. Suzanne Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 4:34 pm Bill, my comparison was purely tongue in cheek. And poking a bit of fun as I know many in Phil’s camp would be horrified at the comparison.
Regardless, I find this inclination to be a bit bizarre and I’d be curious to find out where it’s coming from.
Bill Pearlman Says:
April 18th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Phil Weiss’s shtick is this. “Look at me, I was born Jewish but now I hate Judaism, Jews, and Israel. Aren’t I noble and better than other Jews” He’s not the first and won’t be the last.
Witty does the following things–
1. He eununciates some general principles which are correct–nonviolence is better than violence, the long-term goal is to get both sides respecting each other, living in peace, lions laying down with lambs, etc…. No argument from me on this.
2. He puts nearly all the blame on Hamas, though lately he's been criticizing Lieberman and Netanyahu. The latter is a step forward for him, but it still gives the Israeli side too much credit, since when you set aside the lip service paid to peace the Israeli center and center-left have been as brutal as the Israeli right. Palestinian violence is a burning issue with him–Israeli violence is a very distant second–he'll quibble about how it may have gone too far, but for Witty, Israelis sometimes have the right to be violent and Palestinians never ever do.
3. And he is a relentless critic of the people who criticize Israel–Zionist feelings are all important to him.
So he wants peace, but he wants to arrive at it in a way that doesn't hurt his Zionist feelings–if you hurt his feelings then you oppose peace and you hurt his feelings every time you criticize Israeli atrocities or Zionism. That's his core principle.
I agree with R and stevieb AND Bruce Wolman.. debating with Israel firsters Witty Et al.. is only draining energy…they will never succumb to logic while their bad conscience is shielded by romantic notions of jewish democracy.
Richard Witty,
I don't want to get into numerous back-and-forths, as it is not my aim here to engage in philosophical debate. Some of what you say is interesting and even thought provoking, but I'm looking to push for political change with respect to the Mideast and I just can't conceive of an argument that might ever convince you to be an ally. Pragmatically speaking, it is not cost effective. Here is a response to your comment, but please don't take future silence as lack of respect.
1. "Progressive anti-Zionist is also an oxymoron."
I get your juxtaposition upon further clarification. When the left says "Progressive Zionism is an oxymoron," I don't necessarily agree with the left, but I understand their point. Progressives are making the judgement that a state based on Zionist ideas cannot satisfy progressive standards due to the way Jews must be favored over non-Jews in such a state. In my own judgement, they certainly win the argument based on the reality of Israel today. Whether Zionist ideology can be rehabilitated, I have my doubts. But you are welcome to try at Mondoweiss.
When you say "Progressive anti-Zionist is also an oxymoron," it doesn't make sense to me. You can support Zionism for all kinds of reasons, but the cause of progressivism is not one of them. And by this I mean the ideas that progressives advocate in every situation other than Israel-Palestine. Hence, the expression PEP. If I may speak for progressive anti-Zionists, I am sure they would maintain that upholding progressive ideas are more important than Zionist ideas and that the two are in contradiction. They argue that the governing ideology of the state of Israel needs to be changed, especially its expansionism and its continued occupation of the remaining Palestinian territory.
You assert that "a progressive view on Israel INCLUDES support for Zionism as the self-determination movement of a people…. It also includes support for a viable Palestinian sovereignty (two-state). I can see the logic of your argument, but history doesn't give it much support. Here is why I reject your broad assertion. You start with the premise that Jews are a people rather than a religious group. It is safe to say that never before had a "people" such as the "Jewish people" been granted self-determination (at least during the period this concept has been an operative principle). Spread among many nations, the "Jewish people" laid claim to a territory from which it had a 2000 year old historical connection, but in which it had been only a small minority of the native population for a thousand years or more. We all understand the problems in determining which minorities in what territories have reasonable claims for self-determination. How many wars have been fought over this very issue? Often the determination has been based on power politics (or temporary absences of power), but never has self-determination been granted to a people which didn't make up the majority of a territory. At the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, there were 56,000 Jews in Palestine and 600,000 Arabs. Under the British Mandate the Jewish population grew in Palestine against the expressed objections of the majority population. As in any colonial situation, the natives had no decision power in the matter.
Even with this influx of immigration enabled by the British, the Jewish population made up only 32% of the population of mandatory Palestine in 1947. With the aid of contortuous gerrymandering, the UN was able to propose a partition which had a Jewish-controlled territory consisting of 56% of the area of Palestine, an area containing 499,000 Jews and 438,000 Palestinians. The UN plan called for the Palestinians to receive 42% of the land, in an area which had a population of 818,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Jerusalem, including Bethleham, with an equal number of Jews and Palestinians was to be a separate area administered by the UN. According to Dore Gold [referenced in Wikipedia], "arguing that the partition plan was unfair to the Arabs with regard to the population balance at that time, the representatives of the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab League firmly opposed the UN action, and according to the Jewish Virtual Libary [referenced in Wikipedia] the Arabs "even rejected its authority to involve itself in the entire matter." They upheld "that the rule of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants, in accordance with the provisions of [...] the Charter of the United Nations." According to Article 73b of the Charter, the UN should develop self-government of the peoples in a territory under its administration.
Richard, no matter how strongly you believe in the justice of the establishment of the state of Israel, you should be willing to concede that the Palestinians had a quite legitimate complaint with the partition as proposed by the UN. Under international conventions, the Palestinians had a right to demand that as the majority population they had to be consulted and considered before any partition of the territory. Even in the Jewish area, Jews were barely a majority and in order to achieve that they had to be given a disproportionate amount of the territory. The UN, under the domination of the United States, refused to address the Palestinian concerns. As a result, armed resistance was a legitimate option. At the very least, you should be able to comprehend the reasons the broad Left, with its anti-colonial ideology, should refuse to deny the history of the partition and be unwilling to accept that this was a simple case of two peoples claiming self-determination over the same territory.
After the first Arab-Israeli War 79% of the land was in the hands of Israel and the population was now 716,000 Jews and 92,000 Arabs. By the end of 1948 the number of Palestinian refugees had swollen to around 700,000.
Let me raise two counters to your argument. (1) Afrikaners were truly a "people", more than the Jews by any accepted definitions. They had been in South Africa longer than most Israeli Jews had been in Palestine. International opinion, however, never agreed that South Africa should be partitioned, with the South Africans receiving a disproportionate amount of the territory such that they could form a state in which they had a majority in that territory. In fact, the idea of partition was never accepted in the South Africa case. (2) How do you explain that 40% of the world Jewish population decided to remain in the United States if in fact the state of Israel was a necessary condition for the continued "peoplehood" of the Jewish people? How could so many people maintain their peoplehood without having to emigrate to the one country which they claim is needed for their "peoplehood" to be actualized? Would American Jews have stopped being part of the "Jewish people", as they sing in their prayers, had Israel not come into existence?
I contend that you have not even proved your premise that Zionism stands for the self-determination of a people. At least not as "people" has been used in the case of every other realization of self-determination. At best, Israel is a very special case of "self-determination."
My own view is that the historical record shows that at the time, in light of the Holocaust, the idea of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine seemed like a reasonable idea to a good many people, but not to the native Palestinians and the Arabs. Since 1947 pre-dated the end of colonial rule and Western imperial ambitions, it was easy for the UN to ride roughshod over the concerns of the native Arab population of Palestine in the partition plan. The Palestinians had already suffered military defeat and political disintegration when they rebelled against British colonial rule. Had the UN attempted to pass the same partition resolution five years later does anyone doubt it would have been rejected? Despite their weakened state from the conflict with the British, it is quite understandable and even legitimate that the Palestinian natives rebelled and took up arms upon the declaration of the State of Israel. All other means of righting this injustice had been exhausted.
Israel exists today. There are many Israelis who know no other country as their own. Israel's legitimacy is based on UN and Western decisions made in 1947 not the case for Jewish "self-determination," which I have argued above is very weak. Many of us now realize that the creation of the Zionist state of Israel had untold consequences on a population now equal in size to the current Jewish population in Israel today. Hence, there is unfinished business – business of the UN and the international community. They need to clean up the mess and the injustices they created. Sixty years is long enough. Demanding a resolution negotiated between two parties vastly unequal in power is not a "just solution".
2. Flirting with fascist themes.
You accuse Phil of flirting with fascist themes, "Jew control the media", "Jews control the money", "Jews manipulate states behind the scenes", "Jews are racists", and "Jews think of themselves as privileged and entitled". I appreciate your anxiety over these themes. After the Holocaust, what Jew would not? In my reading, however, Phil never resorts to essentialism in discussing any of these issues as they relate to Jews and essentialism is the essence of Fascist propaganda.
I don't see how we can understand the US-Israeli relationship without discussing the Jewish ascension into the American Establishment and Elite and the consequences thereof. Phil has shown a sociological and political interest in this subject. You, yourself, admit that his questions are interesting. Should they be taboo? I could give a long list of reasons why not, but I will just ask would we be asking this question if we were talking about WASPS, Chinese, Indians or Arabs? I'm also not certain how a blogger controls "the amalgam of individuals" who read his site. The charge he goes beyond self-enquiry is non-sensical. Why write a blog if you are only allowed to stay within the bounds of self-enquiry? Certainly, he has made an effort to protect you from hostile commenters.
As for your charge that Left groups on Palestine are vicious with those that disagree with them, is this beyond the rough and tumble which you see on most political commenting sections? Worse than the comments on Ha'aretz? I admit it may be my bias, but I have found the ad hominem attacks from pro-Israelis to be among the worst of any identifiable group I come in contact with on the Web. But then maybe we visit different sites.
3. What are Phil and I attempting?
Richard, here I believe you want to serve as our shrinks.
I am not sure what territory habitual criticism of Israel extends into? Can you enlighten me? A friend and I share an almost daily unabated exchange of e-mails excoriating Obama's economic team and their policies, all based on the latest updates and newest analyses. Does our criticism take us beyond dissent? Have we reached the gates of Hell? Are we verging on anti-Semitism since Larry Summers is Jewish?
Phil can speak for himself, but in the case of the Palestinians I am not trying to display compassion. I am advocating for a foreign policy which I consider to be in the interest of my country, and for a solution to a serious international conflict which is just for all sides. More than usual, I am more personally engaged in this endeavor because the ethnic group to which I belong is clearly oppressing another population and acting badly. According to my ethical norms, that gives me a special responsibility in this case.
I'd like to make it very clear to you that I am not trying to reconcile any personal confusions about my Jewish identity. For 25 years I lived a very comfortable cosmopolitan lifestyle in a number of countries as a Jewish American. Abroad, I found being Jewish was relatively easy compared to being an American. I'm quite comfortable with my Jewish and Yiddish roots. My beef is when people like Ariel Sharon and Abraham Foxman, just two examples, take it upon themselves to speak for me as a Jewish American. And my other beef is with liberal American Jews who demand one set of ethical and political norms in the United States where they are a minority, and defend the opposite set of ethical and political norms in Israel where Jews are the majority.
I don't ridicule religious people for their approach to being Jewish and I don't begrudge Jews wanting to associate within Jewish institutions which serve their communities (in many ways I think they are models for every community), but then I don't give these people special passes either. I accept that many Orthodox Jews believe that Eretz Israel was given to them by God directly, and I respect the logical consistency of their worldview, but I don't see how such beliefs can solve this conflict or any other between different religious groups. I'm realistic enough to realize that nothing I can say will change their viewpoint. Their authority is their interpretation of the Torah. My interpretation would mean nothing to them. At the end of the day though, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever, you can let your theology guide your viewpoints and reasoning as much as you want, but to resolve a dispute with those that do not share your theology requires one to eventually resort to rational argument, or alternatively to pick up the gun. Secular discourse and the threat of violence is all we have outside our own religion or tribe.
When it comes to tribal associations, I have a more nuanced view, even though I am a cosmopolitan myself. There is nothing wrong with sharing tribal rites and occasions. And when your tribe is oppressed or actually being physically threatened, it makes sense to gang together for mutual support should there be no other alternatives. But one has to be very careful here. Defense and pre-emption can quickly morph into offense and aggression. One doesn't have to be an anthropologist to understand the historical conflicts and mayhem brought about by tribalism and nationalism.
Map out with game theory any physical conflict and see how easily pre-emption and disproportionate response results in a decidedly worse outcome for all parties. In the current state of affairs in the MidEast, the Israelis are not the oppressed and they are not the ones being out-killed. Both sides have the right to defend themselves, but Israel has been the aggressor as much as the aggrieved, and has certainly destabilized and escalated the conflict with its use of disproportionate force and "collective punishment". For these reasons, I don't accept that those following whatever you call an "association approach" to Judaism are justified in their unqualified support of Israel. And please tell me what would Israel have to do before mainstream Jewish organizations would stop defending it.
4. Intervention in Israel/Palestine.
Actually Richard I rejected your point about the US dictating to Israel/Palestine. For me there is no dilemma here. The United States and some consortium of other countries need to dictate a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The parties should be allowed to mutually agree to the extent they can and then the outside parties should complete the deal. I say this based on the fact that after 60 years the two parties have been unable to reach agreement on their own, and if anything they grow further apart as time passes. Moreover, Israel-Palestine is spilling over into unacceptable international conflict.
As I've already stated, compulsory arbitration would be the best means to determine a solution, but I realize the Israelis will not accept it, and hence some second-best alternative will be necessary.
Why am I optimistic about an imposed solution?
One, based on my experience working with Israelis they are a very pragmatic people. However, and I am not being critical here, about the worst thing you can be called in Israel is a sucker, that is one who gets taken in a deal or negotiation. The moment Israelis realize that this is the best deal they are going to get and that they won't receive a better one, and that if they don't accept, they will lose American support, the Israelis will rapidly adjust and find the deal something they can live with. There is no independent path for the Israelis without its relations with America and Western Europe.
Two, the Palestinians are demoralized from so many years of occupation and betrayal at the hands of other Arabs. They will take any deal that provides them some path to normalcy and which avoids humiliation, and which can be packaged at least in principle as just. Treating the Palestinians with dignity and respect, instead of carrots and sticks, will go a long way to conciliating them. And by a just solution, I mean one that provides a reasonable division of land and resources between the two parties and a truly viable state for the Palestinians.
Three, just like Orthodox Jews will never give up on their right to Eretz Israel, Hamas will never give up on the Palestinians right to all of Palestine. But, Hamas is a popular movement unlike Fatah, and it will not stand in the way of an I-P deal if the Palestinian population approves of it. Hamas will find a way to live with the deal and maintain its principles, as long as the deal does not require it to acknowledge unacceptable Israeli rights. Would we require orthodox Jews and settlers to formally forego their God given-right to Eretz Israel as part of any peace deal?
Four, most Arab states are sick of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and want it out of the way. They will accept any deal that doesn't compromise their religious red-lines on Jerusalem.
5. Hamas
Justice is about righting transgressions of events that have already occurred. Under current legal norms we don't meet out justice for acts that might be committed in the future.
The Left has no ideological affinity with Hamas. Thinking they were clever, the Israelis let Hamas in the front door as a means to weaken Fatah. Through their clumsy actions and repression Israel and the United States has strengthened Hamas with each passing misadventure, while at the same time weakening Fatah. Now, you assert that Phil and I have to take heed of the consequences of Hamas. How about some self-criticism here? Have you ever considered that it might be your misbegotten advice which has made Hamas an ineluctable force to be reckoned with.
Richard, please don't start with the rockets. As much as I disagree with Hamas, even it has a right to defend itself and the Palestinians. When IDF snipers massacred unarmed Palestinian teenagers at the start of the Second Intifada, Hamas had a right to defend these youths. [I assume you ignored my suggestion to study the B'tselem death lists.] When the United States encouraged and armed Mohammed Dahlen to carry out a coup in Gaza, Hamas had a right to stage a countercoup to protect itself. It was the elected government. When Israel and the United States decided to blockade Gaza, an act of war, Hamas had a right to defend the Gazans. When Israel publicly states its military doctrine is deterrence and when its own internal documents prove that "collective punishment" is a conscious strategy to maintain its deterrence, your insistence that there is no justification for Hamas firing rockets into Israel in its own attempt to establish a deterrent and leverage to halt the devastating blockade is absurd.
Hamas was willing to extend the truce in return for an incomplete lifting of the blockade. Israel refused. Richard, if you can get Israel to agree to even a mutual cessation of violence and aggression (and a blockade is an aggression, the casus belli for Israel's 1967 war), then maybe others can persuade Hamas to stop firing rockets. In fact, they offered to do just that, but Israel has refused.
6. Self-hating Jew
I was placed on the Masada 2000 Jew S.H.I.T. list. it was easy to get over being on that list, once I read the 7000 or so other names. It was more shocking to learn that none of the Jews I knew were shocked that Jews ran such a site and none of them thought it was necessary to protest the site. Had an Arab group produced the same list, the e-mails would have been a flying for weeks.
On the list were Jews such as Amos Oz, Shimon Peres, Bob Simon, George Soros, the children of Yitzhak Rabin, Phil Weiss and myself. Sorry, Richard but you were not on the list. I guess you are not sufficiently self-hating. Maybe you should try harder.
Go check out the list and then you can do the math. I'm finished.
If an Arab produced such a list, most would be dead by now. Richard is not on the list because he is thoughtful. Phil's phools encourage killing Jews.
Only a moron considers Hamas' missle barrage to be self defense.
Margaret, If their counting is the same as yours, then the war will be an endless one. Posted by: Richard Witty | April 19, 2009 at 07:49 PM
The war has been endless, Richard.
The numbers are not the actual concern, IMO. What is of concern is that each number represents an individual, a dead body. The number is important because it demonstrates so clearly that the problem is not so much one of Palestinians killing Israelis as it is one of Israelis killing Palestinians.
Who must be done with killing?
Lets all be done with the killing.
I agree. Too bad you and I are not the ones doing the killing.
What is your goal, is not an effort at therapy.
Its an effort to clarify, both politically and more personally.
Phil has dabbled with one-state, two-state. Stating contempt for those that are committed to a two-state solution, while then stating that is what he currently supports.
Phil has not clarified what he regards as the appropriate basis of association, of boundaries, of law.
The question on the settlers whose grandparents resided on Jewish-owned land in 1948, is a real one. It illustrates the distinction between the approach of "throw them out", to "affirm individual rights".
If you bother to read back, I've consistently asserted for color-blind assessments to former Palestinian owned land.
The only common thread between approaches is of the dissent, what irritates him and you, what you oppose.
Its barely a starting point. "This is wrong" is obvious.
But that solves little, especially as after how many years, you are still in a similar or worse place, and the US is in a similar place to where its been at other times.
On the religious, there are serious debates even among Haredi (and not just the Satmar versus the neo-orthodox) what conforms to Torah, "Thou shalt not steal" or "I have permanently promised the land to Abraham and his descendants".
Which is the commandments that results in "the rain in its time".
What is the actual meaning of "thou shalt have no other Gods before me?"
Maybe peace can only be established from outside. Maybe individuals and peoples cannot heal, cannot learn the skillsets to reduce their anger in importance in favor of reconciliation.
I see pendulum swings of injustice, not only from the Israelis. In seeking to oppose injustice, I prefer to heal the pendulum swinging, rather than which side the pendulum is temporarily on.
That includes pursuing the goal, applauding Obama for stating it, of two viable homelands currently.
I disagree with any statement that a jump to a single state is worth doing, for the nearly certain very profound violence that will result.
I disagree with you and others, on the questions around Hamas. When they shell civilians, I believe that should be opposed, not rationalized in any way.
I believe that their more humane factions within Hamas should prevail and be encouraged, rather than the more angry factions.
If you are opposed to injustice, then you oppose the constructions of the cycles of injustice, not just the symptoms.
Let's hope Witty's anticipated response to Bruce Wolman's thoughtful and knowledgeable extended comment
directed at the Witty line will be less juvenile, less moronic than Chris Berel's.
Richard, I really want the killing to stop. That is where my interest began; it continually is brought back into my attention by Israel's actions. The problem is not Palestinians killing Israelis. It is Israelis killing Palestinians.
Before land, water, houses roads, taxes, business – before any of that, the killing must stop.
The Masada 2000 Jew S.H.I.T. list is an eloquent rebuttal to the tenets of real anti-semitism. Those on the list are very courageous humanists. They honor those who died in the Shoah, rather than
make those victims meaningless in an eternal war of collective against collective, the pendulum always swinging.
I agree. Stop the killing.
Bravo, Bruce Wolman! A tour de force!
To do that, Witty, the American congress and White House–like you, must give a sign of recognition that Israel is the responsible party in this conflict. Israel is the party with all the power, controlling all the territory; Israel is the party that is in occupation over the Palestinians, in defiance of international law; Israel is the party that demolishes homes, bombs civilian residential neighborhoods, drops white phosphorus on civilians, imposes checkpoints and roadblocks and other movement restrictions, builds walls to close off Palestinians, blocks imports of food to an entire Palestinian population, confiscates land to build settlements and roads for Israeli Jews only. Israel is the party that has carried out 85 percent of the killings in the conflict since the intifada began eight and a half years ago.
Mr. Witty then walked over to a vendor's table to pick up a pamphlet and buy an extra-tight pink T-shirt with sequins that spelled out "FIGHT THE POWERLESS."
Great post by Bruce Wolman.
The Masada list is actually having the reverse effect (Streisand effect). It's a list of courageous humanists.
Cheers to the racist/bigoted Zionists who put it together for us.
Alice,
A better approach is "empower the powerless". And, the way to do that is to encourage them to make good decisions, form productive alliances, rather than angry ones.
Maybe the powerless would be better served by investment in time, money, education, help, conveying their subjective experience, than by shared anger.
Yeah, right Witty, it's easy to do that when you are blockaded for decades–Israel once went to war preemptively when they were blockaded. You need to address your choices to those who have them, that is the Israelis. You just never get it do you? The jews are the oppressors, not the victims.
If an Arab produced such a list, most would be dead by now. Richard is not on the list because he is thoughtful. Phil's phools encourage killing Jews.
Could we keep "the Arabs" out of this for a while? The point is, no such list exists in the Palestinian community. Go ahead ask your usual sources if there is something similar. If so, you would actually contribute something.
Personally, I find these lists chilling, they remind me both of the Nazis and their neo-followers. They always are a bit of an invitation for madmen.
******************************************************************
Absolutely brilliant comment by Bruce Wolman. Wear the fact that you are on such a list as a badge of honor. …
If you had stated that Israel is "A" responsible party, then there would be room for declaring Hamas "A" responsible party as well, and we'd have good basis for agreement.
I won't state that Israel is "the" responsible party.
I will suggest that there are things that Israel can do unilaterally to change the momentum, including allowing more truck through the borders with Gaza that they control, and removing as many roadblocks in the West Bank as is possible.
Hamas has actively intimidated all of its neighbors. That does not strike me as a particularly responsible way to govern.
Basically you demand that Israel make no reply to the rocket attacks against the launchers themselves, and that it not use force to destroy longer-range rockets as they are brought into Gaza or afterwards, and that it not attack the Hamas forces and infrastructure that allow the rocket attacks.
Since Hamas's raison d'être is the destruction of Israel, it will continue to launch, continue to upgrade, and continue to build. In the case of a hudna, it will continue to upgrade in order to launch a more devastating attack. Why should Israel agree to a damaging later war in place of a small war of attrition, given that Hamas is constitutionally opposed to the existence of Israel?
No one notices that the extension of the rocket war to Ashkelon was what triggered an Israeli invasion of Gaza, because that would mean acknowledging that Hamas was serious about its goals and was succeeding in them.
A total, verifiable cease-fire in exchange for open borders and a total, verifiable cease-fire. Won't happen because that would move Hamas away from its strategic goals, while civilian suffering will always be blamed on Israel.