Holocaust survivor Rabbi Joachim Prinz with
other March on Washington leaders
David Samel responds to Joel Kovel’s recent posts on the site.
What if Israel decided tomorrow that it would pull out all illegal settlers and allow the Palestinians to form their own state on the 1967 borders without any adjustments? This is of course unbelievably far-fetched, but what if it happened? Then we would still have Israel, a Jewish State with about 80% Jewish and 20% non-Jewish population. Would the 20% be full-fledged citizens? Of course not. To take just one area, education, Jewish and non-Jewish students are educated separately, with much more funding per pupil and many more resources devoted to the Jewish students. If that differential were eliminated, we would have separate but equal education, the kind declared unconstitutional in the US in 1954. So there would have to be vast improvement, the kind Israel has been unable to muster in 61 years, to achieve educational "parity" that has been unlawful here for nearly as long.
To take another area, Jews may not marry non-Jews in Israel. That sort of prohibition was outlawed in the US in 1967. Employment, housing, social status? Those areas have no pretense of equality either. Of course, Israel could try to minimize the differences between its Jewish and non-Jewish citizens, although its track record in that regard should not make anyone optimistic for even the slightest improvement. The situation is awful and getting worse. But even if things turned around dramatically, such officially sanctioned discrimination could never be eliminated entirely. Non-Jews would never feel equal to Jews in the Jewish State, even if Israel made enormous progress that is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible.
How can we American Jews, who rightfully demand equality in the land of our birth and country of our citizenship, and demand the same for other US minorities as well, defend or even tolerate a system in which others are denied that same basic equality? This is especially true where this discriminatory policy favors Jews and is maintained in the name of Jews everywhere. I think that one state, in which all citizens are truly equal, is inevitable. If it is, we should strive to achieve it sooner rather than later, and as peacefully as possible. I’m not opposed to the two-state solution; if it is more feasible as a short-term goal, the Palestinians who are not citizens of Israel are in a far graver position and need of immediate relief. But this two-state solution should be temporary, even if it takes an extended period to evolve. Eventually, the world should and will lose its patience with a Jewish State that officially discriminates against those who have inconvenient or unfortunate ethnicity.
Israel and its defenders have done a remarkable job in disguising the true nature of the conflict. It is not between Jews who want to live in peace and Arabs who cannot stomach their presence. It is between those who insist on Jewish domination and superiority over others, and those who insist on a resolution based on true equality. If Israeli Jews extend the hand of friendship, mutual respect and equality, I think it would be eagerly grasped. If Israeli Jews want to continue to live there, free to believe and worship as they please with some measure of peace and security and normalcy, they have no choice. Like all people, they deserve this result, but will never achieve it if they insist on eternal rule over others.
David Samel is a criminal defense attorney in New York City.
Mutual humanization.
Israel has swung on a pendulum. It has been more just than the US at times, and now is less in that respect.
What is needed is idealism and reform, and most importantly a PATH for idealism. The civil rights movement in the US succeeded because there were conspicuous African-American leaders that were obviously mature, intelligent, humane, trustable. The same is true of many Palestinian leaders, but the leaders that the militant left chooses to admire, are NOT those people. Even the Hamas social service leaders are kept out of sight, private, as if they are ashamed of that feature of their movement. Instead, Meshal and other militants represent Hamas’ manliness are the spokespeople and deciders of critical policies.
You are wrong about the disguise. The humane Israeli position is not as you caricature, and the Palestinian position is not as pure as you infer (though I do find many that do hold those views).
“If Israeli Jews extend the hand of friendship, mutual respect and equality, I think it would be eagerly grasped. ”
I think this is true, and it is the responsibility of those of conscience to facilitate the conditions by which this is possible, and to facilitate the actual handshaking.
BDS is not that. That is a wedge, not a bridge.
Richard Witty wrote:
Quite so. May I quote you on that, Richard, when I write to my congresspersons urging them not to impose further sanction on Iran, since sanctions, boycotts, and divestment are “wedges, not bridges.”
In fact, perhaps we can take the issue a few steps further: who is harmed by BDS, the odious regime or the people? Why, in almost every instance of BDS, the people bear the brunt.
Is that morally appropriate or is it collective punishment?
In Iran, the people have limited ability to chose their government; therefore, to punish the people for the ‘crimes’ of their ruling regime is inappropriate collective punishment.
In Israel, on the other hand, the boast is that democracy reigns supreme; the people’s leaders are empowered by the people. It is not inappropriate to hold the people accountable for their choices.
Furthermore, the escalating goals of BDS are enforcement ->punishment -> prelude to war. Israel must come to heel; it is hard to imagine that it will do so without some imposition of superior coercion. Israelis already believe their own hasbara; the recent rantings of The Israel Project suggest that Israel is preparing to complete the Luntzing of Americans in order to Wolfowitz the US into war on Iran. Preemptive action is necessary against Israel, and it’s got to have as much impact as Pearl Harbor if it is to sufficiently focus the mind.
And lest you think these conclusions harsh or even immoral, the authority I rely on to support them is none other than Israel’s cheerleader Patrick Clawson of WINEP, who wrote a defense of the morality of sanctioning Iraq, arguing that if people died as a result of sanctions, it was not immoral because the people are accountable for their government.
BDS Israel.
final thought — it’s not such a bad idea to drive a wedge between the US and Israel. Time to take the training wheels off, Zion.
That golden rule thingey is a b#@%h.
Years ago, the last time Netanyahu was PM as a matter of fact, I was at a demo in East Jerusalem, protesting against some government nastiness or other, and I got to talking to a Palestinian woman I’d already seen at a few demonstrations. I asked her what she thought a fair solution to the conflict would be (I was a Zionist and firm believer in two states back then). She said: “A single secular democratic state in all of Palestine”. “But what’s in it for the Jews?” I asked, a little taken aback. Without batting an eyelash, she replied: “You don’t have to go back to Poland.” It took me another few years to realise what a generous and courageous idea that really was, coming from a Palestinian. We hear so much about Israeli fears and concerns, but here was a Palestinian who had obviously had it up to the eyeballs with Israel, willing to take a leap of faith and live as an equal with those who had taken her people’s land – and worse. She was even willing to welcome the millions of Jewish immigrants who had changed her country in so many ways, on condition that they renounce domination in favour of equality. One simple, obvious human condition for peaceful coexistence, and the courage to overcome fear and mistrust. In the short-term, it is the only really just solution. In the long-term it is the only viable solution. And for those who dismiss the idea as naive wishful thinking, please tell me how well the two-state idea has been going so far and when you think Israel and Palestine will be exchanging ambassadors.
Shmuel,
May this goy hug you, a Zionist?
Yes, yes, a thousand times Yes: One state for all people to live in peace and security.
Now that’s a bridge worth building and crossing.
PG,
I am not a Zionist, but hugs are always welcome.
Witty says, “ANY effort to remove Israel as Israel will be fought and ruthlessly, and result nearly inevitably in more intent ethnic cleansing, permanent occupation of all of greater Jerusalem, and war that civilians bear the brunt of.”
The US was slow to get aboard the anti-apartheid S Africa train back in the day. And
back then we hadn’t been pouring billions annually into the S African regime. And there was no apartheid S Africa equivalent to the Israel Lobby here. And white v
black registered heavily here, as it still does, while semite v semite is a vague concept
here to most US citizens. And then there’s Hollywood, and the MSM here, still loaded
with Paul Newman’s Exodus. I haven’t heard Brad Pit or his wife speak up about the plight of the Palestinians, have you?
A while back Jolie did take interest in helping Palestinians, but she quickly learned which side her bread is buttered on, and has since become an active player for the “death to Palestine” team.
Beautiful case made by David Samel. Clear and succinct. Thanks for posting this.
And thanks also to Shmuel for his wonderful comment.
Its so reassuring to know that there are those who really get what equality means and why it is so important.
Its an imagined bridge across a chasm with the actual road route to get the 100 yards across the chasm being a 40 year trip.
Thank you David for a most insightful post comparing apples to apples. The level of apartheid and injustice in Israel is truly breathtaking.
On another note though:
Why is Richard Witty continued to allow to lie on this website?
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions are long overdue.
It is really a pity that we have to slog through the drivel of your repetitive and inane spam-like dishonesty on a daily basis.
There is nothing original, thoughtful or truthful in anything you post.
Perhaps you are just left strung up here on the ropes of your dishonesty to remind us all of the bad faith of Zionists everywhere.
Alec – Richard is helping to divide us into a majority who will back off, convinced that racist mass murder is going to win, and the minority who temporarily refuse to be silenced and have to be identified and threatened.
He has to be tolerated because if he’s seen off, much more disruptive and obviously threatening elements will turn up and endanger the continuing operation of the blog. Techniques like this have worked brilliantly for Israel in the past – you probably didn’t even know that the killers of 100s of British and dozens of Americans have been hailed as heroes, while our own countrymen cannot get an investigation or a hearing.
Gotta give Phil credit for running a site mostly free of censorship, in all directions.
There’s a major blog in the ‘sphere that empowers a pack of ‘community members’ whose mission is, in their own words, “to drive the antisemites off the site. …and we’ve been pretty successful.”
Interesting how that works: Anti-zionist comments are deemed anti-Israel; since Israel is a Jewish state, anti-Israel is deemed anti-Jew, and anti-Jew is anti-semitic.
To be labeled an antisemite destroys any credibility; to associate with (ie. by conversing with, or ‘uprating’ the comments of, a branded ‘antisemite’) is similarly to destroy one’s own credibility. Thus, anyone who wishes to remain in the good graces of the forum must genuflect to the site’s zionist patrol.
With this tactic, groups like The Israel Project can rest assured that when it makes statements like, “polls show that most Americans think US should take military action against Iran,” very few on a major blog will dare to challenge the (bogus) “poll” because to do so risks marginalization and labelling as an antisemite.
If only zionists are allowed to speak and be heard, and if enough “antisemites” are effectively silenced, then the zionists control the microphone.
Joseph Campbell wrote, “Lies are what the world lives on, and those who speak the truth and live their lives in accord with truth, are not the many but the few.”
Those few must summon up the courage to continue to speak out, intelligently and without rancor or ugliness.
Because if the ‘few’ ‘truthseekers’ do not speak out, then the zionists may once again fall victim to the majoritarian, lied-to, headless mob, that just may turn on the propagandists that led the mob to the edge of the cliff.
I have a different question: how does Witty manage to be here to comment first on every post? Should we fear for the solvency of his auditing clients?
Yes, this occurred to me as well. :)
Why does a middle-aged man find it important to always get the first word in, even when he has nothing particular to say? It’s certainly not because he has any respect or care for the others posting here (Phil perhaps least of all).
I suggest this is a personality disorder, and it goes by the name of passive-agression.
Even with withdrawal to 1967 borders and equality for arabs and jews in Israel, Israel would still be a racist settler state whose main native population was required to live outside the borders of their home. It would be something like saying, allow the ‘Cape Coloureds’ the vote and equality in South Africa and that would authorise the real independence/’sovereignty’ of the Bantustans where the vast majority of the black african population is barracked, because the sine qua non of the modest equality between arabs and jews that this scenario claims is that not too many arabs will be allowed to use it. Its apartheid that needs to be undone in Palestine, as in South Africa.
You are right otto, that withdrawal to ’67 borders is not enough, and that a just and viable solution would have to treat the entire territory as a single unit, and include a negotiated settlement for Palestinian return and compensation. The key element in any settlement however, must always be a single standard and an equal voice for all concerned.
Shmuel, how’d you get so wise?
Citizen,
Thanks for the compliment, but none of this is rocket science. It’s about talking to people you don’t agree with, learning from them, and maybe teaching them a thing or two along the way. That is what I mean about honest discussion. It is not always pleasant, but without it, we are nothing. That is why pseudo-discussion pisses me off so much. It is not just a waste of time. It kills the possibility of change for the better.
BTW it’s an excellent article. US Jews have always apologized for Israel on the grounds that the Palestinans in Israel are treated better than the Palestinians in Arab countries. The real question, as Samel suggests, is what if jews in the US were treated like Palestinians in Israel? The answer is that the media would howl as they’ve never howled before.
Israel should change/reform.
How?
It won’t disappear, and if the goals of BDS remain vague, then their application will be cruel and racist.
If the goals and means of BDS are more precise and framed in the reality of Gandhi’s quote explaining why he condemned the alliance of Subash Chandra Bose with Hitler and Japan, “We have travelled a long way with the British. We want to remain friends, even as we change our relationship.”, then they might be effective.
ANY effort to remove Israel as Israel will be fought and ruthlessly, and result nearly inevitably in more intent ethnic cleansing, permanent occupation of all of greater Jerusalem, and war that civilians bear the brunt of.
You in your armchairs ignore reality. You think that you are defending “when you got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose”. But, Palestinians have the possibility of losing all of their land, if they don’t proceed carefully (full of care).
You think that you are their advocates, but the only real advocacy for Palestinians, or for Palestine is to create the conditions by which reconciliation is possible, based on mutual acceptance, NOT politically motivated formulas.
It’s my understanding that many Jews do not venture into the tall weeds of the birth of Israel but rely on the Leon Uris version, Exodus.
One particularly impressive scene from the movie has Uncle Akiva explaining to the Ari ben Canaan that he and his group will continue to kill because “Justice is an abstraction,” and Jews have experienced so much injustice that it’s only fair that they should now be on the other side of the equation.
You, Richard, will of course rise up in condemnation when the Palestinians lose all their land. And what will do you to change this? How far do Israeli crimes have to go before you could bring yourself to call them what they are and demand punitive action? How deep do the bodies of the Palestinian dead have to be piled in the streets?
I’ve already risen.
Didn’t you read my posts? I just conclude that BDS in the forms presented, is worse than a waste of time, actually harmful to the process of improving the lot of Palestinians.
Its based on a childish fantasy of mass power that doesn’t exist without orchestrating a campaign of hate, current careless planning, and a false parallel.
The thinking hasn’t been done yet, just the pushing.
ANY effort to remove Israel as Israel will be fought and ruthlessly,
Show me were this was suggested either by David Samel or anyone else commenting here.
Look, I agree with what you write about Ghandi, the problem I see, but you don’t, is that the discourse of purity versus impurity of e.g. mixed marriages and their descendants–that was a basic pillar in Nazi thought– seems much more alive in Israel than elsewhere.
I highly recommend Sander L. Gilman’s Smart Jews (p. 72 Mixed Race and the Decline of Jewish Intelligence) on the topic. He actually has written many really brilliant books, but in this context this comes to mind.
Thus I really appreciate David Samel’s second paragraph. This topic essentially shows that Israelis too are taken hostage. And, Richard, not by Palestinians in this context …
The restriction on marriages is a repugnant and confusing aspect to Israeli life. The restriction doesn’t just apply to mixed marriages. Because of the requirement of a plurality to form a government in Israel, coalitions are built with either likud, kadima, or previously labor, with the religious parties who exact compromises favoring their religious agendas in limited areas.
So, even reform and conservative marriages are not allowed in Israel. They’ll recognize a conservative marriage in the US, but not in Israel.
You murderous lout, Richard.
If the Palestinians don’t lick your boots and snivel, you will unleash total genocide upon them.
How are those threats any different than the Nazi threats to Czechs and Poles?
And why should we put up with Israel’s threats more than we did Hitler’s?
In the end we’ll still have to clean up the mess.
PS. Nice to see the true Lizardman come out from behind your mealymouthed plaints for understanding. Honesty is the first condition of dialogue.
Lame misinterpretation. You’ll quote three words from my post, then another three words from another, and claim that “you said that, didn’t you”.
“you murderous lout”. Give me a break.
Richard, what you don’t resolve with this response, is that you basically defend all of Israel’s “defensive actions”, and thus the state’s warrior image. To use a phrase by Martin van Grevald from a dutch interview in connection with a series of private exchanges, responding to the question how the Netherlands could help Israel: “No, thank you, Israel can help herself.”
I somehow agree with alec, that your insistence on non-violent protest only for the Palestinian side combined with your loyal support for every military action by Israel suggest exactly what alec picks out:
Recognize our superior power. It’s useless to fight us, you will only loose. You have to be pragmatic and accept what we offer you.
It’s not that I completely disagree, again the problem I see, it suggests to the Palestinians you have to surrender till you have more power, it postpones the ultimate conflict into a future, instead of getting down to resolving it. Confronting: The “Arab mind” and the much less studied “Israeli mind”, and love of military power.
But, Palestinians have the possibility of losing all of their land, if they don’t proceed carefully (full of care).
Not really. They have already lost all of their land. All of it, yeah. It’s all Israel’s to do with as they please. And truth be told, the only thing keeping Israel from even larger-scale ethnic cleansing right now is the possibility of – guess what – international pressure.
It’s a mistake to treat the Israeli political establishment as modern, enlightened, rational thinkers. No, they have blended into the middle east quite well, meaning that their political goals and methods are those of street thugs. If you put a different spin on it, you could say that Israel is politically stuck in the 19th century – incidentally a good parallel to Apartheid SA.
Gains and losses are the only category they comprehend. Time to show them their losses will be greater than their gains if they continue on their current path.
What you conclude is that the Israelis must, above all, not be made to feel guilty, deserving of punishment for their crimes.
BDS is grounded in the fact of Israeli guilt, and only when Israelis prove willing to accept their guilt will peace be possible.
How long did the BDS campaign against apartheid South Africa take to bear fruit? Thirty years?
Here’s a short debate on the pros and cons of BDS:
link to inthesetimes.com
Jeff Halper talks at length about how the design of the Israeli project came across as natural to people from 19th century Eastern Europe, while it conflicts with american ideas of how to set up a state. So there is a potential conflict with american Jews. Remember Olmert warning that american Jews ‘are going to wake up’?
Boy did Witty, as noted by others, ever come out of his shell of peace and love with this one:
ANY effort to remove Israel as Israel will be fought and ruthlessly, and result nearly inevitably in more intent ethnic cleansing, permanent occupation of all of greater Jerusalem, and war that civilians bear the brunt of.
Promises of death and destruction to the Palestinians if we in the West decide to punish Israel for its immoral occupation. That is right, he promises to punish the Palestinians even more if the BDS movement should become effective. Say Witty do you have Walter Mitty fantasies of walking with a big swinging dick slaying Arabs with your sword on the field of battle.
You opportunistically misinterpreted the statement. My sentiments are the OPPOSITE of what you characterized. I wish to avoid escalation, not to provoke it.
BDS provokes it.
It was stated as a consequence of what happens if push comes to shove and actual war evolves, that the right in Israel will take that opportunity to permanently remove all Palestinians, maybe incrementally, maybe grossly.
I disagree with both Arthur and Naomi on the In These Times interview. Arthur stated that he didn’t regard BDS as unethical. I do for the collective punishment. Naomi dismisses the collective punishment as “only a little bit of difficulty in academic conferences and a small amount of investment”.
She’s wrong, and not necessarily for the tangible effects, but for the effects on Israeli consciousness. I personally would consider her as another of the group that “has not tried”.
How many times has she been to Israel and talked to people? Phil? How many times has she spoken in shuls, not as a celebrity with a book to sell?
The neo-conservatives got lazy and decided to go to war. The dissenting movement is similar.
Sorry Witty I quoted you correctly in context. The immediate paragraph above the one I quoted is complaining about BDS and then you launch your ugly threat against the Palestinians. You claim to be predicting what the right in Israel would do so to dissociate yourself from this ugly threat but since you are a proud zionist who defends Israel as a Jewish state and apologize for her crimes I do not accept your dissociation. It is you as part of the zionist collective that is making the threat.
I did not launch any threat against Palestinians. That is your misinterpretation, a malicious misinterpretation.
It is a statement of what I see unfolding if escalation occurs, to the point of overt warring, which BDS as stated is a first step towards.
Richard, it is what you said.
And it is what you meant.
I’ve read enough of your comments around here and none of them making any sense without the context of that threat.
I have requested that Richard Witty be barred from Mondoweiss because of the nature of his posting, refusing to engage in sensible defense of his hasbara-like claims. See link to mondoweiss.net for details.
In furtherance of that request, you can add behavior equivalent to (and likely worse than) than that of Holocaust Deniers, documented by me in several places. Some of his Denials (eg that the Zionists didn’t always intend ethnic cleansing, that many Jews were cheated into going to Israel in 1948) are very transparent indeed, he should not be allowed to get away by ignoring the evidence as he’s trying to do.
And you can now add the genocidal threats, which is what I can see in “ANY effort to remove Israel as Israel will be fought and ruthlessly, and result nearly inevitably in more intent ethnic cleansing … and war that civilians bear the brunt of.”
Is it important he be confronted and voted off the island? I believe it is – he is damaging the nature of the discussion. He is also learning to conceal the murderous intentions of his allies (very much what the earliest Zionists, from Herzl onwards, learned – even though they regularly failed to pass on the lessons). It is foolish to allow him to practise the kind of malicious argumenting he’s engaged in, discovering how much he can anger and insult us while remaining just inside the line, in order to hone his unpleasant trickery and later play the same tricks to frustrate other good people. Every element of his tactics are opposed to progress in the ME, and opposed to progress in this or any other discussion on the topic. He would rightly demand we don’t pander to Holocaust Deniers, the exact same standards should be applied to him.
I would oppose any attempt to ban Richard Witty.
Attempting to silence views such as Witty’s seem to me to amount to sticking fingers in ears and shouting, “I can’t hear you, na na na na na na…” The shunned one is only further embittered rather than both listened to carefully for some kernel of insight that might not have otherwise informed the shunner’s righteous narrative, and perhaps persuaded to temper and reformat his views so that his audience is educated rather than alienated, and he is enlightened rather than enraged. “The antidote to offensive speech is more speech.”
I would also argue that the charge of holocaust denier is used too freely and, frequently, as a show-stopper rather than a substantive argument. As such, it often says more about the charging party than the charged. As an American, I find it offensive that one group demands special consideration on account of its suffering, but denies the same measure of respect for the suffering of other groups. I insist that “there is no aristocracy of suffering.” The concept that one group has suffered “for thousands of years,” thus is now entitled to exemptions from the moral code uniting the rest of the human community, is bad history and even worse ethics; I reject both premises.
Hi Michael,
Your points are well taken. The analogy to a Holocaust denier does seem apt.
My own view is not as ruthless. Each of Richard Witty’s comments should have to pass the breathalyzer test.
When they are incoherent and/or duplicitous they should not be approved.
Most of the time he’d fail his breathalyzer (say at 80%).
At that point he’d be an opposing viewpoint and not just a nuisance.
In terms of your suggestions about his malicious intent, I’d say guilty as charged. But Mondoweiss is open to opposing viewpoints so as long as he does stay within the boundaries of coherent discourse.
My principal objection is that Phil is not enforcing the rules when it comes to Witty.
Why Witty gets a pass for his disinformation and bad faith posts is a mystery to me.
My comments are entirely civil, and contain NO curses or ill-will to Palestinians in any manner.
Only by misrepresenting my posts could you conclude so.
I get that you want to “ethnically cleanse” this site.
I’ve known Phil for a long time, and he has more backbone than to be cowed by censorial friend or censorial foe.
I vote against attempts to ban or censor Richard. Not that many of his posts don’t disgust me–very often they do. But that’s no reason for censorship.
On his motives, I don’t buy this idea that because he predicts a vicious Israeli response to BDS that he advocates it himself. Richard’s initial position on the Gaza War was indefensible (he defended it), but he has come out in criticism of the level of brutality. Anyway, it’s useful having someone on Israel’s side admit what it might be capable of–why do people want to censor this?
If you want to see a fuller picture of Richard, go lurk at the Realistic Dove site and you’ll see him ever so gently criticize some of the Arab-haters over there. Richard’s long-term intentions are good. He’s biased as hell and doesn’t realize it and ignores any claim to that effect and it shows up in most of his posts, but he’s not bloodthirsty.
Maybe Richard Witty’s presence protects Phil from the kind of savage character attacks that other critics of Israel are subject to. Everyone can see how quick he was to accuse me, falsely and maliciously, of antisemitism (above). This while he makes every effort to link Jews to all the various atrocities under discussion – so who’s the real antisemite here?
But if he’s to escape branding as being on a par with Holocaust Deniers, then he really must stop denying that Zionists, right from the outset, intended to have Palestine entirely to themselves and used sticks and guns to get it.
And he needs to wake up to the fact that threatening further attacks on civilians, as everyone can see he’s done here, is the action of a thug. Now, maybe that’s only a nasty indiscretion by a racist – but the rest of what he does is really serious.
I second Donald’s statement.
Witty should not be banned. I think it says something about the zionist cause that they cannot come up with better arguments. In the companion thread he is defending the extermination of the Native Americans as a historical “necessity”. And he applies that precedent to a justification of Israelis treatment of her native people. I think this is very valuable. He is willing to admit things that slicker zionists spokesman would avoid at all costs. Can you imagine Abba Eban making that argument? Of course not. But we all know that he likely believed in it.
Thanks to all of you who weighed in on both sides of the issue of Mondoweiss’s domination by a single bad faith commenter.
I repeat my proposition in regards to Witty is not to ban him.
Just to muzzle him a little. To set the bar a little higher for him.
When he has something interesting and original to say – in defence of Zionism or against Zionism – then by all means his posts should be published.
But having to read Witty say the same thing over and over again after every article is poisoning the comments section, taking them off track article after article.
The man lives to hear his own voice.
I don’t know about you but I don’t need to hear nearly as much of it as he does.
Witty gets away with through a personal relationship with Phil. It’s gotten to the point I wonder what material Witty has on Phil that Phil lets him carry on his private version of the tragedy of the commons at Mondoweiss.
I’ve even entertained the proposition that Phil himself is writing Witty’s posts himself to keep temperatures high and conflicts sharp here.
But after reading more Witty’s writing, I’ve realized this is impossible. If Phil were arguing the other side, he’d be far more cogent, far more articulate and far more persuasive.
Israel and Zionism deserve a better advocate.
Witty serves a useful purpose here as a foil. The damage done as the result of his presence would be profoundly minimized if people would just stop carping about it.
Potsherd, Donald and others,
The problem isn’t just the carping, although that does make everything much worse. The main problem is that the comments section on this blog has one partcipant who dominates virtually all discussions – first of all by sheer quantity, but also by excessive argumentativeness, endless repetition, sidetracking, etc. It is amazing how much of the discussion here is made up of messages from Witty, answers to Witty, insults to Witty and complaints about Witty. I don’t like censorship either, but if this were my blog, I would not let someone else take it over and trash it. It’s not about Witty’s views per se, as a Zionist apologist. I’ve seen and had fruitful discussions with far worse. But hey, I’m the new guy. What do I know?
I wish there were more Wittys on this blog. I don’t read his posts, in great analysis, any longer because I know what he is going to say. Can’t there be more Zionists on this site who can argue for Israel? Not Jerusalem Jake types, but a plausible defense. Richard posts so much, the blog should be renamed in honor of him.
Think of Witty as a whetstone. His presentation of the typical Zionist line can serve to help keep your arguments sharp.
I agree with Chu and potsherd. I would be happy to see more commenters here arguing the Israeli/Zionist cause. Disagreement is no issue.
But I’ve had it up to here with the shrill and nonsensical soul searching of Richard Witty.
He is usually off topic and usually talks about himself.
I don’t know about you ladies and gentlemen, but as far as I can tell the purpose of Mondoweiss is not provide group therapy or – god preserve – personal therapy for Richard Witty.
Witty, I am crushing your head! Crush! Crush!
Well, I’m shocked (but hardly surprised) to see no enthusiasm for stamping on obvious hasbara-pumping. I’m even less surprised to see people defending Witty, rejecting the idea of pulling him up on standards of decency, either to truth or respect for others.
May I be so bold as to ask Phil to consider an occasional posting that would appeal to Holocaust Deniers in order they have equal-opportunity to spout poison?
Phil could, for instanced, belatedly mention the fairly important organ-stealing blood-libel. We have international witnesses and bereaved victims who make the claim – if we’re going to disbelieve them, lets at least get it clear in our own minds why we suspect them of lying. Failure to do so leaves us helpless deciding whether to believe Mark Regev.
Perhaps you think I’m making a fuss – perhaps you’re satisfied that Witty’s views and statements are well inside legitimate boundaries of free speech and don’t even warrant a reprimand. Then you’ll be similarly tolerate of Muslim-supporters stating “Any effort to remove Palestinian Arabs will be fought and ruthlessly, and result nearly inevitably in ethnic cleansing, permanent occupation of all of greater Jerusalem, and war that civilians bear the brunt of.”
Read my actual comments, fools.
Not your opportunistic misrepresentations of them in a stacked room.
Richard – abusing people is exactly how the Holocaust Deniers used to respond before they were hounded from polite company.
You could spoil the impression people are getting of you by announcing that you’ll not personally abuse a gun-slinging member of Hamas with Jewish blood on his hands if one such were to appear here and post: “… effort to remove Palestine as Palestine will be fought and ruthlessly, and result nearly inevitably in ethnic cleansing, permanent occupation of all of greater Jerusalem, and war that civilians bear the brunt of.”
David Samel, how can you tolerate a system which denies all political rights and gives all the wealth of a country to the hands of a select few? Which country am I talking about? Pick which ever you like. Let say Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China, etc. American Jews don’t live in Israel, and you don’t live in China. How come you aren’t complaining about the Chinese “system”.
Israel isn’t going anywhere. But to attack it because it supposedly doesn’t have the same laws as the US is ridiculous. That’s like condemning the US for not having gay marriage laws. (Guess which Israeli politician partially ran on the platform of civil marriage? Hint: he’s from Russia.) You would have probably given up on the US in the 19th and mid 20th century for having a flawed system. Most American Jews have no relationship with Israel. Those that do support what they like and disagree with what they don’t. But to alienate an imperfect country, then why not alienate the US? The US still has big flaws. Heck, even Israel gives universal health care to its Arabs. What do poor minorities get in the US?
Right now, Israel and the entire region is in a water crisis. How about help the region but raising money for water reservoirs? Israel, the Palestinian territories, and Jordan share the same water resources. Help one, you help all of them, further retracting them from conflict and opening room for peace. Or promote a plan to build a science research center focused on the environment and create green technology? That’s what American Jews are doing? And you are offended that we tolerate Israel? Eze chutzpah!
Michael,
Last time I checked there are wide possibilities for advancement in Chinese society to many different ethnic groups.
Second, Israel likes to pretend to belong to the Western democracies club.
The correct analogy here is South Africa in its apartheid days (which look like kumbaya in comparison to Israeli treatment of Palestinians).
And we didn’t put up with it.
So why should we put up with it from Israel?
Answer: we shouldn’t.
PS. Comparing gay marriage (US to gays) to closed ethnic ghettos and the stealing of land (Israel to Palestinians) is a hell of a stretch. That’s not chutzpah, that’s just dishonesty.
alec,
I’ve lived in Israel for 10 years. It is true that Israeli Arabs face discrimination and that the Jewish and Arab communities there lively mostly in separate neighborhoods. But the same can be said with many European and North American communities. Is France apartheid? Or any of Israel’s neighbors nobody seems to care about. Who has more rights, an Arab citizen of Israel or any Arab majority or minority group in Jordan, Saudi, Syria … etc. And what ever you just said about China, check again. Are you really unaware that the vast majority of Chinese have no political say in their country?
I’ve been to Arab neighborhoods and Bedouin cities. They aren’t closed ghettos. And much of the Jewish-Arab neighborhood separation are do to immigration waves. And in many other cases, it was due to bad Israeli policy towards Arabs in the early decades of the state. In some cases, Jews had to create their own towns. The kibbutzim for example, I actually have no idea what Arabs think of the kibbutz movement. The growth of Ashkelon is mostly due to construction of housing needs of Mizrachi and Russian immigrants. The Bedouin cities were an effort to make them settle where services can be provided. I went to one near Ashkelon with my high school class in the States and we visited a school there and the principle gave us a slide show of the evolution of their housing and the rise of the city. Then we talked with some of the Arab students. We compared how many siblings each one has. One guy had 32 brothers and sisters from his dad’s three wives! They apologized that their English wasn’t as good as the Jewish Israelis since it is their third language, Hebrew being second, Arabic obviously first. Arabs aren’t forbidden from going to general Israeli schools. But since their first language is Arabic, the state naturally created Arabic instructed schools. But the state failed to fund them sufficiently. Who or whatever you blame this on, take note that the highest members of government and mainstream press has pointed this issue out and that it needs to be fixed. Of course all politicians lie, but that is no reason to just ignore what they say.
I wasn’t comparing (or at least didn’t intend to) US marriage laws in regards to gays with what the Palestinians suffered. I was comparing the US gay marriage issue to the lack of any form of civil marraige in Israel, in that they are both hindered by religious fundementalistic segments in both societies.
Hi Michael,
If you are a regular reader of this site, you will not that not only are the Palestinians (I love your newsspeak Israeli Arabs) segregated, they often have their houses taken from them by force and by dubious legal wrangles abetted by a discriminatory court system.
In France and other European countries, the immigrant populations are not segregated, have freedom of movement and have all the rights of citizens.
So what was your point again?
Racism is a bad thing…granted.
But apartheid and legal discrimination is not a distinction of degree but kind. And much worse.