(Thanks to a sharp commenter at Marty Peretz's blog) I read this post at the Economist, by an anonymous Jewish writer, destroying Robert Bernstein's op-ed in the Times attacking Human Rights Watch. Sounds like Tony Karon to me. Is it you, Tony?
The second red flag is the description of Israel as a "repeated victim of aggression". This is the hagiographic Israeli historiography I was raised on in the 1970s and 1980s. It has now been 20 years since the work of so-called "post-Zionist" historians like Benny Morris and Tom Segev started coming out, and it's past time for American Jews to put away childish things. As Mr Morris documented, the Israeli Army carried out widespread forced evacuations of Palestinians from Jewish-held areas of Palestine in the 1947-8 war. As Mr Segev documented, Israeli leaders in 1967, while they did respond to a credible military threat, were also motivated by a secular version of religious-nationalist millennial ideology that led them to wave away the political aspirations of the Palestinians they had conquered, in the grip of fantasies about their liberation of ancient "Jewish" lands. Israel is indeed a repeated victim of aggression; so are the Palestinians. It would be as absurd for HRW to ignore evidence of Israeli war crimes in Gaza as to ignore evidence of Hamas war crimes against Israel.
Mr Bernstein has little concrete to say about allegations, substantiated by the UN's Goldstone commission, by the Israeli human-rights organisation B'Tselem, and by HRW, that the IDF committed war crimes in Gaza. He writes that it is hard for human-rights organisations to "know" whether crimes took place because they rely on testimony from possibly self-interested witnesses. This is a very strange thing for someone who once founded a human-rights organisation to say, though I can well imagine it coming from representatives of the regimes they criticise. In my experience working with them, HRW's researchers have been rigorous and scrupulous in their evaluations of testimony and evidence. Mr Bernstein then cites Colonel Richard Kemp, a former British Army commander in Afghanistan, who last week told the UN Human Rights Council that the IDF in Gaza "did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare."
Neither in Mr Kemp's presentation to the UNHRC nor in a longer address he made at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in June did he make any serious effort to substantiate this claim. It strikes me as pandering to Israeli exceptionalism. And it strikes me as all too familiar. I can't hear someone say something like this without hearing the echoes of my sorely misguided older relatives and friends, during my childhood, telling me that no country had ever treated its enemies as well as Israel had—which, of course, was not true.
As with other groups, there's a long tradition of Jewish literary investigation into the unique historical predicaments of Jewishness. That impulse makes for great culture, and lousy politics. Israel and its supporters need to stop using their historical narratives for political cover. As far as international law is concerned, there is nothing so terribly exceptional about Israel. Every nation is different from every other nation, but we're all subject to the same Geneva Conventions.
Ah, but that is the point: Israel has decided it is not subject to the same Genva Conventions. And the USA enables this via UN veto and more money poured into
Israel and its whore backers, the Egypt and Jordan regimes, then is even slightly fair.
The US has also decided to exempt its own armed forces from the Geneva Conventions and so makes common exceptionalist cause with Israel.
Here is one place you can see the PEP phenomenon quite clearly, as “liberals” were eager to condemn George Bush for trashing the Conventions but blind to Israel following the same course – and calling out as anti-Semitic anyone who made the comparison.
No question Israel should be held to account for war crimes, along with the USA,
Russia, and China. That’s exactly the twist rendered by Israel these days.
Pingback: Hey Jews, let’s stop using our exceptionalist narrative for political cover! | JewPI
Bernstein’s op-ed was more insightful and compelling than this critique.
You do disservice by the snipering, rather than address his points.
Bernstein’s piece was 100% LIES and you do disservice to the truth by rejecting this critique.
Just the opposite, in fact: this critique is insightful and factual. I won’t use the word “compelling” to make an objective case based on facts, though I did find this critique to be compelling on a personal level.
Bernstein’s op-ed was insightful, devoid of factual content, and not so compelling.
“Bernstein’s op-ed was not insightful…”
I addressed his points and pointed out why they were wrong a few days ago. You ignored me. Several others did so and you ignored them. This Economist author does so, and you ignore him as well.
One could get the impression that this pattern is likely to continue.
I didn’t ignore you. I rejected your contentions.
You stated that Bernstein was a puppet.
I disagree. I believe that he is an informed participant whose reasoning won’t go away (even if you “succeed” in discrediting him), that it is a better option for Human Rights Watch to consider his comments and enthusiastically (rather than defensively) review them.
” I didn’t ignore you. I rejected your contentions.
You stated that Bernstein was a puppet.”
I didn’t say that Bernstein was a puppet. That wouldn’t make sense to me. Puppet of whom? He’s clearly stating his own heartfelt biases against any human rights organization which investigates Israel’s war crimes and holds them accountable. I gave seven reasons for rejecting his criticisms. This Economist piece gives similar reasons. You didn’t and don’t explain in detail why our criticisms are wrong, because you can’t, not on any sound pro-human rights basis–you just “reject” them.
You get into factual detail when facts support your case. You avoid them like the plague when they don’t, but it doesn’t shut you up. You just make grand pronouncements without any fact or logic to back them up.
State your case, as yours.
Take the risk already.
Buzz off, you toothless bully.
Gee, Richard, when Phil came back from Gaza, did you call him a “puppet” or just say they had taken his mind and replaced it with an Arab one?
Did you imply or infer, or baldly state that Phil was incapable, from then on, being owned body and soul by the Gazans, from ever being honest again?
It’s hard for me to remember exactly, but I could go look it up.
But that won’t be necessary, will it? I mean, you’ll be glad to recap your accusations and contentions for us, won’t you? As they were so factually based and so well evidenced and all.
Also,
Every reference is to what should be “stopped”, “WE” not Israel, not IDF.
What do you instead believe that should be DONE, pursued, suggested, proposed?
Anything not insular; Witty, hold the top IDF people to account and hold the top USA people to account, not merely a few enlisted army people of low rank. Actually, Israel doesn’t even do that much, and the USA allows it.
But the IDF is the most moral army in the world!
That’s the conclusion of Dr. Kevin MacDonald too: much Jewish history is written in the manner of apologetics, not scholarship, one egregious example being Ruth Wisse . I would add Goldhagen. The narrative is that every conflict between gentile and jew is entirely the fault of the gentile’s irrational and unjustified anti-Semitism.
Yeah, that’s the bottom line; it’s always the Jews as victims–even when they are on top either or both economically and with military force–and currently? Goldhagen
says the Germans were, and are by both nature and nurture, the problem. Today,
anyone who criticizes Israeli de facto policy is the problem. No problem,right?
It’s really pretty simple, but for you pe0ple who never served in the USA military as “grunts” let me say to you Richard Witty is exactly the kind of USA citizen whom we
despise. As interesting, the IDF also despises him.
It’s really pretty simple, but for you pe0ple who never served in the USA military as “grunts” let me say to you Richard Witty is exactly the kind of USA citizen whom we
despise. As interesting, the IDF also despises him.
Hey, Citizen, I thought I was the guy the grunts would despise? You would stick me and Witty out in no-man’s-land together? Harsh, Citizen, very harsh.
And the only reason you don’t like the “Jew as eternal victim” schtick is because we thought of it first!. And probably cause when you trot out that “white man and Christian as eternal victim” megillah people mostly think it’s a comedy routine.
Hey Goosey, I’m not a Christian, nor do I applaud what Christians have done over the centuries. And I’ve said that many times on this blog. Why should I make an exception
for the warriors of Islam or Zionist Israel? I’m of Irish and German ethnic extraction–I guess that makes me a “white man?” Both groups have a long history of playing the victim, no? Now, if you’re talking Old Testament, there’s a comic routine if there ever was one. So Joshua’s a victim? Jerico’s the bully?
Richard doesn’t say one single thing to back up his criticism of this Economist piece. He merely says he prefers Bernstein. If Richard had some specific, fact-based reasons for why Bernstein’s criticisms were valid, and why the Economist piece is not, he would be presenting those reasons. One thing I will say for Richard–on those occasions when facts back up his opinions, he can make his case as clearly and cogently as anyone. He doesn’t do so here or at any time on any thread since the Bernstein piece came out, because he’s got nothing except his desire to see some of the evidence against Israel discredited, by fair means or foul.
And some of us (including me) have given him several reasons why the Bernstein piece is not worthy of serious consideration-he pays absolutely no attention, doesn’t even acknowledge that any points have been made. Rather like he does here. In fact, he asks Phil to make his own case. Which is an indication of bad faith. There’s a case against Bernstein right here, in the Economist piece–what is so important about having it restated in Phil’s own words? Why can’t Witty say something about the piece sitting right in front of him?
I’m not saying that I’m certain that Bernstein’s points and emphasis and gist are perfectly accurate, partially accurate or entirely innaccurate.
I think they are somewhere between partially and perfectly accurate.
That is NOT the blanket hatchet job that Phil and others that regard any criticism of radical dissent undertook.
You haven’t said anything substantive in defense of Bernstein’s post. You have superimposed his critique of HRW onto your critique of the “far left” here, by which you mean BDS supporters and people who criticize you. You’ve said enough that we can understand the psychology behind your reaction, but there’s no substantive content there.
I agree with his thesis, that HRW seems to have a predisposition to attack Israel (before review), and to single out Israel disproportionately to number of incidents and scale.
Palestinians have had the light of day on Israel, and the world has NOT agreed with the radical simply condemnatory interpretation.
There have been hundreds of volumes of investigatory history undertaken, and the most credible extent of dissent has been that the simplistic Zionist presentation is not the whole picture, that there are exceptions.
It is time to gather one’s information in proportion, urge reforms assertively, but actually bother to assess coolly what you are proposing as goal and means.
“I agree with his thesis, that HRW seems to have a predisposition to attack Israel (before review), and to single out Israel disproportionately to number of incidents and scale.”
Bullshit. HRW publishes critiques of Hamas and Hezbollah right alongside their critiques of Israel–they are about as balanced as can be on this. “Singling out Israel disproportionately” is more tripe–their reports on Israel get singled out disproportionately because it is about Israel, so people like you and Bernstein (hypocrites, in other words) become upset, though not batting an eye at the fact that they also write about Hezbollah and Hamas, whose killings are on a smaller scale. You and Bernstein are upset because the human rights groups don’t pay any attention to your delicate sensibilities–they condemn Israel for war crimes when they have evidence that Israel has committed war crimes. You think they should smother their reports in Wittyesque prose, to the point where one could hardly tell what they were even complaining about. It upsets you (as is clear from the rest of your post), because all those bad BDS supporters can cite human rights reports to buttress their case and because you don’t mind seeing Israel receive favorable treatment in the press, but unfavorable treatment to any extent seems “unfair”, “unbalanced”,etc….
The rest of your post is barely comprehensible, but has nothing to do with HRW and more to do with your quarrel with people who support BDS and might cite HRW reports.
It is interesting, though, in that it supports my thesis that the less factual support you have for your viewpoint, the worse your writing becomes.
Witty is like (a senile) boy scout–think of the Hitler youth.
Citizen,
The most accurate description would be skeptical realist.
I question statements of certainty. Yours, Phil’s, Abunimeh’s, Blankfurt’s, Finkelstein’s, Walt’s (he doesn’t state things certainly so much these days).
As I question Peretz, Ben Ami’s, Goldberg’s, Netanyahu’s, Livni’s, Olmert’s, Lieberman’s.
Not gullible, very moderate agenda (to realize peace) not “successful” boycott.
Sorry, Richard, I think Donald’s assessment of your comments is very accurate. We here all give you the benefit of the doubt that you just don’t see what you’re doing, rather then conclude you are just an intentional hasbara agent. BTW, do you think the US’s interests are the same as Israel’s? I don’t think you’ve ever told us. If you don’t think they are the same, how so? As you know, that question was the main point of W & M’s Israel Lobby. Would you say the US interest is stategic, or moral, or both, or neither? How so?
Really? Because if you were even half as skeptical or realist as you claim to be you would acknowledge that Israel is refusing to police itself with the atrocities it committed in Gaza.
But you don’t care. After all, it was Palestinian children who died, not Jewish children.
I guess you didn’t read my impressions and recommendations. How surprising.
Richard, do you think it was wise for Obama, the head of the only superpower, to equate his concern for the safety of Jewish children with his own concern for his children–and not even mention any concern at all for Palestinian children?
I guess you didn’t read my impressions and recommendations. How surprising
And neither will the Israelis! How surprising!