Gideon Levy offers a profile of Prof. Asa Kasher, the author of the IDF’s Code of Conduct, in Haaretz. Kasher is philosopher who was won the prestigious Israel Prize and was a founding member of the Israeli refuser organization Yesh Gvul. He is also the author of the Israeli military’s code of conduct, "The Spirit of the IDF: Values and Basic Norms," and has become an apologist for Israeli war crimes. Levy:
In recent days, the United Nations’ Goldstone report has been denounced as "anti-Semitic propaganda," and white phosphorus bombs have become "legitimate weapons." Why? Kasher heard from an IDF colonel that when a phosphorus bomb fell near him, nothing happened to him. And what about the 200 children who were killed? They were of "legal adult age – 15 to 18 years – and they took an active part in the war." What about the killing of Dr. Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish’s daughters? He is responsible for their deaths. The bombing of hospitals? This, too, is permitted. Kasher knows that terrorists were hiding in their basements.
The IDF Spokesman’s Office could not have phrased it any better. The Foreign Ministry’s spin doctors could not have deceived any better. This is how Kasher has whitewashed the assassinations and resultant killing of innocent civilians. He also thought that the IDF did not do enough killing in Jenin. The army, Kasher thought, should have warned the civilians beforehand, and "whoever stayed, let the blood be on his head." This is how generals who try to justify their criminal actions speak. But an intellectual? An expert on ethics?
Levy summarizes, "If this is how a philosopher of ethics speaks, who needs propagandists?"
Levy doesn’t mention the growing academic boycott of Israel, but it’s not difficult to read between the lines:
Whoever said that intellectuals are keeping silent? Who claimed that academia is ensconced in an ivory tower? And who dared to think that Israel lacks a moral voice? One day, when historians take the time to examine Israel’s brutal offensive in Gaza, otherwise known as "Cast Lead," they will settle a score with political leaders and officers who were responsible for committing war crimes. They will delve deep and denounce the enablers of this nation, the whitewashers and apologists, those who let the Israel Defense Forces win at any cost, even if it was the heaviest moral cost possible.
Compared to other facets of the BDS movement the academic boycott tends to be the most controversial given liberal Western ideas of freedom of expression and speech. But where is the accountability for academics like Kasher?
What’s ethical? Do you mean something akin to Kant’s catagorical imperative? What tribe or nation state regime ever took Kant seriously? Who’s right, the gypsy who
stole the Industrialist’s wallet by the tourist fountain, or the Industrialist, very often
the birth beneficiary of the general system? The Revolution, or The Terror? Kant would say neither. Who do you know in any position of power that does not look to his or her own perceived interests first? Who do you know sans any position of power, even on a local level, who does not operate the same, using whatever tools they can find, even if it’s only dissing the group in power to the neighbors?
What’s the ethics of the historical out group (at least as perceived by themselves)? Perhaps Chris Rock said it best. He asked, when is it kosher for a white guy to use the N word? He replied to himself, never–except in this suggested context: If a black man
attacked some happenstance white man of any age, say on his way into a store, and beat the living shit out of him, kicking him on the ground,
yelling “cracker, white devil!” and stealing his wallet, the white victim could point after the fleeing black perp, and is allowed to yell,” There he goes, catch that N*****!”
This Chris Rock stand-up comedy routine reminds me of Madoff for some reason, and also of so many of the well-known neocon pundits. Anybody have some thoughts on that, either on the domestic USA front or pertaining to the I-P scenario?
And to add to my questions, regarding the use and/or abuse of “anti-semitism?”
I don’t think I am alone in seeing both the humanitarian pros and the cons of the subjects discussed here, and how they slide into various versions and theories on how history has evolved, or devolved. Lots of it comes down, unfortunately in my opinion, as the question, who is the real thick mick, Phil or Witty? And, gee neither are Irish…
I think it’s ideologically impossible for a ‘Jewish’ State to ever, ever, ever be democratic. Even if there was a One-State solution.
Why?
Because looking at the fact that there is no strong and meaningful anti-Zionist or at the MOST BASIC and MINIMAL level, a strong and meaningful DEMOCRATIC approach to the I-P conflict within the organized Jewish community – how can the existing ‘Jewish’ State w/ all it’s power and diplomatic immunity and track record of criminality be expected to uphold justice? To respect basic human dignity?
How?
A tribal society, especially a Jewish tribe, is destined to be undemocratic and amoral. And that is what Israel is. A Jewish colony in the heart of the Arab world. It is a symbol of imperialism and ‘exceptionalism’.
We are the way we are here in the States, because we overcame a lot of our own sense of entitlement. Keeping in mind, we all but totally exterminated the indigenous population (but surely ****ed them over too many times to count), enslaved an entire people, discriminated against people we didn’t like, etc. etc. ——– we have over time overcame all of that. We still have deep seated racism and bigotry in our society.
Specifically against Arabs and Muslims (read ‘Reel Bad Arabs’). We also are profoundly anti-intellectual (the existence of ‘the Holocaust Industry’ is a testament to that).
But I think there is more potential in America for change and for acceptance of ‘the other’ than anywhere else. I should add, that the context for this confidence in our country is that we have a fragile system of social organization. Deeply flawed and always exploited. We have corrupt institutions. We have gatekeepers who regulate what is acceptable to talk about and what isn’t. And we’re just a big country, on top of the world. We climb too high, and so any kind of achievement for meaningful progressiveness has to be put up against this context. We’re working against intense special interests and corrupt ‘identity politics’.
The ‘Jewish’ State exists in the 20th and 21st century, not the dark ages. Israel likes to boast about how advanced it is, and how secular it is. But, whatever accomplishment it ‘owns’ (that’s the context, Israel and ethnocentric Jews all have this disgusting and repulsive sense of entitlement and how everyone also owes them something) – it is an immoral nation. Not just ‘State’ (political entity).
I consider fundamentalist Islamic States like Iran and Saudi Arabia to be illegitimate as well. However, the context is different and they are IMO – much easier to deal w/.
Israel on the other hand is mainstream and we’re constant inundated w/ Holocaust media/Zionist media to internalize their suffering. Simultaneously we are CONSTANTLY subjected to dehumanization of Arabs. Palestinians in particular.
I just don’t know. I don’t think a society as hateful and as sanctimonious as Israel can maintain itself. It will destroy itself.
So basically all Jews are immoral, is that the crux of your argument?
I agree with your conclusions; the bigger issue for average Americans is that Israel will also destroy the USA, the biggest hope for the world, not to mention its own people.
It is indeed disgusting.
BTW if an individual behaved the way ethnocentric Jews-Zionists behave as a group, what would be the psychiatric diagnosis? Some symptoms: shrill, self-centered, no empathy for others, everyone is out to get them, everyone owes them something, total disregard of laws and mores except when convenient to invoke them against others.
“Specifically against Arabs and Muslims (read ‘Reel Bad Arabs’). We also are profoundly anti-intellectual (the existence of ‘the Holocaust Industry’ is a testament to that).”
I think the real problem is that Americans have become too cowardly to think or speak, rather than being anti-intellectual. For most Americans, life has been too comfortable lately to risk controversy or avoidable hassles. I don’t know that it will be the case for much longer.
BTW, how do you define intellectualism? Is it the willingness to think and examine, formal education or a combination of both?
That guy gives philosophers a bad name. He should have his epaulets ripped off.
And his sword broken. I have one of Kasher’s books at home, which I stopped reading somewhere in the middle of the first chapter, where he tries to demonstrate exactly how Israel is a democracy, despite evidence to the contrary. Nuff said.
Adam Horowitz deals here with the academic ethics of Asa Kasher. But what of the journalistic ethics of Adam Horowitz? Kasher said regarding Jenin, the army should have warned the civilians beforehand and “whoever stayed, let the blood be on his head.” The situation in Jenin (apparently) would have allowed for those who wished to leave, to do so. The situation in Gaza was obviously unlike that, with closed borders and nowhere to go to. But Mister Horowitz transposes the quote in the headline to refer to Gaza. This is sloppy journalism. Very sloppy.
It was a dumb thing to say about Jenin–as I recall, some of the 20-something civilians who died there were old and unable to leave. That’s virtually always going to be the case in urban warfare–not everyone is going to be able to leave. Old people, sick people, handicapped, etc….
This article has been up here for two days and Witty hasn’t deigned to comment? Fancy that. I guess he missed it. I suppose we’ll all have to remind him about it the next time he goes on about his professed belief that Israel can police itself.