Rabbi Arthur Waskow, who just had this long piece put up on the Foreign Policy in Focus website, is typical of those "progressive" Jewish activists who long for a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict that does not require Israel to pay any political or economic price for what it has done (and continues to do to the Palestinians) for the past 60 years and whose own "solution" for change remains the same despite its obvious failure to this point. Here he is stating that the BDS movement, the first in the diaspora that actually holds some promise of bringing pressure on Israel–to the point where it has been denounced editorially by the Forward–is unethical, as well as being strategically and tactically flawed.
Had Waskow been able to show even a modicum of success after all his years of toiling in the touchy-feely peace field, one might pay some attention to his comments but in the end they amount to little more than an exercise in damage control on Israel’s behalf. When I saw that that he mentioned Obama and Clinton’s efforts to curtail Israeli settlements–now abandoned–as being a positive step I had to go back and look at the date of his article. [Oct. 9, 2009, today]
"A second avenue for efforts to change U.S. policy might be the "boycott/divest/sanctions" movement being pursued by some pro-Palestinian groups. This effort carries with it three serious problems — one ethical, one strategic, and one tactical. Ethically, the present it embodies and the future it seems to proclaim would be hostile to Israel, rather than affirming peace between Israel and Palestine. It appeals far more to anger and disgust than to hope and compassion. It points toward demonization of Israeli society as a whole (or even Jews in general) rather than targeting specific, destructive policies of the Israeli government — a stance not only ethically suspect but likely to create a backlash against itself."
What a dishonest person.
And yea, this perspective is typical, so I don’t see what needs to be said here. We are inundated w/ this kind of shallow, corrupt, intellectualism daily by Witty already.
Cliff, I really don’t think Witty is dishonest, he is blind. People like him cannot see what seems obvious to you and me.
If he was blind, then the constant stream of rebuttals to his arguments would have had some kind of an effect on him. It hasn’t.
It’s not like we’re purely right and he’s purely wrong.
Like…I’m not saying he’s a *liar* outright (although I’ve called him that before).
I’m saying he’s intellectually dishonest. How so? Pay attention to his rhetoric. His historiography. The way he compares both sides. The expectations he has of both Hamas and the Palestinians vs. Israel and the Israeli Jewish majority.
It’s as Phil said above in the characterization of this Rabbi. How do you put pressure on an apartheid State – a racist, colonial, settler State without tactics such as BDS?
Would Witty advocate BDS against White S.A.? What the hell IS his solution?
I mean, something meaningful. Something tactically meaningful. Morally meaningful.
There is this poem someone here cited. It’s by some Palestinian. It’s a PERFECT summary of the Israeli approach to the ‘peace process’. The ‘peace process’ industry.
I mean, this is a 40+ year military occupation. This isn’t a dispute between neighbors. This is one powerful entity abusing and oppressing a much weaker entity. That is a very basic, simple yet true point.
This is also why I’m sick of constantly intellectualizing ‘Jewish identity’. I keep thinking of those lame, apologistic, white-washing, anti-war movies put out by the mainstream intelligentsia – whether it be American or British or Israeli.
I just saw this music video by Metallica called ‘The Day That Never Comes’. It’s essentially a typical rock video about war. You see a bunch of GO ARMY! type dramatics (soldiers saving themselves) and then a soldier getting wounded. Obviously by an Iraqi. At the end, the soldiers meet up w/ an Iraqi in a desert road. His car has stopped working. He is beckoning for help. They approach hesitantly thinking he’s a ‘terrorist’ and I think (can’t remember) he turns out to be just a civilian.
We’re quickly shown the goddamn typical sight of an Arab/Muslim in a burka or whatever. The same orientalism over and over.
Even after 8 years of bullshit, it’s the same story. I like this video though because it’s so ridiculous. It is portraying the soldiers and ‘the other’ on an equal level. What is the nature of this ‘level’? Well I think the video is about reconciliation but I don’t want to give it that much credit. It’s garbage. These are soldiers, not neighbors who got into a misunderstanding. It’s an imperial army, not civilians on civilians.
How ridiculous is it that we’re so goddamn racist, and full of ourselves that we cannot even APPROACH humanizing the other unless we’re A) armed to the teeth and B) in their country, staring down at them w/ a rifle and utterly paranoid – even in our art!
I mean, we’re like street performers. We go around the world creating drama. We then expect gratitude and emotional ‘payment’ after we’re through.
How do I sum this up? ‘Shoot and cry’ – I read this term somewhere on another I-P blog.
It’s this constant lie – that the Palestinians and the Israelis have a relationship of equals – that is the problem. We should first figure out how parties in a conflict are related. Master to slave? Equals? I think in this case it’s the former.
I bring this all up because of the recent Israeli movie – Waltz w/ Bashir. There’s also another movie that won something at Cannes recently, I think.
I don’t see kind of self-worship, entitlement as Witty or these other people, being ‘blind’. They are dishonest. It’s not like they aren’t reading the same books. It’s not like they aren’t reading the NGO reports.
I mean, let’s keep things basic.
Did Witty read the Goldstone report?
What were his issues w/ the report?
Does he read the books by the New Historians? What are his opinions of these books?
Does he read the reports by human rights groups on I-P?
Etc. I just don’t understand how at this point, a regular on a blog like this (the best I-P blog hands-down) can be ‘blind’.
Finally, let me just say – I’m not talking about ‘lying’, I’m talking about dishonesty. Not always the same.
For example:
‘Israel left Gaza and all it got was rockets.’
‘Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.’
‘Israel has a right to defend itself.’
‘Israel delivered aide to Gaza.’
‘Israel is the only Jewish State, there are many Arab States.’
These are not lies. They are intellectually dishonest. They are also Establishment truisms. I’m sick of that. I think most of us here are. We don’t simply exist here on this blog. Witty does eventually log off and read/converse/watch TV/etc. As do we.
So it’s not like he doesn’t know. He is dishonest.
Did Witty read the Goldstone report?
He said no. I did, however.
I could be wrong, but Witty reminds me of the people back in the 60′s and 70′s who could not believe that the president of the United States would lie to them. It is mind boggling but there were legions of hard-hats, cowboys and rednecks that would beat the shit out you for even suggesting such. The Vietnam War didn’t end for moral reasons, it was just that the rubes woke up and realized how much money it was costing them.
For ordinary citizens who are appalled by the policies of the Israeli government, BDS is one of the ONLY moral responses available to us. Cheer it on and join in! Whether it achieves its purposes or not depends solely on how many people do so.
The Rabbi: It points toward demonization of Israeli society as a whole (or even Jews in general)
Is demonization the new talking point? We’re not anti-semities anymore? Now it’s the whole world is demonizing Israel and the Jews, and how could we? I am seeing this “demonizing” trope pop up all over the net as the latest example of what evil mean non-Jews and self-hating Jews are doing to Israel.
When I see what Israel and its apologists are doing to the truth I lived through last December/January, not to mention the past few decades, I now hold anything the Israelis say about their history as highly suspect. It’s the Lizard Brain amygdala with a prevaricating translation service.
You do not need to “demonize,” all you have to do is “describe” faithful description is demonizing because the activity is so damnable. It is like I said on another post regarding Dershowitz, I do not need to demonize him, all I have to do is describe what he has said with the backdrop of truth – he demonizes himself.
It would be like the exchange between a criminal and a witness – the witness saw the defendant pick up the gun, walk up to the family, and shoot them point blank. The defendant jumps up and cries out “you are demonizing me!” The mere description is damning enough, but they must embellish it with the intent of malice to escape the verdict.
The Goldstone report is dispassionate, it is the mere recount of events and the accumulation of evidence – but no, they have to say it is prejudicial and one sided. As if Goldstone was cackling like a wiccan crone, stirring a pot of swill and casting destructive magical incantations while writing the simple evidence. Of course, it is no answer to the plain evidence, it will never be an answer, it is merely a diversion technique set to the tune of repeated accusations of antisemitism and supposed self-hatred. Lets take another Holocaust tour, and that can be described meticulously – but do not try to describe what happened in Gaza, do not try to communicate the atrocious acts committed in Gaza – it is like an accusation that we have heard since childhood, “don’t compare, don’t compare,” why? Because we will find similarities, or during these times of finding Israeli atrocity are we supposed to belittle it in the light of the Holocaust (I think the latter)?
BDS is really the only way to approach such a longstanding and callous people who have not responded to any other call, indeed, who have turned what was supposed to be the instrument of change (peace talks) into a dance of deception for decades with their will dance partner the USA. Time for the people of the world to take responsibility.
Sounds like Witty.
when the policies of israel are criticized, all it takes is a nano-second for some defenders to take out the anti-semite card while other defenders take the long winded, pseudo-scholarly approach, like this rabbi, to obfuscate the name calling.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like the moderators have finally had enough of The Great Gasbag. It’s about time.
(Cliff, it might help you to understand Witty if you think in terms of passive-agressive behavior. “Everybody hates me anyway, so I’m going to make them show it!” It’s a form of baiting.)
BDS is the way to go.
BTW, don’t pick on Witty. He’s an important point/counterpoint to the amen chorus (count me in, of course). For every post by Richard, there’s 10, 15 contra-responses. His voice is important to Mondoweiss, even if you call him intellectually dishonest.
More to the point . . . the discourse in the MSM has shut out the voices of the type you hear on Mondoweiss. So, if we’re taking the high road . . . engaging in “the war of ideas” . . . providing all comers with the opportunity of freedom of speech (unlike the US MSM) . . . then allow Witty to have his say.
As Stan Lee would say . . . nuff said.
Absolute nonsense. Witty can have his say, and he can say it all in four little phrases:
1. Israel Rocks!
2. Arabs Suck!
and if you don’t like it,
3. You Suck
and anyway,
4. The Whole World Sucks, so why pick on Israel
And there you have the whole of hasbara, and the whole of Witty!
link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com
But why, again, does free speech require that Phil provide a platform to Witty to lie from? Is Witty’s point of view one that is suppressed, that has no forums to make itself heard? Why is Mondowiess, which is devoted to the “war of ideas” (the most emetic phrase ever invented, but INMP) required to be a platform for Witty’s propaganda?
Mooser,
Do you bother to fact-check?
The Zionists do not need to win this argument, all they need to do is convince everyone to wait until tomorrow to achieve a peace settlement. As long as when tomorrow arrives all that is required is to wait for another tomorrow. This is the conscious plans of all Israeli leaders and I suspect even the sainted Rabin was in this camp. It seems quite irrelevant whether or not this rabbi is just a useful idiot like Witty or a conniving liar like Netanyahu, he serves the Zionist goal of seizing the West Bank.
I was very slow to coming to openly support BDS, but it may be the only tactic that can work, though I am actively supporting J-street, on the outside chance that they can succeed in breaking through this “Peace Later” mentality that grips mainstream Jewish thought.
syvanen wrote:
“The Zionists do not need to win this argument, all they need to do is convince everyone to wait until tomorrow to achieve a peace settlement. As long as when tomorrow arrives all that is required is to wait for another tomorrow.”
Except for lumping in Zionists who don’t believe in an Israel bigger than its pre-’67 borders (like me) with other-thinking Zionists (“limited” Zionists as opposed to “expansionist” ones?) that’s a perfect way of putting it. But I think that it might be a mistake to lump Rabbi Waskow in the latter too and some of the other comments here are too hard on him as well.
Yes, he’s against the BDS idea, but it’s clear to me otherwise from the piece linked to that he isn’t stalling for time and against doing anything while the creeping annexation project advances. For instance, he talks approvingly of Obama’s once-enunciated demand that Israel stop settlement expansion, talks approvingly of getting behind the Goldstone report, and even talks about how the U.S. should independently investigate the use of that white phosphorus since it’s probably the U.S. who sold it to Israel.
Thus I think it is a mistake to lump him in with the other chronic delayers and game-players out there and, more to the point, a mistake not to engage his thinking on the BDS too because I think that those who share it—and maybe even the Rabbi too—might be persuaded that this thinking is harmful *especially* from any Zionist perspective, limited or not.
That is, he talks about how a BDS movement would demonize Israeli society and maybe jews in general too except to me the correct response is to point out that because of the lack of success of every other effort so far that’s *exactly* what is already happening, big time. Just as you see on this blog ever more talk about what happened not just in ’67 and afterwards but about the justice or lack thereof of ’47-’48 and before, that talk questioning the very fundamental question of Israel’s entire existence is gaining ever more steam, especially in Europe I think. And eventually it could have its consequences: Let this develop further another 5 or 10 years and let this or that arab country actually get The Bomb and really threaten Israel and see maybe the Western community start looking at the situation like it’s not just about the second act of what started in 1967,f but instead the second and maybe last act of what started in ’47-48 and just shrug its shoulders and say “hey, that’s just the way history works sometimes.”
This point also goes beyond merely noting that maybe having a BDS movement would bring peace and bring an end to the demonization that is already going on too: A BDS movement I think it also presents a preferable *alternative* to the *kind* of demonization that is going on now. That is, it seems to me, it is precisely *because* of such things as the major media blackout of the issues involved here and the feeling of helplessness that engenders amongst people who are against what Israel is doing that you are seeing and will continue to see hard-core anti-Israel/anti-Zionist and anti-semetic sentiments get ever stronger and nastier. Few things engender such rage as people feeling that their point of view is being deviously and artificially muzzled.
In short, because there’s no legitimate outlet for people’s sentiments, they are and will increasingly go to the illegitimate because, in essence, it’s the only place left for them.
Sooner or later then, I would like to say to Rabbi Waskow, you too will be calling for a BDS campaign too, except that by then it may already have been too late. The demonization has been completed and cast in cement and the only option then will be either a one-state solution in which jews will eventually lose control, or a “no-state” solution essentially with nobody caring anymore if the jews of Israel are swamped out/overrun and are living in some extreme minority position in some arab/moslem state.
Time’s a wastin’, Rabbi: more and more people think a two-state solution is already impossible, and everyone seems to agree that the longer it’s delayed the more impossible it’s going to get. How long you gonna wait?
Sin Nombre these are very good points. I did not know of Rabbi Waskow before, but responded to the sense that he belonged to the Peace Later party.
I also worry about the demonization campaign against Israel because if successful could so easily turn into a demonization campaign against Jews. What is so frustrating about this is that the West Bank expansion Zionist freaks know this is a possibility also. But they not only do not care but seem to relish in such backlash possibility. For if that were to happen then they could say, see even in the US antisemitism is a real problem and they could use this in their campaign to encourage even more Jewish immigration to Israel. The Zionists need antisemitism as much as the antisemites need Israel right now to promote their respective agendas. That is always the danger of war — the extremists and war mongers on both sides of any conflict feed off each other.
syvanen wrote:
“a demonization campaign against Jews. What is so frustrating about this is that the West Bank expansion Zionist freaks know this is a possibility also. But they not only do not care but seem to relish in such backlash possibility….”
You know something dude, I think that with these few words you have made one of the most important and helpful observations I’ve seen here which, in just a little different form, really just perfectly illuminates about 90% or more of what this conflict is about and what has to be addressed if it is ever going to be resolved:
That is … to the “expansion freaks” (I prefer to drop your “Zionist” descriptor since, like me, one can be such without being an expansionist), it is anti-semitic to prevent Israel from occupying any of the land they feel given to it by the Bible, period.
And I think this is just simply a great great observation for the great clarity it provides as follows:
A.) In the first instance, in the way it is just perfectly clear that it is true. And indeed true also for those who we don’t even think of as “expansionist freaks” but just ordinary Israelis too who, it is clear, elect people like Netanyahu and go along with the occupation/expansion purely and simply out of the feeling that the pressure on them to do otherwise is anti-semitic. I said this explains things “90% or more” only because I suppose that some of the Israelis who are supporting the continued occupation aren’t doing it out of this reaction but instead feel that it’s necessary for Israel’s defensive purposes—the “Auschwitz borders” argument in other words. And it sure is anti-semitic to deny the jews the right to defend themselves. But of course Abba Eban used that phrase long ago in a different time and it’s clear to me at least that it’s almost impossible to find any reputable Israeli military person saying that this is so anymore given modern technology and Israeli capabilities now and etc. And so, again, that great initial clarifying point: The great bulk if not the entire Israeli resistance to withdrawing from the occupied territories is purely and simply a reaction against perceived anti-semitism.
B.) And in the second instance in how absolutely clear it is that this is just ridiculously misperceived by the Israelis. That while of *course* anti-semitism might be behind *some* people’s objection to the occupation/expansion, that it not only doesn’t need to be but that it also can’t even begin to explain the simply global objection to it that we see today. That it isn’t the fact that it is *jews* who are occupying and expanding into this land that is the objection, but that it is instead, particularly after the example of Hitler with his expansionism, just simply expansionism *in general* that violates the global norms right now.
C.) And in the third instance that if these two things *were* clearly perceived there’s just no way this conflict could continue. That, as to the rest of the world, it would be recognized how ridiculous it is in today’s era of nations and boundaries to be afraid of being called an anti-semite merely because you object to the idea that someone wants to go and invade another’s land and take it away from them.
And that as regards Israel but aside from the settlers the great bulk of the Israeli population too would recognize the unsustainability of supporting the occupation/expansion enterprise given its faulty premise. A premise that, in essence, is them saying “we are going to support or at least not oppose the occupation/settlement project not because we think it’s right on its own merits or has any independent justification, but just simply because opposing it is something anti-semites do.”
Just a great, keen, 2nd or even 3rd level of thinking on your part, syvanen, that simply can’t be made too much of and that somehow ought to be repeated as the backdrop to *every* discussion of the substance of the conflict both here and everywhere: It’s not just that this conflict is about some jews who believe the bible gives them the right to possess other people’s land. Everywhere and every day someone is trying to accomplish some crazy objective. What *sustains* this one, what makes it the cause celebre it is and the potential cause of war after war and maybe even world or nuclear war, is simply that it is felt that it is anti-semitic to object to that, period. And the meaning of this is that it is only by addressing this perception whereby one can actually be said to be dealing with the crux of the problem. Simply stated nothing much else, aimed at anything else, is going to mean a damned thing.
Sin Nombre, it sounds like we agree at a number of levels. Unfortuanately, agreeing on a diagnosis does not necessarily lead to a cure. That leads to the messy realm of politics, ie the what is possible if not what is just. Given that I support two things right now. 1) J street’s campaign to change American Jewish positions and 2) BDS to force the Israelis to change theirs.
Other than that, if I had any influence, my preference would be for the US to simply withdraw from the whole IP mess and let them settle it for themselves.
syvanen wrote:
“my preference would be for the US to simply withdraw from the whole IP mess and let them settle it for themselves.”
No we agree on that too. While of course like everyone I’d like to see this conflict ended and as I said it seems that what sustains it is the perception of anti-semitism in the end I don’t care so long as the U.S. wasn’t involved. And while I can sympathize with both sides to some degree that not only comes to a screeching end at the precise point where they want to embroil us, but indeed provokes my active resentment. Just as you see a bit with the Israeli reaction to Obama no doubt when/if our fellow citizens start to share that feeling we’ll be called anti-semitic for pulling back from that embroilment, but so be it. I’m sick of the amazing presumptiveness that so as to not be anti-semitic one cannot be neutral and indeed has to support whatever is done by Israel. It’s a simply amazing Everest of self-assessed moral rightousness.
(And in that same vein I see that the ex-Israeli deputy defense minister Sneh is saying that if the West doesn’t impose further sanctions on Iran by Christmas it will attack Iran itself. See link to ynetnews.com
To which I’d say “fine, go ahead,” except that one knows that Israel wouldn’t and couldn’t really attack Iran all by itself and will only do so because it has embroiled the U.S. in same and made us share the consequences of it.)
“To which I’d say “fine, go ahead,” except that one knows that Israel wouldn’t and couldn’t really attack Iran all by itself and will only do so because it has embroiled the U.S. in same and made us share the consequences of it.)”
Unless they can do it via submarines (and probably using nukes) I don’t think Israel can bomb Iran without flying over Iraq, which means having our permission.
Rabbi Waskow has been consistent in providing damage control for Israel. This is the last sentence of an article, “The Israel Lobby and the Left” Uneasy Questions” that I wrote back in 2003:
“Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a long-time activist with impeccable credentials, assured the Jewish weekly, Forward, that United for Peace and Justice, organizers of the February 15th anti-war rally in New York, “has done a great deal to make clear it is not involved in anti-Israel rhetoric. From the beginning there was nothing in United for Peace’s statements that dealt at all with the Israel-Palestine issue.”
You can read the entire article here:
link to leftcurve.org
Thanks very much for this link to your 2003 article, Jeffrey. I remember reading it in the past, but had lost it.
Kudos for exposing crypto-Zionist left-wing gatekeepers like Chomsky and Zunes. Their recalcitrance when it comes to naming Israel & its Lobby as culprits does as much damage to the cause of peace as the undisguised shilling done by the likes of Alan Dershowitz & Richard Witty.
It’s quite amazing how long Israel’s supporters have been able to divert attention away from their own criminality as well as continually employ the same tired emotional blackmail tactics (Holocaust/Hitler/Nazis/antisemitism/etc.).
It is as if the one atrocity (Holocaust) is supposed overshadow the other (Gaza), but the invocation of past (Holocaust) does not excuse the present (Gaza), one atrocity does not expunge the other. What it becomes is an insidious way to smother the voice of moral authority of other victims (Palestinians), and cheapens the Holocaust being used for ulterior motives.
There was a time when we could have made a contribution to mankind, you saw the seed of its beginnings. When you read Lemkin’s formulation of the word genocide, nothing requires the total killing of a group or all (most) of the members. Not the eradication of a gene pool. Chapter 9 of Axis Rule.
“…destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves [even if all of the individuals in the group themselves survive]. The objective of such a plan would be the disintegration of political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of personal security, liberty, health, dignity…”
This same definition above is incorporated in the second article of the UN 1948 convention, which specifies 5 different categories of action which constitute the crime when applied “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such.”
It is the exclusivity, the virtual holocaust hegemony of one group, which denies the moral voice and force of others. Holocaust exclusivity is just as bad (or worse) as Holocaust denial. Because this genocide is bound up with many of the past. What might have been recognized early on and halted is allowed to come to fruition, because the perpetrators did not goose step during the process. It is so jealousy guarded in some arenas of academia, it is almost like an “unholy alliance” (if I can used this term) giving the powerful a pass to reek as much havoc, mayhem and murder conceivable of the demand that he Holocaust be sui generis (while all genocides are simultaneously unique and analogous).
The Jewish Holocaust was not even unique during its own time.
CMI- Could you be more specific?
I think the Blankfort approach is the bigger failure.
In Phil’s world for example, a change in attitude IS an objective change, not the end itself, but not nothing. In my world that is the case. Except for the recent resurrection of likud (which didn’t win the election anyway), among the nations and among Israelis there had evolved a consent that Palestinians deserved to self-govern, and that fair and viable partition was a means to accomplish that.
In contrast, the militancy of the left (represented by Blankfort) and the militancy of Hamas, has broken that consensus. They’ve persuaded the very sensitive (that ARE yelled at violently, and periodically assaulted physically at demonstrations, and are confirmed by terror when it occurs) that Israel is under attack, not accepted even conditionally.
Not tough love, just tough. Not, “I care about you so much that I am concerned that you will harm yourself and others.” But, “I renounce you. You are my Ishmael.”
I could hear to an extent if Blankfurt stated “I know what I say “NO” to. I am firm about that. That is all that I am doing.” That would be a description of assertive criticism of a policy or an action.
But, thats not what he is doing. He, like the majority of the left, are vague about what they are objecting to. They willingly yeild to Palestinian “leadership”. “We are solidarity. It would be improper for us to butt into their business. We have limited personal experience on the ground, and it is others lives that are stake, not our own.”
But that is EXACTLY the attitude that they criticize in the right, and in liberals, that they are acquiescent to fears that they hear from Israel or “hasbara” sources.
So, they enjoy stating that those that criticize BDS are “traitors” to the cause, that they are obviously less committed, less concerned, tools, quislings, touchy-feely.
The danger of an aggressive approach failing, is that not only is the failure a failure in making objective change (as if a “feeling” of liberation is objective, except in silhouette terms), but it MAKES enemies.
“We’ve GOT to act now”. “Patience is a failing, a complicity.”
They willingly yield to Palestinian “leadership”.
No Richard, the left isn’t on the side of the existent Palestinian leadership, the left is on the side of the Palestinian people. But that is the main talking point from the right only a slight variation of the theme: The left supports terrorism.
But your “emphasis” or dubious treatment of Palestinian “leadership” tells us all. The leaders of the left are people like Ezra Nawi. Since I can see Obama’s structural problems clearly, I would also include Daniel Levy on this side. Since left essentially means for the people versus the select few, it supports an approach that gives people a chance not their respective leaders. In this context it surely somehow comes into structural proximity (no better way to put this) with Hamas. But to simply equate it as it is usually done is manipulation.
OK Nawi isn’t Palestinian but that doesn’t really matter too much on the left. Another main aspect of the left is solidarity. The real left are the masses of people that went to demonstrations in Leipzig aware the state powers might react heavily to shout their slogan: We are the people! Thus showing the world and their more hesitant co-citizens that they were very aware that their supposedly left government was neither left nor democratic, although it pretended to be both and speak for them.
Would you ever accept a government that can travel freely while you are locked behind walls and fences? A government that bows to Israel’s security needs only and does nothing at all for its people?
The left – right divide has become really confusing during the last decades. I have always been hesitant of the self-proclaimed carriers of the ultimate truth no matter if left or right. Ultimately the structural similarities between “democracy” and “dictatorship” are starting to be confusing, but I have not enough time to look more closely into the issue. How can it be that democracies create new dynasties, e.g. in Greece with it’s constant succession of the same families on the socialist side and the conservative? Or American dynasties for that matter. The Bushes, the Clintons, … the Kennedys … do these families stand for networks who have their own interests?
Freedom is always the freedom of people who think differently, Rosa Luxemburg. (Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden)
We do not need a “one size fits” all in life, and ultimately you always judge everything from Israel’s perspective. If only the Palestinians would follow Israel’s good example (with the exception of terrorism of course) in state and institution building. But in this respect you ignore the constant expanses of rubble and as far as I can tell no Marshall-Plan-Equivalent or freedom.
Please don’t misunderstand, but whoever suggested here, you are ultimately very conventional really expressed the problem I have with you best.
The world is changing. The center may not hold, but the centers dictates conventions. The one size fits all. To simply manipulate “our centers”, doesn’t feel healthy to me. But I do not see a clear road out of these dilemmas. I would prefer diversification to one ideology conquering the world. Ways that make sense in the specific surrounding. Diversity of money systems, maybe, for disadvantaged groups. It’s already starting e.g. in Brasilia. Ever heard of microcredits, another new tool, outside conventions.
Blankfort’s approach has alienated more than it has inspired.
And, for reasons that I and Waskow stated, BDS is a form of force.
For those that are sensitive to the effects of the use of some force, to abdicate that sensitivity into imprecise, punitive, skill-less definition of what is objected to, is something to avoid.
If anyone is assaulted at demonstrations it has been the Palestinians and their Israeli and international supporters who have been ritually shot at and tear gassed at non-violent protests in the West Bank as can be seen on Al Jazeera and You Tube.
As for the sensibilities of Jewish (or non-Jewish) supporters of Israel, I could not care less. Too many Palestinians and Lebanese have shed their lives on the altar of “Jewish sensibilties” for any self-respecting human being to give them any further shrift.
As for my supporting the Palestinian leadership, or what passes for same, nothing could be further from the truth. Harsh criticisms of the corrupt Arafat by David Hirst and Tanya Reinhart that were carried in the Middle East Labor Bulletin that I edited in the late 80s and early 90s got it banned by the PLO (represented by Arafat’s nephew, Nasser al-Kidwa) from being distributed at a UN meeting in NY in the early 90s and I openly opposed Oslo because I realized, as did the most astute Palestinians, that it constituted an unforgivable betrayal of the Palestinians’ right to their homeland by a “leader” who would later go on the Israel payroll at $8 million a year.
Israel, as a European settler-colonial state is an anachronism in the Arab Middle East and no amount of money, weaponry, or hasbara, will change that fact. Jewish non-zionists decades ago warned against the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine because, as they accurately predicted, it would lead to endless war and resistance by the people it would be required to dispossess. Were it not for the power of Israel’s supporters in the US, the Zionist project would have become a footnote in history long ago. If Israel does not lead the world into another devastating war, it will yet become that, but it seems it will take a little more time.
Oh, if it hasn’t already been done, Jeffry Blankfort, mett Richard Witty. Richard, this is Jeffry Blankfort.
Jeffry, you’ll be amazed at the deep and almost uncanny knowledge that Richard has of your motivations and your desires. He’s like a real genius at that, a regular mind reader.
“As for the sensibilities of Jewish (or non-Jewish) supporters of Israel, I could not care less. ”
Are you serious about this sentiment? You are at war only?
As noted by the Arab League proposal, the existence of Israel is nowhere an anachronism. It is assertively a recognized state, a UN member state. A developed community, a coherent nation, a functional state.
In contrast, the presence of Hamas and Hezbollah and other factions are a throwback to a far more pronounced Islamic and Arabic anachronism of tribal and factional militia, permanently a chameleon. Constantly at civil and inter “national” war, consistently using using civilians as social human shields (not the literal individual human shield).
I am different in my sensitivities. I CARE for both Israelis and Palestinians, and note that the either/or militant approach has consistently resulted in horrid civilian casualties, and particularly consistent loss of sovereignty and viability for Palestinians.
It continues to this day. Every instance of advocacy for BDS or out and out removal of Israel from the map, FIRMS the determination of likud, and makes it more and more difficult for the majority of Jews, liberals – humanists, to find a path to express that to support Palestinian social need and hopes, assuming mutual acceptance of the other.
You weaken your effort Blankfort.
See what I mean, Jeffry?
You know, I attended a demonstration supporting Palestinian rights (I attended) with my local rabbi who was holding up a sign with an Israeli flag and a Palestinian flag as two sides of a peace sign.
A group of activists taunted him, spit at him, and a couple rocks were thrown.
You don’t have a clue, Blankfurt.
Richard, part of the problem is “perceiving” problems as we wish them to be, as opposed to their reality. In other posts (and I think many times) you have said, for example…
“Richard Witty February 2, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I don’t conclude that “Israel broke the cease fire” in Gaza.”
In other words, Hamas violated the truce, not Israel. And therefore Israel’s response (Cast Lead) was justified.
But the reality seems to be precisely the opposite (and again, this is just one example) that it is “ALMOST ALWAYS” Israel that first violates truces and cease fires.
This has been well documented; the constant accusation that Hamas violates first, or “provokes” Israel, is one of the “bedrock arguments” of those who justify Israel’s use of overwhelming force against the primarily civilian population of Gaza.
But is seems the evidence is, again, precisely the opposite. That it is Israel which deliberately, and constantly, for that matter, “provokes” Hamas (and subsequently uses the Hamas response as an excuse to pulverize Gaza.)
A quote…
“Indeed, of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days. ”
Those are pretty persuasive percentages. Actually, they are overwhelming.
Here is a link to the very carefully documented article…
link to huffingtonpost.com
In light of the (apparently false) argument that Hamas violations justified Cast Lead, the logic of that argument would seem, unavoidably, to lead to the conclusion that Hamas’ attacks against Israel are, in fact, justified.
You have also said, regarding civilian casualties in Gaza, that Israel did, basically, “the best they could with the technology they have”. If that logic is acceptable, could it not also be said of Hamas’? (they do not have rockets that can be guided to precise targets). In other words, they are doing “the best they can with the technology they have. ”
Your observations and response would be appreciated.
I’ll only respond to a quote of me stated in the context of the actual post.
To pick a single line is a misleading. What was the prior paragraph? If you wish to disagree with what my concept is, its more intellectually honest to present the concept (not the irritation).
OK. Witty doesn’t have a response. Big shocker there, huh. It’s like somebody wading in a flooded basement and the only problem he addresses is the annoying sound of dripping water somewhere down there.
The question he asked is pretty basic, Richard, and it’s something that can and should be asked of anyone who claims that Israeli violence is generally in response to provocations by Hamas. The evidence appears to indicate otherwise. You don’t have to respond to anything–we’re all free to jump in and out of discussions online as we please. But his question isn’t about “a quote of you”. It doesn’t revolve around the need to give a complete synopsis of the thought of Richard Witty. It’s about whether the claim that Israel uses violence in self-defense is true.
(Incidentally, “Don” is a different person from me–something I’ll probably continue to point out from time to time, as I would probably get us mixed up otherwise. So far as I can tell, we share opinions as similar as our names.)
“I don’t conclude that Israel broke the cease fire”, is in reference to the assertion that on November 4, Israel unilaterally and illegally attacked innocent Palestinians.
My statement is entirely relative to that specific incident. It is accurate to say that I don’t know if Hamas militants were building a tunnel designed for subsequent abductions from Israel proper, or if it was a more cynical action on the part of Israel.
To escalate that quote from February to something else that you imagine, is a problem on your part.
So the long and short of it, is you give Israel the benefit of the doubt but you condemn Palestinian actions unilaterally. Makes you a very apt emblem of Zionism, Witty.
It means that I have the integrity to not state a speculation is a truth, as you are willing to do, gullibly.
Oh, I’m the gullible one? Still think Israel is going to police itself? Did you not see this posting, out of curiosity?
link to mondoweiss.net
Funny, never say you comment even once there. Must have slipped down your MEMRI hole.
You err in equating the statements “A military response was necessary”, with “Operation Cast Lead in all respects was necessary”.
One is a representation of my comments, the other a misrepresentation. What is there to respond to?
Remind me again, Witty, how the appropriate response to a cease fire on Israel’s part is… military action? Oh that’s right, I forgot — you’re in denial about the fact that Israel was the party who broke the cease fire.
Here the link to your post ( in a response to another post by Jeffrey Blanfort. )
‘Waltz in Denial’– Blankfort (by Philip Weiss on February 2, 2009 · 28 comments)
link to mondoweiss.net
How could the context be more simple; i.e. Hamas alleged violations of the truce have been used as justification for Cast Lead (and also to justify the very large number of civilian casualties).
If it was Israel that violated the truce (many, many times) …the question is quite simple. Where is the justification for Cast Lead?
This is not a personal attack, Richard. It is a “review “, or analysis, of the logic used to justify the attack.
Operation Cast Lead was entirely a response to Hamas shelling of civilians in Sderot, then escalated to Ashkelon, then to Beersheba.
That deserved a military response. The extent of the response was excessive.
But, the shelling from Gaza has stopped. It was a lot of violence, deterring a lot of violence.
Better that real reconciliation occur.
When you continue to repeat the same false claims, there is simply no use in responding.
And the ethnic cleansing of Najd doesn’t deserve a response? Fancy that.
from my original post…
Richard, part of the problem is “perceiving” problems as we wish them to be, as opposed to their reality.
Richard…
“Operation Cast Lead was entirely a response to Hamas shelling of civilians in Sderot, then escalated to Ashkelon, then to Beersheba.”
I rest my case.
Donald, yes, we are different persons. I agree we seem to share very similar viewpoints!
A bit more clarification. Perhaps I should not have referenced your statement, Richard. It was used as an example; to illustrate what strikes me as a very important issue in this conflict; i.e. “what is, and is not, the real behavior of both sides”; on the one hand, and the “derived logic” of specific arguments, on the other hand.
(But just as an aside, you have made this argument repeatedly, Richard, about Cast Lead, and civilian casualties, over at Realistic Dove. And again, this is not a personal attack. It is the particular viewpoint or argument I am questioning, and which I obviously disagree with.)
I agree completely, for instance, with Sin Nombre and Syvanen, in their statements above, that Jews have the right to self defense. Do not Palestinians also have that right?
If Hamas ‘ rocket attacks on Israel justify Cast Lead, what do unprovoked attacks by Israel on Palestinians justify? Particularly since Palestinians have little available means to defend themselves? And these unprovoked attacks occur on a daily basis.
Another point I am trying to make, apparently unsuccessfully, is that, in my opinion, the “shifting arguments” to justify Israeli militarism against Palestinians do as much to undermine Israeli legitimacy as the behavior itself.
That the arguments are “ever shifting” strikes me as “effortlessly” demonstrated, and often contradictory; thus rendering them “completely unpersuasive”.
As a state, Israel has the obligation to defend its civilians from the random terror of Hamas and other factions’ shelling.
The proportional response to that is to confidently take out the launchers, and as the launchers are mobile and stored and then sited in civilian areas, there are inevitably collateral civilian deaths. That is the meaning of social “human shields”. That you don’t seem to acknowledge that consequence to civilians as a result of HAMAS actions, is a moral poverty on your part.
The contreversy was in Israel’s excess, mistakes and incidents of questionable individual treatment of civilians.
Hamas is still at least equally war criminal in the process, and at least partially cowardly in the strategy and hiding.
And, you are gullible in advocating for them.
When Hamas unifies with the PA sincerely, and Fayyad and Fatah complete the institution-building with the support of the US and some from Israel, then Palestine will have the right of self-defense as a state. And, then it can choose idiotic provocative foreign policy or assertive but respectful dialog.
I am NOT a fan of likud or Netanyahu. But, I see Hamas leading Palestine to a great tragedy.
You are entirely ignoring the question: Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves?
Every month, Palestinians in Gaza are shot dead by Israeli snipers for coming too close to the prison wall. Far, far, far more Gazans are killed by these snipers than are injured by the rockets sent in the other direction. Then there are the Gazans who are killed by Israeli bombing raids on the tunnels through which they are forced to import the necessities of life.
So if Israel is justified in “defending itself” with force against Gazan rockets, why aren’t the Gazans equally justified in defending themselves with force against these Israeli assaults?
See if you can actually address this question, Witty, instead of posting one of your canned screeds.
I’ve got to hand it to you, Witty, for hanging in there, day after day, post after post, defending the indefensible. I guess since even serial killers, rapists and child molesters get to have their day in court, there has to be someone to stick up for ethnic cleansers, and state terrorists.
But just out of curiosity, is that all you do?
You know, I’ve been pushing that link to the great post on “How to make the case for Israel and win (link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com
in which the author stipulates that all hasbara can be broken down to four little phrases:
1. Israel Rocks!
2.Arabs Suck!
3. You Suck!
4. Okay, The Whole World Sucks!
But I see I am wrong. Richard Witty has convinced me that the most important one has been left out! It would be this:
5. No matter how discredited you become, Get The Last Word!
That one really needs to be added. Witty is really counting on that one.
Skillful name-calling Blankfort.
Is your goal to rally the 15 converted, and alienate the 15,000 humanists?
Do you get my point about asserting that your militant stance is a moral poverty?
Answer the question, Witty.
Witty, you are a liar and a phony. You are not a humanist. You are a Zionist fanatic.
You regularly write the most intellectually dishonest garbage on this site with no repercussions. This is only because you’re Phil’s friend.
Jeff Blankfort is sincere and adds to this discussion. You are just a distraction.
We have one sincere Zionist here (wonderingjew). Perhaps, he can ask his friends to come debate us and perhaps we can truly exchange ideas and grow intellectually.
You on the other hand Witty, are just an apologist and cheerleader for colonialism.
Name calling, Witty? I make a statement admiring your fortitude, (as opposed to rectitude) in defending the indefensible, that is the state of Israel and its perverted version of a militant stance (and no, that’s not a subtext for child molesting although they DO do that in their own very special Zionist way) and you accuse ME of moral poverty and of taking a militant stance.
But, seriously, other than brandishing your tuchus in Zion’s defense on this list, what, in general terms, do you do? I ask that because there is a world-wide program (I’m not making it up) in which supporters of Israel are encouraged to participate on blogs such as this to counter critics of Israel whose numbers are growing by the moment. It’s a thankless task and one only suited, I suspect, for fanatics and masochists. It’s a pretty low level task for a sayanim, though, is it not?
He’s not kidding. Israel might actually pay you for doing this, Witty! Lord knows no one else would.
What’s your goal Blankfurt?
What’s your goal for the politics of the region? What’s your tactical goal? What is your moral goal in your relations to other human beings?
Are you accomplishing that?
Politically – You are alienating the majority by contempt. Maybe you will lead a vanguard “mass movement” for some anger-derived and imprecise “goal”. (Like the word “action” describing demonstration, “direct action” but NOT the formation of law, economy, policing, public health, ecology, community.)
Tactically – You alienate the majority from your advocacy for BDS by statements of contempt, rather than of reasoned and respectful disagreement.
Integrity – You abuse academic inquiry into truth by partisan editing out of historical events, ignoring the valid and confirmed perspective of your opponent. (Not as “the truth”, but as real and important).
Morality – You abuse those that differ with you.
What does that add up to? An inneffective organizer. A promoter of vain warring rather than an appeal to either justice or peace. A surrender to political correctness removing anyone’s ability to trust that you hear multiple concerns and perspectives. And, a verbally violent man.
Militancy, a moral poverty.
Hear others experiences, their lives as lives.
“moral poverty”, Richard?
If anything I wrote suffers from “moral poverty”, Richard, you might want to contemplate your own intellectual and emotional approach to this conflict.
What I tried to point out, and it is based on YOUR moral reasoning, Richard, not mine, is that…
1. Israel shells, rockets, bombs and machine guns Gaza on a routine basis. THAT violence never seems to end. (The Hamas rockets certainly appear to be a (pathetic) attempt to retaliate, or defend Palestinians of Gaza. Again, by your standard, they every right to do so. Particularly given that Israel INITIATES nearly 100% of the truce violations.
2. Did I ever suggest the killing of civilians, Israel or Palestinian, was morally acceptable? Richard, you are the one justifying the killing of civilians. I find it appalling, regardless of who is doing it, and to whom it is happening.
3. I have no problem at all with your posting here, Richard. I am all for it. I have defended it on many occasions. But you make assertions, about a deadly serious issue, and those assertions are made, not only “in the absence of evidence”, but which existing evidence overwhelming contradicts.
So I will say it again…You are doing the Israelis no favors; just as antisemitic idiots do Palestinians no favors. If this is Hasbara, I am Daffy Duck.
Very good. You didn’t leave Richard any loopholes–you have all the relevant facts nailed down and the issues clearly stated. When it comes to self-defense, there’s a much stronger case for Palestinian violence than Israeli violence and if Richard were consistent and honest, he’d acknowledge this and STOP excusing Israeli violence. (I capitalize as a tribute to one of Richard’s rhetorical techniques).
You can therefore expect Richard to either ignore you or squirt out a cloud of ink and disappear like a squid. Seriously, if he responds it won’t be to your argument, but to something else.
Notice also that Richard says Hamas is at least equally criminal with Israel–that’s not just a Wittyism , but a standard way of looking at things in the US. Palestinian violence is always their own responsibility. Israeli violence isn’t even noticed unless it rises to a very high level (hundreds dead or more) and when it does, Hamas still shares at least half the blame. Making sure that Hamas gets at least half of the blame for Israeli crimes (the ones he deigns to notice) lies at the heart of Richard’s whole view of reconciliation. One has to absolve the Israelis by sharing the blame for their crimes with Hamas before one is allowed to criticize them–otherwise you are not in favor of peace.
Peace attempts to stop the cycle of violence.
Blame alone continues it.
“Cycle of violence” is the accurate descriptor, disproportionate or not.
Mooser…I have been intending to say to you, for months now…that I really like your posts. (in spite of your sometimes genuinely dreadful puns).
And I also feel compelled to say…there are few, if any, people on this planet I admire more than Phil Weiss, Adam Horowitz, Jeffrey Blankfort, Max Blumnethal, and their fellow Jews who have such fierce, and fearless, commitments to universal human rights. Actually, I include you also, Mooser. And many others.
I don’t imagine it is an easy thing to do.
And Mooser…sometimes your puns are rather amusing.
Gosh, thanks, Don, that was very nice, and I appreciate it greatly!
And yes, my name is Mooser and I am a jokeaholic, but I’ll be spending time at Humornon to try and effect a cure. For breakfast you get nothing but coffee and stale puns.
I am flabberghasted by all the people who seem to come straight from a tea-party to Mondoweiss, too.
Pingback: War in Context - The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is working