Israeli freelance writer Lisa Goldman is accusing me, at her Twitter feed here, of fueling antisemitism for pointing out that both NY Times reporters in Israel are Jewish, one of them is Israeli, and both are married to Israelis.
As if ethnicity and religion have anything to do with anything, she seems to be saying.
This sort of accusation has prevented a lot of intelligent people from even looking into issues of Jewish media presence/power, out of fear of being labelled antisemites. Goldman's wrong for a few reasons:
I wish Jewishness was neutral factor in this. It's not. Not when Dershowitz says, accurately, that the secular religion of American Jews is supporting Israel. Goldman might say, Well many many Jews don't buy the Dershowitz religion. And she's right: I don't. Adam Horowitz doesn't. Cecilie Surasky doesn't. But we have all had to undertake a conscious struggle with that programming and have risked excommunication in doing so. Some of us have been excommunicated, denied a livelihood, etc. We are proud Jews. Yet we are Jews taking on a monolithic identification syndrome. The orthodoxy inside Jewish life over Israel is as strong as the Catholic orthodoxy on abortion.
Let me make the same point twice. Ralph Seliger of Meretz USA says, Hey, Phil is part of the diversity of Jewish opinion, and he thereby tries to valorize the Jewish discourse. Yes, I am part of that diversity, but as Ralph knows, the Jewish community very rarely welcomes my point of view and often screams at it. Realists and Arab-Americans have been open to my views. But my views are still largely marginalized in the U.S. Anna Baltzer is rarely invited to synagogues to speak, and she speaks everywhere.
As long as Jews define Jewishness as being support for Israel, then Jewishness is on the table to be examined. Sensitively. But it must be on there. A couple months back Morton Sobell, hearing about the horrors of the Gaza slaughter at the Brecht Forum, said that after generations of concern with anti-Semitism, now we must look at "Semitism." He meant that we must take on issues of nationalist chauvinism within Jewish life.
The Times coverage on Israel/Palestine is biased; we've demonstrated this often. It reflects the Israeli lullabye that the Israelis are a democracy up against religious terrorism. It's an important question for us to consider: why the Times coverage is biased. Well guess what, there is zero diversity on their reporting corps (and in years gone by, when the Times was non-Zionist, it barred Jewish reporters from working in Israel/Palestine).
We're Americans who discuss religious issues robustly. I can't tell you how many journalists have made their careers by scrutinizing the religious right. Oh, but now we can't talk about religion in politics!
I could go on and on. I won't.
Questions of bias and ethnicity permeate the landscape of acceptable discourse.
Questions of ideological emotional attachments and bias permeate the landscape of acceptable discourse.
Like I keep saying. The worst threat a Jewish person will ever have to face are Zionists.
I thought Jimmy Carter said that?
“As long as Jews define Jewishness as being support for Israel, then Jewishness is on the table to be examined”
And that does more to unravel the anti-Semitic case than all of the Jewish lobbies, leagues and country clubs combined. Keep it up!
Huh. I didn’t actually know that Carter had said that. Wise man, that guy. I’m starting to suspect history will record him as the last great American President.
I can’t find any reference to Carter’s saying this and this phrase in up-to-the-minute language from doesn’t sound to me like Carter’s rather old-fashioned style.
True, would be nice if there was sourcing, just to be sure.
I apologize for the misunderstanding: the Carter remark was my lame attempt at intertube humor and wasn’t supposed to be taken literally.
In contrast, I believe that the New York Times DOES express criticism of Israel and does not apologize for the current Israeli position, as you represent.
Also, it is confusing to hear you write a post indicating that you are defending your positions here, when they are mostly unstated overtly.
I’ve been reading closely for three years, and I don’t know what your views are exactly. I have some idea of what you oppose, and some idea of what you say (not even that clearly), but very little of what you conclude and advocate for.
Case in point. Zionists constantly try to weaken non-Zionist Jewish positions by forcing a perception of vagueness that isn’t there. To the point where Witty erodes the very concept of justice itself — it never appears in his posts now unless its put in derisive quotes.
Pay attention, actually, as bad as he is toward Phil, whenever a non-Zionist Jewish woman comes up he browbeats twice as bad. Fancy that.
Structural, unreserved criticism? Which is not of the “Israel is basically right here, but could have handled it more elegantly” variant? A real, honest “Israel is dead wrong here, and no we won’t insert any tu quoque to lessen that criticism”.
Care to show us an example of what you refer to, preferably by linking to an NYT article that can be found online?
REad the last one published by Bronner, even the “mowing the grass” one.
Before coming here, I read that quote of another as Bronner at least partially shocked by that language.
The most that the racial identification is relevant for is some suggestion of the pallette of what can be heard. But, for example, I don’t believe that Phil speaks either Hebrew OR Arabic. That leaves him with a more limited pallette of understanding, only able to interpret propaganda translated into English.
Certainly not able to distinguish subtleties or ironies or malevolent code allusions. He can barely distinguish in English periodically, using ZOG in his own post.
I’ve been going through the list of the Atlantic’s most influential bloggers, looking at their backgrounds and positions on certain issues. Harvard and Oxford grads are overrepresented. Men are overrepresented. Whites are overrepresented. Jews are overrepresented. And conservative Jews are waaaay overrepresented.
Who people are listening to needs to be discussed. There is one tiny segment of the population being listened to on a whole range of issues, not just Israel. It’s important to acknowledge and discuss that.
Phil, you could be Glen Greenwald. He takes a beating on this link:
Anti-Israelism and Anti-Semitism in Progressive U.S. Blogs/News Websites:
link to jcpa.org
Thanks for the link. The author of this incitement piece apparently moved to israel in 2009 having worked for ADL. I was wondering when and how “they” are going to try and get back at greenwald (who, luckily, has many influencial friends and ahuge base of fans). Did you send this to him, BTW? ”also I’m sure that the omission of Phil’s blog is only a temporary respite.
The only anti-dote to the coming attacks on the blogosphere (and they will come more frequently and viciously, as Israel and it’s extremist friends lose adherents in the US) is in numbers. We simply should have many more blogs (yours truly has an excuse for why she hasn’t- yet – joined the fighters for a good cause. Honest) as well as many more activists across the board. Because the approach the other side will likely take would be to pick them off, one by one.
It’s all about the solidarity of numbers. Money too, of course, but numbers trump money. and it doesn’t matter whether all agree on every point. In fact, the fuzzier the better to deflect camera types. Call it a cyber version of the fog-of-war. But it’s going to be war. I hope Phil is ready.
I think Lisa Goldblum has a point, though not the one she is making, which is that Phil incited anti-Semitism. The real point is that Kershner/Bronner’s work should be evaluated solely on its merits, and not on their ethnicity or nationality. I wasn’t offended by Phil’s post on that issue, just not very interested. Gideon Levy and Amira Hass are Israeli Jews. I wouldn’t mind a bit if their dispatches found their way into the Times.
I also wonder how even-handed Lisa is. Does she criticize pro-Israel people for similar stances? Does she criticize those who complain that human rights groups accept Arab money? Would she criticize those who would complain if the Times hired an Arab reporter to cover the Israel/Palestine? In fact, it has – Taghreed el-Khodary. I haven’t seen ethnic-oriented criticism directed at her, but I’d be surprised if there were none. Would Lisa defend her from that?
This is a thorny issue, and maybe Phil should have explained the point of his post a little better. It wasn’t obvious to me. If Kershner and Bronner are biased toward Israel, that must be proven by analysis of their articles (and the news stories they decide not to publish). There are plenty of non-Israeli, non-Jewish reporters and pundits out there who are even more biased. Ever hear Hannity’s near-orgasmic talk about Israel? What difference does it make that he’s an Irish-American Catholic?
“The real point is that Kershner/Bronner’s work should be evaluated solely on its merits, and not on their ethnicity or nationality.”
-I agree with this, but the Times should have American/Palestinian journalists that also write articles, and share an equal measure of reporting on the conflict.
David, the point is that the NY Times narrative always comes from the perspective of Israelis, even when discussing Palestinian-centric issues. The fact that you have Israeli journalists covering a sensitive situation such as I/P calls for even-handedness, no? Isn’t there at least the appearance of a lack of objectivity on the part of the Times?
Yes, I guess there is, Oscar. The issue is quite complex, and I think that Phil gave it short shrift. Whatever point you make about Israeli (or quasi-Israeli) journalists reporting about Israel, you should first contemplate the mirror image. In other words, if the Times employed a Palestinian-American journalist to cover the issue (el-Khodary seems to barely hit the radar screen these days, so imagine if she were assigned to replace Bronner or Kershner), and some right-wing or pro-Israel pundit wrote the same thing about her that Phil writes now, how would you respond? Wouldn’t you find it outrageous that someone was taking her to task for her national background? Now, it’s true that Phil has written extensive substantive criticism of Bronner/Kershner’s work, but that should be sufficient – their ethnicity always seemed beside the point. To use your words, would there be more “even-handedness” or less “appearance of a lack of objectivity” if exactly the same articles had been authored by an Irish-American reporter? And the Israeli-Jew-reporter complaint wouldn’t have much traction if made against Levy or Hass (or Amy Goodman). In short, there are concerns to be raised here, perhaps, but my instinct is to hold people responsible for what they do rather than how they can be classified.
In fact, Phil talks a lot about his upbringing, and the difficulties he has faced in “coming out” as a critic of Israel. I relate more than I care to say, but not every Jewish person has the same difficulties. Kershner and Bronner may or may not face such pressures, or deeply instilled biases that Phil and I have overcome, but that is a purely personal dilemma. They are on the world stage, and should be performing like professionals. If they fall short, I don’t care what the reason is – they should be criticized. I don’t think their background makes them any more suspect than their articles already do.
I think perhaps the issue is that the NYT only employs correspondents with American-Israeli ties, not that they employ merely any with those.
David Samel is characteristically thoughtful and valuable. He is of course right that the content of the Times stories — and what is left out — is key, more important than who wrote (or didn’t write) the stories.
But what I sense Phil is onto here is not mainly a critique of Kershner and Bronner, which they do richly deserve, but a critique of the Times itself, for ignoring its own stated insistence on objectivity. Times (and Washington Post) reporters, even in person, are notoriously hard to pin down, even on the issues they cover. They aren’t allowed to participate in protest marches and the like. Some of them — Len Downie of the Post for instance — even say they don’t vote, to protect their objectivity.
We can of course debate this principle; I personally prefer a reporter who does feel strongly, but doesn’t hide their bias. But hiring Kershner — who is apparently an Israeli citizen — to report on a contentious region should raise questions.
Bronner (an American Jew) is, I agree, a little different. But I think what Phil is getting at here is that Israel is so bound up with Jewish American identity that Bronner might find it hard to remove emotion from his reporting. At the very least, we should know his identity.
I’ll give you a personal example. Thirty years ago, when I lived in southern Africa, I got to know Jacob Zuma, the current president, when he was in the ANC underground. I like Jacob Zuma, a lot. Anyone who reads anything I might write about him should know that. Would the Times send someone like me to South Africa to report on him after I disclosed this personal connection?
You make some good points, James, as did Oscar when he spoke of the appearance of a lack of objectivity. Perhaps my main complaint is with objectivity itself. I never read anything without taking into account the point of view of the writer, and sometimes I find more valuable the writings of someone I completely disagree with, say David Horowitz or Alan Dershowitz, who make no pretense of objectivity, than Times reporters who do.
I was especially perturbed at the unexpected blackout of a very important story that occurred in the early days of the Israeli offensive, when one of the relief ships sailed from Cyprus to Gaza (the Dignity?) with medical supplies and was rammed by the Israeli navy – fortunately it was not sunk and managed to limp into Lebanon. Cynthia McKinney and a CNN reporter were on board, and Israel preposterously claimed that the ship had rammed into its naval vessel. I don’t know who was responsible for the failure to cover this story – the reporters or editors – but it surely would have illuminated something about Israel’s motives at that critical time. This omission was as significant a bias as anything in their articles.
Would the Times send someone like me to South Africa to report on him after I disclosed this personal connection?
Yes, but there would have to be full disclosure up front.
This is perhaps the first time I’ve ever disagreed with Phil.
I think the analogy with Catholics and abortion is misplaced for a number of reasons, which I will recount here:
1) As a Catholic, I would predict that there are many, many more practicing Catholics in the world who are against abortion in their own personal lives but pro-choice in general, than there are practicing Jews that are anti-zionists. For example, I am personally against abortion and would never use the procedure or advocate for its use, but given the history of infanticide and abortion through human history as a method of birth control, I tend to see abortion as inevitable. I suspect most Catholics are actually in agreement with me, whereas most Jews– practicing or not-practicing–are definitely not anti-Zionists.
2) The two issues are completely different in terms of their philosophical origins. Zionism is a nationalist ideology, which states that the land of Palestine belongs to one ethnicity, because that one ethnicity has a special relationship with God. It’s aims, whether it states them openly or not, are to ethnically cleanse people not of that ethnicity from the land. In contrast, the anti-abortion movement within the Catholic church comes out of the foundations of Christian humanism, the doctrine within the Church that humanity is one organism, that no human beings are lesser in the eyes of God than any other human beings, that all humans are created in the image of Christ and are equal before Christ. And according to Christian humanism, just as it would be wrong to pull the plug on a sentient human hooked up to a respirator, it is wrong to abort a viable fetus. For the same reason, for example, anti-abortion activists in the CAtholic church are against assisted suicide for the terminally ill and the death penalty. In summary, one has its origins in an ethnic nationalist ideology, while the other comes from the a universalist standpoint.
3) Many doctors who have actually witnessed an abortion performed late in the second trimester or afterwards will tell you that there is no difference between abortion after 4.5 months of pregnancy and infanticide. The fetus/ infant often attempts to respire if it’s abdomen and head are intact, and it is usually moving vigorously as it is being sucked out of the birth canal. I have a family member, not a Catholic, who witnessed this during residency as an Obgyn and said he had nightmares for 3 months afterwards about it, and this was when he was a senior resident. I know that anti-abortion crusaders make a big deal about the procedure itself, and that their tactics are offensive, but I am just saying that many doctors in training have this visceral reaction to seeing this, and this is why there are so few doctors willing to do this procedure. In other words, it takes someone who is willing to ignore the horror to do this procedure. Given that this is the case, I suspect that the when people actually face in person the moral issues of abortion in any depth, almost anyone would conclude that there is something morally repugnant about it, when they actually have to face the reality and the event of destroying a viable human. Zionism is the exact opposite– it seems to me to be an ideology that like so many bankrupt nationalistic ideologies collapses on examination.
Once again, I realize the inevitability of abortion– I am not advocating for its abolition. A curious sidenote is that the story of Moses’ abandonment by his mother is one that is related to abortion, because that is how unwanted infants were dealt with throughout most of history. In fact, there is an entire genre of story telling in Europe, the romance, that revolves around young unwed mothers leaving their babies in the woods, where a shepherd, or a wolf, or a bear finds them and raises them as their own. Eventually, they find their way back to their parents so that they are able to reclaim their birth-right. It is clear that people in Europe and the rest of the world mostly practiced infanticide as a means of abortion throughout history.
If Israel is the religion of secular Jews, they will soon realize that the Israel they worship rejects their Jewishness, while secular Israelis reject a Talibanized Israel. Yesterday the Israeli Justice Minister declared:
It was interesting to read the talkbacks, which divided roughly in two, with secular Israelis packing their bags and others declaring that Halachic law is the purpose of establishing a Jewish state.
Which brings me back to the question that no politician in Israel can answer – what does “Jewish state” really mean? Are secular US Jews ready to worship an orthodox theocracy that does not accept them as Jews?
This is the link link to haaretz.com
but the story has been edited since I first saw it.
Witty? Is this what Jewish self-determinism looks like?
Indeed Potsherd, I wonder how the announcement of the adoption of all the Papal Bulls in predominately Catholic countries would go over? lol Shall we unearth all the historic rabbinic deliberations in regard to Torah? (in regard to your 12:25 pm post). It is goals like Neeman’s which will undo Israel from within just as fast as external opposition, in fact we can have a front row seat to watch it self-destruct.
The backpeddling going on now is enough to make your eyeballs spin.
Its all about talking big in front of your constituents, this is politics rather it be Israel, the US, or Gaza. This will never happen, its just talk. He was talking in front of the Shas’ spiritual leader for God’s sake……
There is better stuff to talk about than this, isn’t the ZOG taking over some third world country right now?
Yonira, I’m sure there were Germans who said the same thing about Hitler’s policy ambitions before… well. You know.
David, or when Hamas Ministers talk about how they used their civilians as human shields?
link to youtube.com
Difference is, this bozo from Israel is all smoke and the Supreme Court has the last word in Israel(its a Civil matter the military has no say). Who had the last word when rockets were shot from civilian areas during Caste Lead, apparently it was the Hamas Minister from the above video….
Hitler was democratically elected Chaos? You can’t just blindly compare everything to Nazi Germany, its not a strong argument.
Who is Israel going to capitulate to? There is an organization strong enough, focused enough, or loyal enough to take on the ZOG.
Fiction provided you by the fine, fine propagandists at MEMRI.
Any day now are you going to confront the mountains of evidence that it’s actually the IDF who are using people as human shields?
Fine, then, don’t take my word for it when it comes to comparing Israel to Nazi Germany.
“Difference is, this bozo from Israel is all smoke and the Supreme Court has the last word in Israel(its a Civil matter the military has no say). Who had the last word when rockets were shot from civilian areas during Caste Lead, apparently it was the Hamas Minister from the above video….”
The Supreme Court ruled that banning foreign journalists from entering Gaza was illegal and the IDF ignored those rulings.
And what difference does it make where rockets were fired from once Israel commenced Cast Lead? How many times do you morons needs to be reminded that Gaza is the most densely populated region in the world.
yonira, your dismissal of potsherd’s article is disingenuous. The statements made by the Israeli Justice Minister are outrageous, regardless of whom he was sucking up to. Imagine if a Hamas official stated that when Israel is forced to capitulate to the one-state solution, Hamas intended to make Sharia law binding on all citizens, including Jews. Imagine the outcry. No one would give him the benefit of the doubt and say, look at his audience, he wasn’t really serious. The fact that the Minister’s statements, while criticized in Israel, are also supported by a significant segment of the population and not grounds for automatic dismissal from his post, says a lot about Israeli society today. Or maybe it says a lot about the inherent contradictions in creating and maintaining a Jewish, secular, democratic state.
Consider the following argument:
1. If we meet someone who defines his/her culture as Jewish there is a greater probability for this person than for people in general that we are meeting a strong supporter of Zionism
2. Zionism is morally wrong in all respects
3. All strong supporters of moral wrong pose problems to those who meet with them
4. If we meet someone who defines his/her culture as specified there is a greater probability for this person than for people in general that (s)he poses a problem for us.
I think that 4 is a logically valid conclusion from 1 – 3 and that 1 and 3 are clearly true. 2 is very controversial but I have difficulty in denying it.
I put it this way because it reflects my experience. Venice, my favourite destination, often involves meeting with strangers in restaurants and the probability of their being Jewish – and very nice, very cultured people – is quite high. I will never forget the chill that came into one conversation when I mentioned the ME problem without indicating strong support for Israel and how, once bitten, I kept miles off certain topics last summer during a conversation with a charming Israeli lawyer and her husband. It was then that I began to think that the reserve I was showing in conversation was a form of moral alienation – and how could I distinguish this from anti-Semitism? If I had been Jewish, resisting the culture that I considered my own, how could I have denied that I was showing dislike of something important ‘within’ me, a dislike that is rhetorically called ‘self-hatred’?
I have put this in the rather trivial form of conversations in restaurants with a bit of wine around, but we could say extremely similar things about journalists and opinion-formers, the topic here. Ethnicity seems to imply a problem with the opinions they are trying to form and the claims that they are making.
Not a good place for us to be in.
Nonsense! There is no bias toward Israel in U.S. news media. Which is why you can find great coverage like this in a leading U.S. paper:
“The US cash behind extremist settlers”
link to guardian.co.uk
Oh. Wait. Nevermind.
Even the Guardian has been under attack lately.
Many of the posters you see on CiF operate from an organization called CiF Watch… an organization ironically based in New York…
link to cifwatch.com
Its really terrible.
CiF Watch? Seriously?
I wish I had that much time on my hands. As it is I don’t have time to really read most of the posts on this one blog…
Ridiculous.
Hey, those American taxpayer dollars spent by the Israeli Foreign Ministry go a long way. (As well they should, with the sheer quantity they spend.)
I took a peak at CiF watch and looked at some of their examples of anti-semitic prose. Ooh boy, regulars here are going to roast in hell for eternity based on their criteria.
You must be getting used to being called names by those who want the debate shut down..and especially point out specifics. I was verbally lashed over at Firedoglake a few years ago that the majority of host of shows at NPR are Jewish asking how that has/may influence their coverage, their choice of guest on programs etc in regard to the middle east. NPR has been accused of “pervasive cronyism” and there was allegedly an outside investigation in regard to these claims. There have been numerous employees who have accused NPR of this “pervasive cronyism”
I have heard Neil Conan, Terri Gross (one of the worse offenders) Scott Simon repeat the unsubstantiated claims about Iran. I have heard Terri Gross repeat the debunked statement that the Iranian President supposedly said “wipe Israel off the map” so many times that I lost count. Professor Juan Cole debunked this alleged statement several years ago.
Many of us seriously objected to LInda Gradstein’s biased reporting from Israel long long ago. NOt sure where Gradstein is now but her reporting was clearly biased.
FAIR did a study and report on NPR’s biased reporting on the I/P conflict.
Glad you pointed this out Phillip keep it up. Of course those who do not want these issues discussed are going to call you “anti- semitic_ The difference these days is that no one is listening to these claims when there is no substance or proof
I recently chanced to have the public radio station that carries mostly NPR programming (as opposed to the one that carries mostly the state’s own public radio programming) and one of the commentators above-mentioned (Terri Gross I think, but I cannot recall precisely) was talking about feedback from a prior day’s segment in which he was lambasted in audience feedback for making a comparison to something being as unlikely as “a kosher restaurant in Tehran.” In his not-very apology, he cited how Jewish Iranians endorsed “one kosher restaurant” in Tehran, or something to that effect. Implying that there was one restaurant in all of Tehran where Jews could find kosher food.
One has to wonder if the NPR staff ever bothered to find out what a halal restaurant would serve.
As much as I appreciate NPR I have to agree with your assessment about the commentators and their lack of objectivity in Middle Eastern issues. I am fortunate in that the state public radio network is somewhat more balanced — a lot of times they tap dance around the issue, maybe, but when they do bring it up they do tend to actually be objective about it.
I got slammed over at Firedoglake for saying this same thing a few years ago. Come on Terri Gross, Neil Conan, have guest on with a strong slant towards supporting Isreal’a agenda. Now Daniel Schorr operates far more carefully and skillfully when it comes to the language he chooses to use referring to the conflict and is sure to say Iran’s “alleged” weapons program. Where both Gross and Conan will allow the most outrageous and unsubstantiated claims to be repeated about Iran.
But hey, RAchel Maddow has done the very same thing. Not one of the MSMer’s like Maddow, Olbermann, Matthews, etc etc…touched the Goldstone Report
I know, it’s disappointing. For me, especially in the case of Rachel Maddow. Nine times out of ten she’s respectable as a pundit but, in her own way, in specific cases, she remains rather hawkish.
Olbermann is cautious and I wish he’d confront the issue a bit more strongly, but I will say I appreciated his coverage of the Gaza onslaught… perfunctory though it was. I might be reading into things too much, but I have a strong feeling that Olbermann is not a Zionist. He doesn’t seem like he’s specifically anti-Zionist, either, but (unlike the way Witty tries to foist false dichotomies into the statements of myself and others here) people aren’t limited to one camp or the other.
Chris Matthews? He’s just a blithering idiot.
Incidentally, perfunctory is the wrong word for the sentiment I was looking for, in retrospect. I meant that it was brief — I wouldn’t have characterized it as aloof. My mistake.
Just so you know who accuses you of antisemitism, here is a story about Lisa Goldman, which, if true, is quite damning.
From As’ad Abukhalil:
I think it is critical for someone like Phil, or any other person that can influence public debate in any way, to sincerely ask themselves if they are anti-semitic in attitude, or functionally, including beyond one’s own set of criteria, actually including the criteria of those that Phil dismisses.
Some of the individuals that Phil and others ridicule have ridiculous assumptions, others have understandable assumptions that deserve inquiry, others have compelling assumptions that should challenge his own.
No, Richard, I don’t think it’s critical for Phil to soul-search on whether he is functionally anti-Semitic (by which you mean gives fodder for anti-Semites, I guess.) Israeli leaders don’t seem to care if they fuel anti-Semitism, and they throw infinitely more lighter fluid onto the fire. Phil has shown not a trace of anti-Semitism, and while I found his ruminations on this subject to be incomplete, and less than compelling, it is absurd to give any credence to Lisa G’s accusation of “stirring up” or whatever. If anything, Phil’s public questioning of whether his birthright includes domination over other people signals that there are some, and hopefully many, Jews who reject such supremacy. Maybe you have more to worry about than Phil in this regard. I’ve read much more obnoxious and blatantly racist posts than yours (on other web sites), but any expressions of special entitlement for a chosen few would be more likely to invite backlash. I’m not really claiming it’s necessary for you to engage in such self-questioning, but only that it would be more appropriate for you than for Phil.
Its a question of moral responsibility, integrity, for Phil to THOROUGHLY examine his own attitudes, his own assumptions.
For him to criticize Ethan Bronner for institutional absence of objectivity (in an environment of much more political pressures than Phil experiences in his entirely free blog), without undertaking challenging personal inquiry into the question, is hypocrisy.
For you to then give him “zionist” free ride, is enabling, like Lisa G (whom I’ve never read in the slightest) is likely enabling of right-wing slander.
You again entirely misrepresent my views as advocacy for supremacy. That may be true to you by some math of “Zionism is inevitably racism”, “Richard states that he is a Zionist”, therefore “Richard is a racist”.
The logic that is applied to Phil is similarly trivial. “Anti-Zionism is racism”, “Phil states that he is an anti-Zionist”, therefore “Phil is a racist”.
Whereas the equation of “It is possible for Israel to be simultaneously Zionist and democratic, as it is possible for France to be French and democratic” makes the application the question, NOT the identity.
There is then the potential of common cause between those that are highly motivated to dissent (radical) and those that are moderately motivaed to dissent (liberal). In contrast, the “solidarity” position is either/or, no common cause possible, therefore NO POSSIBLE mass movement ever (except by deception).
“Its a question of moral responsibility, integrity, for Phil to THOROUGHLY examine his own attitudes, his own assumptions.”
Take you own advice Witty and lead by example. Of all the posters to this blog, you are probably the most dishonest.
How would you know?
It’s pretty hard to miss Witty. I’ve had the pleasure or reading your posts for the past 6 months. You obviously have little idea as to how much you have revealed about yourself.
If the only Jews I met were like Menachem Begin, Abe Foxman or Alan Dershowitz I would probably be an anti-semite. It is the rabid right that drives me that way. Some days I resent Israel for making me question myself if I am drifting into racism. My point is that it is people like Phil who give the Jews credibility. I have been called an anti-semite since 1967 when I repeated what I heard from my roommate and his friends who fought in the ’67 war in the IDF. All I can say to that is #@!$#$#$###
Phil is a humanist first.
Witty is a racist and Jewish supremacist. He’s also a moron.
Jews on the right like Dersh and also Foxman do incite antisemitism. I’d say the same of this woman who is hounding Phil at the moment.
She’s a phony too. I trust Angry Arab’s bullshit detector and she sounds like a first-class fake.
Unfortunately, you don’t have a clue as to my character or attitudes.
I am a humanist first, and appreciation of Zionism is the form that my humanism takes.
“I am a humanist first, and appreciation of Zionism is the form that my humanism takes.”
Yes, we know that Witty. Zionism is inhumane, which is the form that your humanism takes.
Zionism is particularly humane when applied as “Jewish AND democratic”.
To bad it’s not actually applied that way. Call us when you get a grip on reality, Witty.
Zionism is never applied as Jewish and democratic, because the 2 concepts are mutually exclusive. So in a way, you’re right. Zionism is particularly humane when applied as “Jewish AND democratic”, but it never has been, whcih explains why Zionism is rascist and immoral.
Actually, the two concepts are complementary, entirely compatible.
The 2 concepts are diatmetrically opposed. One is a racist, segregationist ideology that endoreses the inequality, where the other recognizes that all men are equal.
Democracy exists within jurisdictions, some geographic some social.
France is democratic and French. Canada is democratic and Canadian. Hungary is democratic and Hungarian. Czeck Republic is democratic and Czeck. Israel is democratic and Jewish.
I don’t usually jump into this particular b/c I think the debate about “is Zionism racism” is generally entirely theoretical and beside the point, but Richard, I think you just inadvertently pointed out the problem with your line of argumentation here.
If you had said this: “France is democratic and French. Canada is democratic and Canadian. Hungary is democratic and Hungarian. Czeck Republic is democratic and Czeck. Israel is democratic and Israeli” I wouldn’t have seen it. But you said “Israeli is democratic and Jewish.”
I would criticize a definition of France that defined it as “Catholic,” as “white,” as “European” in any sense other than location. “French” is national identity. “Jewish” is not–no more than “Muslim” or “Christian.”
And the idea that people-groups should be allowed to self-govern is always tempered by the facts on the ground in a given place. Bosniak Muslims didn’t automatically get to self-govern on some sort of exclusive basis–the government had to be as representatively mutli-ethnic and mutli-religious.
The national identities you’ve mentioned have been self-defined by people actually living in geographic proximity to each other. But Israeli identity was constructed on top of another identity–a Palestinian identity–that has been consistently denied and targeted for elimination.
Palestinians are not immigrants. They are not newcomers. Their own right to a national identity is regularly excluded by claims to a Jewish, Israeli, and Zionist (all three, interlocking) national identity.
Jewish is in this sense is not a religion but a people.
And, no rational Zionist seeks to eliminate the self-identification of Palestinian (its a relatively new self-identification anyway).
There is no permanent good reason for expansion. There is good reason for identification.
If the French no longer lived in France, but still identified as French, they would be a people, regardless of their geography.
Your logic is becoming increasingly shambolic.
French people are identified by their French ethnicity/nationality, regardless of faith. Their nationality is derived from the state of France. Judaism is not derived from any state, and most Jews have never been to Israel, much less originated from there.
You can argue that people are Israeli, because they are from Israel. You cannot argue that they Jewish because they are from Israel (because they might not be), nor can you argue that they Israeli becasue they are Jewish (because they might not be).
People self-identify for many different reasons. And, many that self-identify live in other locales than national.
There is no contradiction. There is your unwillingness to accept a priority that is different than yours.
Witty?
The traditional definition of Palestinian includes Muslims, Christians and Jews and would have lead (and can still lead to) a coherent nation of equals, such as France, the United Kingdom, Germany, the US, etc.
Your definition of Jewish excludes non-Jews, and results (as Israel has demonstrated, in practical terms) in ethnic cleansing and war crimes.
Your rhetorical gymnastics don’t really matter in the face of the reality of what has actually happened.
The definition of Palestinian is an open question.
Historically, it has represented a reactionary resistance to new immigration if the ethnic composition could not be controlled.
I hope that when Palestine becomes a viable state, that it will similarly be “and democratic”, and applied more consistently than Israel.
“I think it is critical for someone like Phil, or any other person that can influence public debate in any way, to sincerely ask themselves if they are anti-semitic in attitude, or functionally”
I think it would be amazing if anyone who could influence public debate in any way would critically examine their own biases–and critically examine their own racism and phobia, including anti-semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Arab bias (which some would argue needs to be included in anti-semitism), heterosexism, sexism, etc.
Witty, would you say that, as a consistent (and prolific) commenter on this blog, that you have the ability to influence public debate? Do you consistently critically examine your own biases, including anti-Arab and anti-Islam biases?
I think Phil actually examines his own biases right in front of our eyes, all the time–publicly, in a way that I don’t think many people do.
“Humanist” discourse can be incredibly racist. The Enlightenment was incredibly racist. It led to humanism but also to colonialism. Just saying “I’m a humanist” does not count as a critical examination of ones own racism.
One wonders why you only want Phil to examine his attitude for traces of “functional anti-semitism”? Why is that the most important attitude to examine–especially here in the United States, where rampant racism and Islamaphobia are part and parcel of our mainstream discourse, whereas the mainstream discourse tends toward a lifting of Israel onto a pedestal?
Oh, boy. Now JTA is coming after Phil and Mondoweiss over the Twitters with Lisa Goldman. link to blogs.jta.org
Everyone sign in at the JTA website and make an appropriate comment to Ron Kampeas’ histrionic screed –
It won’t give me the option to add in a user name in the sign in sheet, and thus rejects the form.
From Ron’s article
Ron Kampeas: To those with an onanistic obsession with identity
Ron, By the way, owns an apartment in East Talpiot, one of Jerusalem’s post-1967 “new” neighborhoods, one I purchased with a loan that had favorable terms for olim, or new immigrants.
This discussion is as much about him as it is the emotional and ethnic connections of Lisa Goldman, Isabel Kershner, Ethan Bronner, etc.
I’d like to add that Phil and others should recall the Israeli settler Ron Kampeas other articles
There is his initial attempt at dismissing the Blumenthal video “feeling the hate in Jerusalem” (which he later backed off a little).
Phil sums up the second article I’d like to bring up.
Phil, I feel empathy to you for the brow beating and pressure to feel self loathing over your work. These people attacking you are doing so in a very dishonest fashion. It reminds me of Chas Freeman’s words
Did anyone catch this from the article?
“Do you think 7 million Jews are going to disappear in a puff of smoke?” she asked the Palestine lovers. “Do you think that 3 and a half million Palestinians are going to disappear in a puff of smoke?” she asked the Israel lovers.
Last I heard 20% of Israel’s population wasn’t Jewish and there are 1.5 million people in Gaza. Somebody needs to brush up on their math.
A couple quick points.
JFK and Mario Cuomo were publicly compelled to distance themselves from orthodox Catholic teaching when they aspired to higher office. I think that was a reasonable expectation.
Joe Lieberman’s distancing in 2000– I will work on Saturday during a crisis–is insufficient in my view. I want Jews who are involved in Middle East policy to start drawing a line on the Israel stuff. I wanted Elliott Abrams called out on his statement that Jews must stand apart from the society they live in except when they are in Israel. And he was helping on war policy!
Last year or so Dan Kurtzer in his book on Negotiating Middle East Peace urged a more diverse negotiating team. link to mondoweiss.net
Kurtzer said that because he seemed to think there were too many Jews on the negotiating teams, and that had an effect. The negotiating team was Israel’s lawyer, in Aaron David Miller’s view.
I’ve never been for quotas, I’ve always been for diversity. The Times has too little diversity in its Israel coverage, and it shows.
By the way, who brought this to my attention in the first place? A person who works at the Times. A Jewish person who said, Both reporters for the Times are married to Israelis.
Finally, I’d note that Lisa Goldman identifies herself on her website as an Israeli. Why should we care what her nationality is? Because we do.
Questions of bias and ethnicity permeate the landscape of acceptable discourse.
Questions of ideological emotional attachments and bias permeate the landscape of acceptable discourse.
Its perfectly fine to talk about the patently obvious issues of bias, ethnic and emotional bias. Unfortunately, you are one of the only people who do it. If people are bothered by the exposure of tribalism, and the secular carryover of Lashon HaRa, Rechilut, etc.
How could anyone possibly say it was a bad idea to expose tribalism, bias etc? These are legitimate forms of discourse.
I’d say it’s not so much that JFK and Mario Cuomo needed to be compelled to distance themselves from orthodox Catholic teaching; rather, they needed to demonstrate that, as elected representatives in the American public, their interests would lie first and foremost with the people they represent, not with anything handed down from any authority from or invested by the Pope. Granted, they were compelled to do both, but I think only the latter is truly an element of national interest and security.
And you raise a good analogy with that example. Supposing we were giving billions of dollars a year to Vatican City, helping them build a “security” wall and Catholic exclusive highways and settlements that snake their way across Italy, leaving less than 20% of Italy in the hands of non-Papal authorities, and blocking action by the UN to stop them from maintaining a total blockade, and then a shore to shore air strike campaign, on Sicily? How would Americans react if our government were granting exceptionalist support to a “greater Rome?”
Phil, these are powerful words. Keep it up. They are more important than the powerful bombs that the US and Israel are using to get their way.
Phil, do you sense that these sort of accusations are still as toxic as they once were, or is it fading a bit?
When my name got posted on ADL’s site for giving a talk about divestment at Eastern Mennonite University, I took it as sort of a badge of honor–laughed it off. I have a sense that my generation of activists on this is a lot less terrified of being called anti-semitic. We have a lot more in the way of people who have gone before us who have demonstrated that you can confront racism, anti-semitism, islamophobia, xenophobia, and that in fact all of this is a key component for the struggle for justice and equal rights, including for the Palestinians.
When I told my dad ADL had put my name on their site, he was really worried. I wasn’t. I know that I work in my church against remnants of anti-Jewish and anti-semitic theology. I know that my Jewish friends feel safe and do not worry that there will a government-sponsored campaign targeting them. I know that I and my friends will go to town on the crazy right-wingers spewing anti-semitism just like we’ll go to town on them for spewing racist and sexist speech. So I’m not worried. Do you get the sense that this lack of worry is spreading?
Well Phil I would just say welcome to the club, I stopped worrying about this a while back. Perhaps we should start unifying to build a reporting service on this subject that is much much more unbiased?
The thing that I find peculiar about this is that we have a large amount of people who seem to be concerned about concentrations in media. The predominant reason why there is such media emphasis is because it has become the province of individuals with money and influence, the two go together. Yet no one wants to face a system tht has delivered this lopsided influence. God bless America…
Why on earth would Phil worry that anyone would consider him an anti-Semite? I don’t even understand why he would consider it himself. If anything, what separates people like Phil from their Zionist detractors is that they each have different views of what is good for the Jews. Okay, Phil is more of a universalist, but when the two groups are at loggerheads, Jewishness does appear to be the real issue.
Because Phil is a sensitive, honest, thoughtful person. At least, as far as I can perceive. And like anyone else with those three traits, when confronted with the accusation that he is hurting someone, he is forced to pause and re-examine what he is saying and doing to make sure he isn’t.
Which is, incidentally, demonstrative of the mechanism by which Zionist thugs seize the initiative away from Jews who actually believe in or practice the tenets Judaism.
Seriously, look at the way Witty badgers him. Endlessly. I’d infer that’s been the structure of their friendship for a long time.
There has to be a point where Phil just ignores the claims as being ridiculous. A person can be sensitive without being neurotic or foolish.
Let me know if there’s a manual or a guide or somesuch on that. I could use it, myself. :)
RE: “I’m accused of anti-semitism” – Weiss
MY COMMENT: I known that for years! The missing ‘L’ was a ‘dead giveaway’, PHILIP.
RE: “the Jewish community very rarely welcomes my point of view and often screams at it” – Weiss
MY COMMENT: Stop your complaining, Phil! Where’s the old ‘stiff upper lip’? Do you want to be a member of ‘The Most Righteous Order of the Conscious Pariahs’ or not? You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Phil is not served by the rah-rah. He is definitely not served by mudslinging.
Like with the Goldstone report, the way for the IDF to be more confident is to inquire into the accusations sincerely, to SEARCH out what elements of the report are accurate, informative as a small bridge to a greater internal inquiry.
For Phil to at one serious sincere effort (with recurring review) to run through the various definitions/angles on what is or could be anti-semitism, would make his voice a more confident one. I don’t mean in tactical ability to defend his positions, though that would occur. It would give him the ease to respond with equanimity, to be confident himself that he is not projecting.
And, it would likely change his work objectively in some respect.
As he has a constituency (a brand), he also has pressures to conform to what his constituency expects. Integrity demands that he be loyal to truth and goodness from multiple perspectives and scales, and not only to the math of specific political agendas or pet theses.
Keep twisting that knife in your friend’s back, Witty. Gee, we don’t have any clue at all about your character, do we?
Integrity demands that
heAmerican media on the Mid East be loyal to truth and goodness from multiple perspectives and scales, and not only to the math of specific political agendas or pet theses.Fixed it. This is the problem that really, only Phil brings up. Its a big one, and the only rebuttal people has is for Phil to “fall in line” with the secular (and not so secular) tribalist versions of Lashon HaRa, Rechilut, etc. It gets old to watch people try to impose this tribalism on Phil and to browbeat him with this fear that he is contributing to anti-semitism (dun dun dun).
Its perfectly fine to talk bout tribalism, ethnicity, and bias. Unfortunately, no one is doing it despite the massive tilt in the media. If you state that “Integrity demands that … be loyal to truth and goodness from multiple perspectives and scales, and not only to the math of specific political agendas or pet theses. ” You’ll understand that having Israeli settlers, Israelis, and Jews married to Israelis constituting U.S. media coverage to be a severe break from “multiple perspectives and scales” and support Phil in trying to correct this bias in the collective media. You might want to consider starting up your own work to bring this integrity and multiple perspectives to our collective U.S. media.
Its certainly his right to talk about whatever he wants to. And it is the likudniks right to talk about whatever they want to.
The question remains though of what is created by one’s actions, subtle and gross.
Its opportunistic/odd to say “they didn’t do their job, therefore I don’t have to do mine”.
Its opportunistic/odd to say “they didn’t do their job, therefore I don’t have to do mine”.
Actually, the point is, collectively vis-a-vis U.S. media, that “Integrity demands that … be loyal to truth and goodness from multiple perspectives and scales, and not only to the math of specific political agendas or pet theses. ”
Phil’s site is nearly the only site providing the other side to explore their ethnic connections to the subject as Israelis, Israeli settlers, and Jews married to Israelis.
If you believed your words, you would help Phil in support and helping to cover this issue so that U.S. media would be better at “truth and goodness from multiple perspectives and scales, and not only to the math of specific political agendas or pet theses. ”
When I was confident that Phil was simply inquiring, I regularly referred him to articles that I discovered, some that supported his positions, some that opposed.
I do that less now, as it seems to me that Phil’s editorializing have drifted to the more partisan than inquiring.
As I’ve said before, the invocation of “Zionism is racism” in any form is oil and water to a reform oriented position.
Rather than address the application of Zionism, including accepting Israel, the radical approach denies Israel’s foundation, Israel’s identity.
Just so its not a mystery: The issue is the collective U.S. media.
If theres going to be a preponderance of Israelis, Jews married to Israelis, and like Kampeas, Israeli settlers in high profile, well paid, and influential positions in journalism, there is a serious problem in bias and a need for “truth and goodness from multiple perspectives and scales, and not only to the math of specific political agendas or pet theses. ”
Collectively in U.S. media, there is a massive need for balance in this issue.
You should help.
Bronner spent more time in Gaza than Phil did, and without a guided tour.
Bronner is married to an Israeli. Of course he spends time in Israel. This is the point being made about tbias vis-a-vis ethnicity collective U.S. media. Bronner is working in one of the most prestigious positions in U.S. journalism.
A more neutral POV, and definitely a Muslim married to a Gazan is not on the table. What we have is the Israeli POV.
Integrity demands that … be loyal to truth and goodness from multiple perspectives and scales, and not only to the math of specific political agendas or pet theses. ”
No one needs to accept Israel’s foundation. It was founded on lies and mythology. It was founded through the expulsion and dispossession of the indigenous population.
There would be no Jewish State w/o the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
Jews don’t let anyone forget about their suffering. They still chase Nazis down to this very day. The Palestinians are being asked to forget and move on by Jewish Nazis like you Witty.
Zionism is inhumane. It is exclusionary. It is about preferential treatment for Jews. Zionism has been an on-going process of expelling the original society in place before the mass Jewish emigration that would ultimately usurp it.
Zionism is not about ‘self-governance’ – that is not the defining characteristic.
And Bronner’s reports from Gaza were rubbish. Phil interviewed the victims. He put them on camera. He humanized them. Who cares if he had a guided tour? What part of Gaza did Phil NOT see that he should have?
If he was looking at Gaza from a telescope, he’d still be more accurate than the Zionist hack, Bronner.
Stop spamming this blog, Witty. No one wants to read your bullshit.
Witty, do you think you are just inquiring? You have defined for yourself your position as “nonpartisan,” but it’s simply not true.
To assume that someone’s identity influences their views is not at all indicative of racist assumptions about that identity. Claiming that there is some sort of monolithic entity called “the Jews” or that, say, Jews steal Christian babies and drink their blood, is anti-semitic. Saying that a person’s identity as an American Jew married to an Israeli or as an Israeli Jew probably influences that persons views on Palestine and Israel is not. By any stretch of the imagination.
And you, Richard Witty? You lay claim, repetitively, to a “humanistic” world view. Yet have you critically examined the biases inherent in your own perspective? Have you searched your own statements? Examined from all angles the definition of words like “humanism” and “Zionism” that you use so frequently?
I see you defending Zionism a lot, as an example. I don’t see you internalizing much of the critique that Zionism, regardless of how one theoretically defines it, has manifested itself in a campaign of ethnic cleansing and settler colonialism. That is how Zionism has been experienced by Palestinians. I don’t think you lose much sleep over it, though.
Because you are not really as inquiring as you want to be. You are, in fact, quite partisan. Which is fine. Just don’t pretend to be something you are not.
Reading this comment again, the arrogance of it is mind-numbing.
Richard, do you examine how you sound to others?
“When I, as arbitrator of what is acceptable inquiry, was confident that Phil was simply curious, I regularly referred him to articles that I, as a self-proclaimed expert on the topic, had discovered (being quite the explorer, myself), and was an incredible example of balance and honest inquiry.
But now, Phil has drifted away from the bounds of inquiry as defined by me, unlike myself, who maintains my balance. What a shame.”
Ugh. Gross. Get over yourself.
“Ugh. Gross. Get over yourself. ”
He doesn’t engage honest criticism–anything which hits too close to home he either ignores or alternatively, he accuses the critic of support for terrorism. If he ever engaged in serious self-examination he’d be deeply ashamed of the way his pretensions contradict his actual behavior, so I don’t expect it to happen.
The odd thing is, as I’ve said on other occasions, is that I agree with some of Richard’s positions. There is a danger in criticizing Israel that people will let their just anger against Israeli atrocities morph into something more like hatred. And there’s also a tendency to demonize one’s political opponents, to see them as having the worst possible motives. I see that in the comments section here sometimes, even with Witty, who is sometimes jumped on even when he says something sensible (yes, it can happen). For another example, when Chomsky is criticized (and there are good reasons to criticize his disregard of the Lobby), people sometimes fantasize about the worst possible reasons he could have for his position. It’s far more likely that Chomsky reacts the way he does because he grew up in an anti-semitic America, also at the same time the Holocaust occurred, so he’s understandably leery of talking about the Lobby–it probably brings out latent fears in him. He’s wrong, but it’s understandable. It’s not healthy to think that just because someone is clearly wrong, he or she must have the worst possible motivations for taking that position, but this sort of assumption is made far too often here (and other places). A little empathy for how other people see a given situation never hurts. It doesn’t mean one has to agree with them.
I think it would be good to have some liberal Zionists around here, people to balance the more hard-edged critics and maybe lessen the tendency towards demonization. My hypothetical liberal Zionist would be completely honest about Israeli crimes, however. RW doesn’t fit the bill. He makes things worse. He genuinely wants peace, but not at the cost of facing up to facts that he doesn’t want to face.
An excellent point, Donald. But I actually think Chomsky downplays the lobby because he has spent his professional and political life devoted to rational, humane inquiry. The lobby is largely motivated by identity and emotion, as Phil and others point out regularly. Chomsky literally can’t fathom that people could be presented with the facts about the Mideast and not come to a similar conclusion to him. So he misses something right in front of him — not out of fear, because I think he’s fearless, but because he can’t conceive of basing your beliefs on anything other than logic.
Chomsky has no problem fathoming the notion that western gentiles can be racist, sexist, or ethnocentric, so I am afraid that argument simply doesn’t hold up
You make a lot of good points, Donald.
Actually, in a way I agree with Chomsky on this. Although I think the analysis of folks like Meirsheimer and Walt is useful, a lot of the conversation about “the Lobby” as it plays out in U.S. activism on this issue is really problematic because it’s often a demobilizing discourse.
I’ve had so many encounters like this: I’m giving a presentation on Israel/Palestine. Things are going well. People are engaged. I start giving advocacy tools. I talk about advocating against military aid or about BDS. And someone says something like “Well, the thing is that the Israeli lobby is so powerful that there’s nothing you can do.”
When I hear that, all I hear is “I don’t feel like really doing anything, so I’ll find a powerful force to blame.” It’s not the the Israeli lobby isn’t powerful. It’s that so is the military tech/’defense industry’ lobby and the insurance lobby and all sorts of other powerful forces that we are up against. That’s no excuse. It just means we have to be creative and clever and dedicated and wear oppressive structures down. Which is why I think BDS is such an important tool.
I see a lot of this “demobilizing discourse” in the sort of self-righteous attacks that you describe. It doesn’t usually advance the cause or the debate at all, it’s just venting emotion. And we don’t want to vent emotion. We want to figure out how to channel it into effective campaigns.
“Rather than address the application of Zionism, including accepting Israel, the radical approach denies Israel’s foundation, Israel’s identity. ”
In other words, you’re insisting that we ignore the pratical realities of Zionism, and focus on what Zinism could be in theory.
And no one is denying Israel’s foundation or identity. No one particularly cares, so long as Israel return the land that they stole and minds their own business.
That’s a good point about some talk about the lobby being demobilizing. If one overestimates the power of the lobby it can be demobilizing. I like what you say about not caring about false accusations of antisemitism because you and your friends know perfectly well that in cases where there is real antisemitism at work, you’ll be at work fighting it. That’s the right spirit. (Though easier for me to admire than practice).
You didn’t read my post? I said that Bronner spent more time in GAZA than Phil.
Ask. Accusations are insufficient.
As I said, my humanism affirms the relevance of nationalism as a form that people choose to self-govern. And, it affirms that relative to Zionism.
Again, I see the insistence that a self-identified people not be permitted to self-govern, to be a form of racism.
It is the reason that I criticize expansionistic forms of Zionism as conflicting with Israel’s basic law and identity of simultaneously Jewish and democratic.
But, I regard the formula itself, the proposed dual criteria for political success, as excellent.
If you are going to quote me, actually quote me. Use my words.
“It is the reason that I criticize expansionistic forms of Zionism as conflicting with Israel’s basic law and identity of simultaneously Jewish and democratic.”
But Zionism is by it’s very reality, expasionist. Without expasionism, there would be no Jewish state, but a democratic one.
Again, you’d have to ask what “facts” I’ve faced or ignored.
I definitely do NOT adopt a statement by Phil, Adam, Blankfort, Chomsky, Finkelstein as truth because it is in “writing”.
The assertions are too topical, too speculative in identifying complete set of facts, and in assessment of political context and significance.
I read history for that.
Ask of my understanding, before condemning.
“The assertions are too topical, too speculative in identifying complete set of facts, and in assessment of political context and significance.
I read history for that.
Ask of my understanding, before condemning. ”
The usual self-serving self-glorifying patter. You ignore facts that hurt your feelings and much of the criticism you receive around here is based on long acquaintance with what you’ve said. Some of the criticism of you is kneejerk, but much of it is not. And it does no good to try to have a discussion with you–if the facts go against your position, you don’t reply or you reply in foggy terms or you accuse your opponent of support for Hamas. What’s interesting is that when facts do support your position you write as clearly as anyone.
You are actually one of the most disrespectful people around here–that isn’t noticeable at first, because you don’t use explicitly harsh language and people around here frequently lose their tempers with you, but your behavior pattern (outlined above) is deeply disrespectful of others. Yet you constantly demand that others treat you with respect.
“Ask of my understanding, before condemning. ”
I forgot to add that this statement is condescending and disrespectful in itself and not coincidentally, you use this line all the time. The implication is that people haven’t read or understood your deep thoughts and that others here must kneel at your feet, begging for whatever tidbits of wisdom and knowledge you wish to bestow, rather than criticizing your positions. If they criticize they must not understand and should ask the great guru to enlighten them.
Again,
I suggest that you experiment.
The behavior that you describe of responding to what one chooses to characterizes 100% of the participants here.
If you accurately do not understand my attitudes and conclusions and math, but condemn anyway, that is something different than criticism. As my views have been consistently misrepresented, I conclude that people have not bothered to find out what my views actually are.
For example, in this thread I posed the question of math.
“If Zionism is racism” and “Richard says that he is a Zionist”, then “Richard is a racist”.
Or of Phil,
“If anti-Zionism is racism” and “Phil says that he is anti-Zionist”, the “Phil is racist”.
Both maths are incomplete and innaccurate, trivial.
Is that your math?
Let’s rewind a bit, shall we?
The Nakba, the civilian victims of Operation Cast Lead, the fact that an ethnic cleansing is going on in the West Bank, and the fact that prominent Israeli politicians in highly placed government positions often call for, at the best of times, the explusion of all non-Jews from Israel, and at worst, their outright slaughter.
I’ve ignored NONE of those. I express my observations and objections in very different terms than you, and with qualifications (noting that there are multiple persons/groups/law affected).
The NAKBA – Occurred, but other events also occurred at the same time period, that were equally disturbing and must be incorporated into a full telling. I support Palestinians day in court to assert their land claims, and have for two decades. I oppose vague class-based definitions of “right of return”.
Civilian victims of Cast Lead – I described my impression that Hamas initiated the resumption of a state of war by attempting to harm Israeli civilians exclusively (but failed thankfully) between it and Israel, didn’t have to, and insisted on some military response. I described my impression that the extent and duration of military response was excessive and deserved the light of day, but not only blanket condemnation (which is not the light of day but a preconception).
I’ve consistently opposed forced removal of Palestinians from their homes, and argued for equal due process under the law on title questions, but felt unsure to make a judgement on single cases, or to invoke a Pavlovian “Israel is demon” at every stimulation. (You confuse that unwillingness to join in summary judgement with advocacy of a process.)
On advocacy for expulsion of non-Jews. I again consistently oppose that. I consider that there are idiots on all sides of the line. It is troubling that such idiots are elected to high office.
I consider the unwillingness of the far left to adopt accepting language of Israel as a contributor to Israel’s rightward swing. I attempt to explain what I understand of Israel’s consciousness, which you also seem to regard as advocacy, innaccurately.
I get how you could be confused. But, I wish you would bother to clarify.
Really? Because as I have to point out, quite a few topics that contradict your assertions fall quite nicely into your blind spot.
“As my views have been consistently misrepresented, I conclude that people have not bothered to find out what my views actually are. ”
What you do is focus on those cases where your views are misrepresented and then use this as an excuse (along with many other excuses) to ignore or sidestep criticisms which do not misrepresent your views. I think it is unfortunate that you are sometimes unfairly criticized in part because it has contributed to your martyr complex and this self-absorption. You aren’t any slouch when it comes to misrepresenting other’s views–almost every day you come here and slash away at Phil and others and anyone to your left is automatically a supporter of violence according to you. That, Mr. Witty, is a lie, one you’ve tossed at me a few times.
The actions of your more intemperate critics do not justify your own evasions. (And anyway, the intemperance of some of your critics is the result of your own behavior.) You have a double standard on human rights. You think you’re in the rational center because you criticize some of Israel’s atrocities and there are people like some of the commenters at Dan Flescher’s blog who justify everything Israel does. You don’t do that, to your credit. You nonetheless do justify some of Israel’s crimes and place the blame for them on Hamas. You react vehemently to BDS and blame the left for advocating it, yet place the blame for the Gaza blockade not on Israel and Egypt, which impose it, but on Hamas and even the left. You try to blame all the crimes of Israel that you do acknowledge on the Israeli right. You also ignore the misdeeds of the Palestinian Authority. You support the critics of Human Rights Watch despite their obvious bad faith.
And you just don’t respond in any way other than vague platitudes when confronted unpleasant facts. I’ve seen others confront you in very polite and respectful terms and they soon found it was a waste of time. I had some hopes for you when I first started reading this blog–I like your language of reconciliation, reminiscient of what is said in Tikkun, but further reading soon disillusioned me. You don’t argue honestly and always, always, when confronted with criticism you react with a combination of condescension, self-praise and self-pity. You talk about the people who email you in support–I wish some of them would show up here and make their own case. Are they really as one-sided on human rights issues as you are with respect to sanctions, for instance? Is that what they admire in you? I’d like to think that they aren’t paying close attention–they see people calling you names and see your superficially polite responses and haven’t observed you long enough and closely enough to know what sort of condescension and disrespect you’ve shown virtually everyone who’s ever tried to engage you seriously. It’s your defense against arguments that you can’t win on a rational basis.
Donald,
I explain my reasoning, my math, adding up what I know into what I understand, why, and how.
I do not make judgements about very contemporary events because I cannot tell what is true from what is untrue, from what is exagerated, from what is misinterpreted.
I’ve had enough experiences in my own life of feeling sure of the truth and political significance of events, and later finding out that the presentations were innaccurate, and that my interpretations were misrepresentative.
With Israel/Palestine, I DISTRUST the reporting from the left more than I distrust the reporting from the Times and Haaretz, so don’t hold your breath looking for some judgement from me, which I regard as at least partially Pavlovian.
Phil wrote to me very briefly about his attempt to build an identity for the blog. The relevant questions for that branding is to identify the characteristics of what he wants the blog to be understood as.
My sense is that he has a very current informative stream within a set of a few themes, risking that the presentations are not true in fact, true in context, nor compelling in action.
One characteristic of the brand that is now lacking, is that confidence of the reliableness of reporting. Even if he is confident of the truth of his posts (which I don’t believe that he factually can be entirely), the world of the undecided cannot rely on this blog.
The intensity and condemnations of the converted make that ever more of an upstream effort. It diminishes the impact of what might otherwise be more compelling commentary. More dismiss this blog currently, than trust it.
I rely on it for initial information and for commentary. When Phil condemns the MSM, those are the articles that are the least compelling, mostly for the form that they are written, as a condemnation rather than as a clarification.
You’re a denier, Witty. Time and time again you deny the crimes that Israelis wrought upon Palestinians. Time and time again you are completely absent from any discussion here where actual evidence of such crimes are presented.
You can bloviate all you like, Witty, but no amount of excess verbiage will hide your complicity with Zionist apartheid philosophy and policy.
Try skepticism as your intellectual mode. Do you believe what you read here? Or, do you take it in as possible truth?
I take it in as possible, and will not knee-jerk my support for any position implied.
Only if you take your skepticism to the Holocaust and see where that gets you, hypocrite.
What you call “denial”, I am proud of as intellectual integrity relative to gullibility.
Bullshit. Sand did exactly that to Jewish mythology, and you’ve been foaming at the mouth to condemn him for it. You talking about intellectual integrity makes as much sense as John Bolton talking about international diplomacy.
I stated that Sand didn’t accomplish addressing a functional mythology, but barely surface straw dog ones.
Whether Jews were exiled in mass by the Romans, or that there were conversions to Judaism, is insignificant. The assertion that at least some Palestinians are likely descended from early Jews is important, as it brings home the moral theme of “your neighbor may be your actual kin”, hopefully resulting in compassion for the other.
He AFFIRMED that he was Israeli, just questioned some fourth grade stories.
We ALL hopefully got past our American mythology, you know George Washington and the cherry tree, and studied further.
The conclusions of the first anger at “you lied to me”, are nearly as childish as the stories themselves.
Just so long as we’re both clear the Zionism was assembled from a bunch of child’s stories. My point still stands. You are demonstrably intellectually dishonest. Time and time again, you apply one set of standards to Jews (“We can reclaim that land, even after thousands of years”) than you do to Palestinians (“Only living Palestinians can reclaim their land.”) That’s only one of your moral inconsistencies.
Of course it was NOT constructed from “fourth grade stories”. It was constructed from a combination of experience, history and mythology (the reliable kind, neither factual nor false, heart story).
Sand’s objections were to straw dogs, from what I’ve read here and elsewhere and from video.
A skeptic would regard it as of limited merit, certainly NOT rationale to “prove” that Israel doesn’t have a right to be Israel.
You keep repeating the phrase “straw dogs” as if the ritual of associating an absurd image with Sands without actually confronting the case he lays down in his book (which you STILL haven’t read).
Face it, Witty — you’re a two-bit propagandist.
I haven’t heard anything from what has been described as Sand’s thesis, that carries any adult weight.
The examples that posters have presented here as his basis for the grand “Fraud of the Jewish People”, are trivial and miss the point, miss the reality.
If that is your road, that you understand as rubber on the road, its really sand.
Maybe because I haven’t read the book, either. But then, I’m not pretending to be speaking with any authority on what he wrote, like you are. See, that’s called academic integrity.
And incidentally, Witty, you go a long way to proving how fraudulent the Zionist perspective really is.
“The examples that posters have presented here as his basis for the grand “Fraud of the Jewish People”, are trivial and miss the point, miss the reality.”
Um no. This is simply false. On this issue I even sympathize with your viewpoint to some degree, but part of what Sand apparently presents (I also am relying on others, not having read the book either) is the well-known evidence (to archaeologists at least) that much of what is presented in Exodus and Joshua appears to be historically inaccurate. There is no evidence of a massive exodus of Jewish slaves from Egypt and no evidence of a conquest of Canaan by their children. This kind of thing matters a great deal to many Christians and Jews (and maybe even some Muslims, for all I know). Now one can get around this in some way, perhaps by arguing that the biblical accounts greatly exaggerate the numbers involved, or maybe by saying there is a spiritual truth in the accounts that matters more than the factual reality. But this isn’t some trivial issue. (And of course Sand is not the scholar who presented this evidence–it’s well known to anyone who even halfway follows Mideast archaeology.)
I was startled to hear (at the Magnes Zionist blog) that there was no massive ethnic cleansing of the Jews by the Romans.
If these claims don’t matter, then why do so many people feel an emotional attachment to them?
As for the reality of the Jewish people, I’m not familiar enough with Sand’s claims even at secondhand to comment. To me group X is a reality if a large number of people claim to be members of group X, even if they have built up a partially false mythology about their history.
Key word “massive”, that is a “straw-dog” word.
And “no discovered evidence” is not the same as untrue.
Even if the exodus were small, it would still be a valid story. Even if the story were not literally true, it would still be a valid origination story, as valid as any.
There are some Jews that regard Torah as literally accurate, with no contradictions. They are FEW and very far between.
There were two choices in Zionism. One was TO self-govern somewhere. The second was where. For whatever sentimental or confused reasoning, the Jewish people have always been Zionist in terms of seeking return to the originating site of their self-identification, mythic or literal.
And, it was TRUE that the majority of the land in the region was unoccupied. Exclusion would be unjust, residence not so.
And, as Buber and Einstein concluded after the severe civil strife and war over permitting ANY sovereign Israel, a state was necessary, that organized self-defense was necessary.
History made the reality, not conspiratorial intent. The presence of some conspiratorial intent, did not make the history. That was only one possible outcome.
Some of history occurs by rapid change in war. Some by more deliberate and rational.
I’m proposing that Israel and dissent adopt the deliberate and rational, rather than the exclusive, angry, warring.
“When Phil condemns the MSM, those are the articles that are the least compelling, mostly for the form that they are written, as a condemnation rather than as a clarification”
And yet you defended Richard Bernstein’s factually inaccurate attack on Human Rights Watch. Factually inaccurate, because he claimed HRW’s Mideast reporting focused on Israel’s crimes, which was false. And there is overwhelming evidence that Israel has committed war crimes and lied about it, going back decades. Bernstein’s complaint was purely reactionary–he obviously didn’t like the fact that Israel’s atrocities were being harshly condemned, but he had no basis for saying that HRW’s reporting was false and his claims about HRW focusing mainly on Israel were also false. Yet you defended Bernstein in your usual vague way, as though there was something laudatory or good about having an inaccurate criticism of the work of HRW in the NYT. So apparently a purely negative and actually false criticism is good if it is leveled at an organization which, among other things, also criticizes Israel.
As for media criticism, the pro-Israel slant of the NYT is fairly obvious if you compare it to what one can read even in the Israeli press, let alone what one sees in the reports of Amnesty International, HRW, or B’Tselem.
I defended Bernstein’s comments in the same manner as I “defended” Goldstone’s, that they should be taken seriously, NOT dismissed.
Inquired into further for their information value.
The New York Times reporting of Israel is not materially different than what is reported in the Israeli press. I would expect Haaretz or even Jerusalem Post to have a wider range of opinions expressed, as 90% of their articles are on Israel in some respect, whereas only 1-2% of New York Times are.
The New York Times published op-ed’s by Goldstone, Khalidi, Fayyad, even Hamas foreign minister.
The accusation of journalistic conspiracy on Israel issues is a paranoia, not an observation.
Try asking Mohammed Othman and Abdallah Abu Rahmah about how well Israel responds to that. Or hell, how about Jimmy Carter?
And how often are those opinions presented alone, and not paired up with the Israeli/Zionist perspective? Every New Yorker knows the name Gilad Schalit — how many know the name Mohammed Othman?
Massive ethnic cleansing would mean that most were ethnically cleansed. I always had that impression–that the Romans had forced out most of the Jews after the second revolt. Apparently it’s not true. Not that I know one way or the other. I have no idea what you mean by “straw dog” word, or rather I think I do–you feel the need to criticize my statement, have nothing to say, so you said that.
As for the Exodus, yeah, if there was a small exodus I would find that comforting. But you have a rather casual attitude towards the problem, which doesn’t surprise me somehow. For centuries people have believed the literal account–that there was an exodus of 600,000 Jewish men along with their families (probably 2 million people or more) who fled Egypt. And if archaeologists say there is no evidence of such an enormous event either in Egyptian records or in the Sinai peninsula, where these people are supposed to have lived for 40 years, that matters. There ought to be some sort of evidence. Similarly, there is no evidence of a conquest by outsiders of the land of Canaan. I actually feel somewhat relieved, since the Bible depicts that part of the story as the Jews being ordered to commit genocide by God. That part of the Bible has had a bad moral influence on both Christians and Jews down through the centuries.
As for your recommendation that people be rational and not violent, I agree. I don’t think you follow your own advice, however, given your harsh reaction towards BDS and your defense of the Gaza blockade. It would be consistent to oppose harsh sanctions on both Israelis and Gazans, but you do not.
“I defended Bernstein’s comments in the same manner as I “defended” Goldstone’s, that they should be taken seriously, NOT dismissed.”
That’s exactly my point. You trivialize Goldstone by pairing him with Bernstein. Goldstone’s report deserved to be taken seriously because he and his team did a lot of hard investigative work. Bernstein wrote a hack job attack on HRW, one without any factual merit. Yet you equate the two and you don’t understand the difference, or pretend not to.
There’s no virtue in being “openminded” in this regard. Bernstein has the right to voice his opinion, but if his opinion consists of inaccuracies and emotion devoid of any factual basis, then a rational person dismisses his opinion as invalid (and even a little despicable, in this case).
Creationists make the same argument you do. I agree that if someone makes an extraordinary claim, then maybe it should be heard. But having heard it, and found there is no evidence to back up the claim, one then dismisses it. There is no obligation to pretend that the Institute for Creation Research puts out papers that contain arguments that shouldn’t be dismissed. And after awhile, one soon realizes that this particular source is unlikely to write anything worth reading.
“And “no discovered evidence” is not the same as untrue.”
This is why it’s pointless to debate you Witty and why your claims of academic and scholarly integrity are fraudulent. How can you assert something is true, when there is no evidence to support it? As we saw with the Iraq WMD debacle, Iit’s impossible to prove something doesn’t exist, therefore, it is you that is using straw dogs, not Sand.
If a story is not literally true, then it becomes a myth, which is what Sand is asserting and like you, Sand has also agreed that the myths have become significant to Jewish identity,albeit false. The Jewish claim to Israel is entirely based on these false stories, so they are important insofar as they have to be exposed as false,
Even if it’s true that very few regard the Torah as literally accurate, most Jews still cling to the false history of devine right to the land,
Zionist is a recent secular political movement, and at the time of Israel’s creation, most Jews were not Zionists, so it is blatantly false to assert that that Jewish people have always been Zionist in terms of seeking return to the originating site of their self-identification. Your logic is not only flawed, but it’s flawed and self referencing,
It is also false that the majority of the land in the region was unoccupied. That is a myth like the one about the land without a people. There are countless quotes from Zionists contradicting that other myth.
Buber and Einstein are liars in so much as they use the outcome of the war to justify what the Zionist founders had already planned long before the war. ANY sovereign Israel was an impossibility with the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians. Self defense has been Israel’s raison d’etre sine 1948, including the justification for occupation.
Your spinning and revisionism and pathetic and increasingly incoherent.
The threading feature associated with “reply” seems to be broken.