John Mearsheimer has said that the more pressure is put on the Israel lobby, the more it must resort to smashmouth tactics. Two recent examples:
–Daniel Gordis, a leader of a thinktank in Israel, tells a Connecticut synagogue that the west is in a war with Islam, though it’s politically-correct to deny this reality.
–Jeffrey Goldberg does a "racist-uncle" post on the arrests of US Muslims in Pakistan. (per Spencer Ackerman)
Yeah, expect Witty to come around and foam at the mouth at the headline and completely exonerate Gordis’ and Goldberg’s statements.
Read my comments.
I supported elements of their statements, and disagreed with other elements.
I wish Phil did the same.
Let me get out my checklist here…
Accuse the rest of the readership of being illiterate and ignorant? Check.
Shallow colorless truism that proves nothing and merely takes up line space? Check.
Attack on Mr. Weiss? Check.
I assume that Phil take offense at headlines like “Weiss anti-Zionism linked to anti-semitism”.
He should, that would be an offensive and misrepresentative headline.
Attack on the headline with addressing the content of the post? Check.
Without addressing, rather. Heh.
Richard: Our recent exchange suggests what is sometimes your style:
Mondoweiss: It is cold in New York today.
Richard: What is your evidence? Where in New York?
Mondo: The national weather service reports 29 degrees for New York City.
Richard: Is the national weather service reliable? Where in New York City? In the shade?
Mondo: In Central Park. In the shade. The national weather service has been official for more than a century.
Richard: What does “official” mean? And isn’t “cold” subjective — wouldn’t an Inuit visiting from above the Arctic Circle find New York “warm?”
Mondo: Cold by the consensus of the inhabitants of New York City.
Richard: How did you arrive at a consensus? What are the comparisons with December 12 in the past? What about other places at the same latitude, in Nebraska, for instance?
What I like about you is that I don’t think you are doing this for hasbara/troll reasons. I think you are a genuinely idealistic Zionist who is having trouble seeing what the dream has become. But you do have enough intellectual courage to keep visiting Mondoweiss, unlike those, say, who are so frightened that they simply slandered Richard Goldstone without reading his report.
So please, keep posting. But don’t be surprised when people get exasperated with you.
Hey I want Witty to keep posting. He’s the most coherent Zionist I’ve ever had the displeasure of interacting with and you know what? This is the best that side of the debate can ever muster. That’s why I focus on Witty first and foremost — he’s the strongest proponent Zionists have on this blog and if he can be exposed for what he is, it hurts the whole Zionist rationale.
In all seriousness, that’s unfair to Zionism. Witty is typical of a very common type of liberal Zionist, the kind that is sometimes critical of Israeli misdeeds, but in a limited and dishonest way. (BTW, the current issue of Harper’s has a very good article on this, but I don’t think it’s online). But there are better, much more honest representatives of the Zionist cause, people who don’t try to excuse Israeli crimes or pretend they can all be blamed on the Israeli right–I’ve seen them online at other places. They’d probably feel uncomfortable here–like most of the blogosphere, this comment section has taken on a tribal feel and someone who is outside the consensus of the regulars here (which is anti-Zionist) is going to feel uncomfortable at best and also, there are occasional outright antisemitic statements made. Witty hangs around, in part because he’s utterly convinced of his own rectitude and criticisms he receives he just dismisses on the grounds (sometimes true and sometimes not) that the critic has misstated his views.
It’d be good to have more of the honest type here, challenging people’s views, because it’s not healthy for us to sit around thinking that we’re completely right about everything. Witty, if anything, just reinforces that tendency. But it’s not likely to happen, again because most blogs have this tendency to attract people who mostly agree with a given position.
“Realistic Dove” tries to get a wider range, I think, but it’s mostly people who range from Witty on over to the outright racist settler right. So it doesn’t succeed, except when a few people from here occasionally comment over there. And Dan Flescher seems horrified by Phil, poor baby.
I think that the activity of the regular commenters here is likely to repel a typical visitor, Zionist or anti. A first-time visitor to the comments will only see that they are dominated by ingroup feuds and references to someone named Witty, about whom no one cares except these few regulars.
When Phil announced his drive for donations, I did donate. But not as much as I could have, if I thought this site were going to live up to its potential. But the crippled software and the behavior of the commenters will prevent this, and it’s unfortunate.
Potsherd? We can be polite after the air strikes on the beseiged population of Gaza stops. We can be polite after mosques and olive orchards and Palestinian homes stop getting razed.
I’m sorry to say, but fighting injustice is dirty work. If you aren’t willing to invest, aren’t willing to get emotional, aren’t willing to really care about what you’re talking about, then how persuasive do you really think you’re going to be?
Perhaps new people coming to this blog should be aware that Witty represents
Zionism’s best ethics here?
I still find the comments section to be one of the best parts of this site.
On your parallel.
I am skeptical of reports or assertions that I hear here. Skepticism is not rejection, but it is not advocacy or acceptance. A case in point is the report of the campus organization that asked Chomsky to speak, that Phil characterized as organized persecution against Chomsky, which the campus organization clarified was their failure to plan logistics sufficiently.
A big phrase cited here is “international law”, and OFTEN innaccurately referring to ICJ or General Assembly resolution as international law. Its not, and it is RELEVANT to ask for clarification of what is meant.
You can trivialize the importance of those questions by reference to the weather, but the importance of the questions, and the application of international law remain, hopefully to a high standard of compelling proof.
Justice is only “objective” when principles and even conclusions are consented or accepted.
The current status is of much contention of principles, some retained to preserve abusive relations towards Palestine and Palestinians, some retained to preserve abusive relations towards Israel and Israelis.
I just described to my wife how GW was instrumental in entirely muddying the waters on Jerusalem (accepting the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem publicly), and on the West Bank settlements (accepting some as fait accompli).
The present is now different than the past, and continously moving. Democracy compels addressing the present.
I personally still regard Palestine as at 67 borders, with the exception of the Jewish portion of the old city of Jerusalem, and consider the Arab League proposal to be compelling and rational.
I don’t believe that those literal borders will be what ends up in a consented solution. I prefer and recommend that Palestine be comprise of 101% of the green line boundaries, but that they work it out between them how that gets divvied up specifically.
The most defensible for each are square borders, but as each require parts of Jerusalem in their jurisdiction, it will then inevitably be shaped somewhat oddly.
That then compels a good neighbor relationship, cultivation of MUTUAL goodwill, in order to stick and not devolve into war, that civilians get the short end of.
Correction, Witty —
You are skeptical of Palesitnian reports or assertions. You doubt and question the Palestinians perspective because it is Palestinian. On the flip side? Anything that is put out by Israeli authorities and Zionist organizations? You trust implicitly.
To put it simply: you are a racist.
I am skeptical of Israeli reports as well.
Rationally.
…and your “skepticism” has lead you to believe that a tunnel being dug in Gaza was OBVIOUSLY an existential threat to Israel and totally justified Israel breaking the cease fire on November 4th of last year.
You’re a blatant liar. I would prefer if you didn’t insult noble words like “Rationally” by abusing them like you do.
Witty equated the Goldstone Report with Richard Bernstein’s fact-free assault on Human Rights Watch. This is like equating a graduate textbook on evolutionary theory with an anti-evolution pamphlet put out by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Plausibly an attack site. NOT the definitive “Israel broke the cease-fire” that too many have repeated without skepticism.
How does Dick Witty think about the vertical wall being built by Egypt under specs from the US Army corps of Engineers (and as part of our continued foreign aid to Egypt conditioned on Egypt sucking Israel’s tukus) , to eliminate the worth to the Palestinians to their tunnels? Ditto, the US army training of Palestinian cops (mostly from Jordan)
in Jerusalem to enforce Israel uber alles?
Oh, “plausibly” an attack site? So as long as an attack “might” come from somewhere, it’s open season for the IDF as far as you’re concerned?
Cliff’s right. You are the Jewish equivalent of a Nazi.
Please don’t misrepresent my words.
I stated that they both should be taken seriously. Bernstein was an executive director of Human Rights Watch for an extended period. He is informed sufficiently to describe either a change in definition of their work, and/or change in standard of evaluations. Maybe he’s wrong. Maybe he’s right.
But he (Bernstein) definitely never substantively criticized Israels activity during his tenure, which gives you a hint of why he is absolutely wrong.
You’re equating an opinion piece which is blatantly contradicted by observable data (Bernstein on HRW) to an official report overseen by a respected jurist under very specific protocols of objectivity (Goldstein on Operation Cast Lead).
What is there to misrepresent?
You said that neither Bernstein nor Goldstone should be dismissed. But Bernstein’s piece contained factually incorrect material easily disproven about HRW’s alleged focus on Israel and his obvious motivation was to discredit HRW because it was critical of Israel (and Hamas and Hezbollah and indeed, virtually every armed group or government in the Mideast). Once one realized that the proper reaction to his emoting would be dismissal.
To say that neither Bernstein nor Goldstone should be dismissed is a ludicrous equivalence–you’re comparing Goldstone’s careful investigation with an obvious hack job. But you welcomed the hack job.
Witty – you are a liar.
He did not provide a substantiated counter-argument.
He simply used his former standing as a way to smear HRW.
He is a Zionist first and anything else second.
Just like you.
You can’t tell us WHY his critique is right or wrong, you just beg the question. Just like you don’t tell us what’s wrong w/ the Goldstone report – to the extent that it should be used by Israel, merely as ‘information’ – as you put it.
If Phil had any kind of moderation on this website, you’d have been banned a long time ago for your point-scoring, dishonest snake-like rhetorical games.
You’re a racist and fascist.
Richard: Donald is right. You can disprove Bernstein’s emotional claim that HRW concentrates unfairly on Israel simply by going to HRW’s website and seeing the huge number of reports about other Mideast nations, and the rest of the world generally.
The significance of Bernstein was that he was an informed individual on a limited opinion. The life of the significance of his piece was a couple days.
The significance of the Goldstone report lasts still.
To take them both seriously is not “equation”. Its good for Human Rights Watch to be criticized.
Your comments mostly related to the timing of his criticism, that seemed to dismiss the importance of the Goldstone report. I was clear that I opposed that dismissal.
In the stream of things, my proposal is on the left of the spectrum. My dissent is in the middle.
I personally consider proposal to be more important, peace as more important than justice. (Peace meaning consent, not meaning quiet.)
How come you only care that HRW gets criticized when Israel needs to be defended?
You personally consider “peace” to mean “consent?” Well, then. Explain this.
link to jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com
You are full of shit, Witty.
The legitimacy of a critique is the validity of the critique itself – NOT the person doing the critiquing.
You accept literally at face-value a critique that supports your ideology. When it’s a critique that contradicts your ideology – then you accept at face-value (literally) condemnation of said critique.
You have revealed yourself to be a fucking liar and snake. Keep digging that hole of yours, you scumbag.
“Its good for Human Rights Watch to be criticized.”
It is good for them or anyone else to be criticized accurately when they do something wrong. It is not good for the former founder and director of HRW to dishonestly trash the organization because he doesn’t like what they say regarding Israeli war crimes. It’s not good to tell lies about their alleged one-sided focus on Israel when in fact their reports on Israeli war crimes are usually accompanied by reports on the crimes of Hamas or Hezbollah, and when the bulk of their Mideast reporting is on the various other countries in the Mideast.
It’s just a teensy bit ironic that you complain so much about how your views are misrepresented when HRW’s own record was so badly misrepresented by Bernstein and you said this shouldn’t be dismissed.
As for the significance, we now have on record a former HRW head claiming that his organization is biased against Israel. You yourself cited that as a reason why his claims shouldn’t be dismissed. This will be used as a talking point against HRW reports on Israel forevermore.
Donald,
You can let the Bernstein single op-ed pass.
It distracts as you say.
My comments on Bernstein were limited, just “hear him out”, NOT advocacy.
Witty? How often can we point out that Bernstein was heard out and his accusations can be shown demonstrably to be FALSE?
And this coming from the same hypocrite who denies testimonies of Palestinians driven out by Zionist militants, and wants to believe they “just left.”
Hearing him out, in my opinion, means reading him. Then one checks his claims, finds that they are bogus, and dismisses his piece. One also looks with suspicion on anything else he chooses to write on this subject. (BTW, he also echoed the Reagan Administration attacks on Americas Watch back in the 80′s, when they didn’t like what Americas Watch reported on the behavior of US allies in Central America. )
But if you are tacitly admitting his piece was wrong, good. It was like pulling teeth to get that out of you, but better late than never.
Witty keeps on with his abstractions; reality keeps on with it’s non-Jewish real victims. Palestinians first, regular Americans second. I suggest we ignore Witty.
Chamberlin, saying “Peace is at hand?”
Humpty Dumpty–how does an egg sit on a wall?
link to counterpunch.org
I notice how the Jewish Ledger article accepted Gordis’s comments without reservations.
the thread that joins Christian zionism with Israeli zionism is that both rely on the Hebrew Torah mythology that Natan Sharansky spelled out in “Jewish Identity” — the myth of Exodus and ‘choseness.’
For Jews, or at least Jews like AISH.org’s rabbi Ken Spiro, that means the right to be the moral leaders of the world. It’s all about who’s in charge; it’s about power.
For Christian zionists, it’s pretty much the same thing:
stunning statement in a July 2009 Salon article about the “C Street House” and its “family (values)”
link to salon.com
Phil,
Why did you edit your headline?
I agree with the current one.
Witty? Do you actually read anything besides headlines? Though actually that would explain a lot…
Witty just thinks he is an editor here, when he is merely a pain in the ass with nothing substantive to say…lol
Richard, I changed the headline because an hour after I posted I was shaving and thought, that headline is too provocative and anti-Zionist, I know nice Zionists who are not Islamphobic, I want to keep them on board with my messaging; change the frikkin headline, and fast! Now I see your comment, and agree with you. By the way, it’s cold in New York today… ;) Phil
Thanks. It is cold in Massachusetts as well.
It’s cold in Gaza too, but I daresay Witty could care less.
“Daniel Gordis, a leader of a thinktank in Israel” – in the true sense of “thinktank,” and oxymoron in Israel…lol
Not necessarily, when one considers that one definition of the word “tank” is “an enclosed vessel which contains something and keeps it from spreading.”
Yes Chaos4700, I have referred to many as “septic tanks.”
I should have said “for the most part” in the above post @ 1:36…hehe
Witty, you are wrong about your definition of international law. You wrote
Here is the Cornell law school site definition, link follows.
link to topics.law.cornell.edu
How does that conflict with anything that I’ve written?
You’ll have to forgive Witty. He only reads headlines.
This is absolutely on target. Your readers may be interested in following the antics of Jewish-sponsored Islamophobes in Loon Watch. The number of these neo-fascists showing up at Boston-area synagogues (particularly in Stoughton) is astounding.
Witty, you wrote that
Justice is not contingent upon a person, or group of persons, accepting or consenting to it. You have it exactly backwards.
Quoting from link to legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
“[Justice is] a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.”
One’s due is subjective. Different individuals, groups have different understandings of what is their due.
AGreement/consent, makes it more than just subjective.
That’s right! Don’t forget, Jews have different privileges than Palestinians, so different forms of “justice,” as Witty refers to it, apply to one group than to another.
But Witty doesn’t support apartheid, oh no!
“Different individuals, groups have different understandings of what is their due.”
Maybe so, but that doesn’t make it justice, that makes it personal opinion. The system of laws determine justice. Justice is blindfolded, remember?
“One’s due is subjective.”
Yes, of course it is subjective when it is a person’s understanding of the law. But in a court of law, a person’s understanding of the law is not justice. Justice is based on the system of laws.
It makes the definition of justice subjective.
That subjective definition of justice is improved by consent. The most compelling is consent to principles, from which the conclusions may be consented (even in cases where there is difference).
Laws are not the same as the term “justice”. Laws are enacted by factions. The presence of a Zionist stacked deck will and has yeilded laws, that are not fully justice.
The US constitution elevates legislated laws to a higher level than common or other rational bases of law. One of the themes of Supreme Court deliberation is the degree that US law should be from principles versus “fundamentalist” relying only on legislation and literally.
The significance of a basic law, is that it articulates the principles to which legislative law must subscribe. US Constitution is more a description of procedures, responsibilities of office, and institutional relationships.
Law is one area in which cultural assumptions vary considerably.
There are a few examples of international legislation that Israel and most of the rest of the world has signed, and affirms current ratification. The Geneva Principles, and the founding documents of the UN are two examples.
But, the UN does not have any body analagous to the Supreme Court that determines if ratified resolutions are in conformity with prior law, or in conformity with basis principles. That weakens the degree of consent to the UN than otherwise.
There are many institutional reforms needed for the UN to become a primary basis of governance and law.
The nation/state is still the primary political entity in the world. Bi-lateral agreements, Multi-lateral agreements are encouraged but originate in the individual parties’ agreements. The UN serves largely as a mediative body more than an authoritative body, with limited force to enforce mediation.
Was justice subjective at Nuremberg? How about earlier, in Weimar?
You’re a twit, Witty. You are literally making the case for apartheid. Bending over backwards for it.
What are you talking about? Congress creates the US law under the Constitution. The Supreme Court interprets those laws for a given situation where parties are at loggerheads over the meaning of a law.
As for the rest, read about the ICJ:
link to en.wikipedia.org
There is no agreed definition of Justice. Many abstract definitions of Justice are logically circular, and so, simply skirt the issue. Justice implies value(s). It appears to me that the concept of equality is most inherent in Justice. Related to Law, then, equality before the law for those in (essentially) the same factual circumstances.
Any student of Law constantly finds general legal principles/rules; then, exceptions to those principles/rules.
Does Justice require X keeps the full value of his/or work?
Does Justice require some of that value be given to Y because Y is in dire need of it?
And so on.
I’m a bit confused. What is Ultra Zionism? I understand that Zionism is the support of a Jewish homeland in Israel. This is the first I’ve heard of Ultra Zionism?
Damned if I can tell the difference, honestly.
Chaos that’s interesting. I guess this article had a different title but it was changed because Mr. Witty brought up something unfair about it? The new change leads me more confused however and it doesn’t seem helpful
Well, then. Now you have some insight into Witty’s motives, I daresay.
We have to look at the reality of speakers here, to judge the source; American Jews, protected by goy police and military force, are represented by Weiss and Witty. What do you think the 98% of the USA, the goys, would say about either one of them?
Philip, it’s high time you begin consistently using the term ultrazionist instead of zionist, so those scumbags can no conflate a racist desire to enact genocide and apartheid based on racial supremacism, with a movement to provide a permanent safe place of refuge for all Jews.
I am a zionist. I SURE AS HELL am not an evil ultrazionist.
Zionist leaders’ hatred toward Pakistan Muslims is historical and well documented. The Father of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Ganghjee never agreed with British plan of a Jewish homeland it Palestine. However, Ben Gurion knew the Hindu extremists’ (Hindutva) hatred toward toward Muslims – that’s why he told Knesset member in the 1950s that Iraelis should cultivate close relations with BJP and other Muslim-hating groups – because both the Zionists and Hindutva has a common bond – Islamophobia.
“It is essential that we strike and crush Pakistanis, enemies of Jews and Zionism, by all disguised and secret plans,” David Ben Gurion, first prime minister of Zionist entity.
Mumbai attacked by Judo-Hindu terrorists
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Islamophobia needs a bit of defining. Refusing to hire Muslim people- stupid and hateful. Suspecting all Muslims of wishing to kill all Christians and Jews- stupid and hateful.
Checking Muslim males aged 18 to 50 who get on airplanes rather than the little old Chinese lady who gets on the airplane, probably a wise use of personnel. Assuming that a mass murderer who yells “Allahu akhbar” before he kills 14 people might be at least partially motivated by Islam- probably a smart initial assumption requiring backup evidence as time allows more information to prove or disprove said theory.
Let’s get down to some real cases: if free elections were held in Egypt today would the Muslim Brotherhood win? From what I read I assume so. Would that be good for the people of Egypt? In the long run, maybe, because there is no way to get from here to liberal democracy in Egypt without first passing through a Muslim Brotherhood phase. Would the Muslim Brotherhood give up its power if their policies are disproved and they are voted out at the polls (say 25 years after their initial victory). Certainly unproven. What would the Middle East look like with the Muslim Brotherhood controlling Egypt? As a supporter of the Israeli Egyptian peace my opinion is biased. But I wonder if it would be so great.
Does Islam wish to conquer the world? Which Islam is that? From my knowledge of Judaism and Jewish history I know there are many ways to interpret the Torah, so from my superficial perusal of the Koran I assume that there are different ways to interpret the Koran including a tolerant way and a world conquering way.
Flip the mirror.
How about the IRS focuses its auditing efforts on Jewish males aged 30 to 70 rather than African Americans or Hispanics? Not anti-Semitism, hmm? Just a wise use of personnel, as you put it?
You aren’t merely a bigot, WJ, you’re a foolish one.
Chaos4700, the argument that WJ makes is classically called “rearranging the room.” It is leaving all the same objects in tact, just applying and arranging them to ones taste. In other words it still leaves suspect over a billion people, and it still acquiesces to the bogus “war on terror” rhetoric, but with a different arrangement.
I might add, the “rearranging” goes on while entire nations are being attacked. It is about as valid as dropping a one ton bomb in a heavily populated apartment building in Gaza to “get the terrorist.” In other words, it is a bogus argument.
I agree with most of what you wrote WJ.
I think there is an Islam that is tolerant and intolerant, as w/ all religions.
I also wonder if the Muslim Brotherhood would accept defeat in a hypothetical future scenario.
Although, I think in the case of the Fort Hood shooter, there are lots of reasons he could have went postal for. No one needs religion to kill people. And when it comes to Arabs and Muslims, there are perfectly non-religious reasons (not perfect in the sense of legitimate reasons, just within the context of non-religious ones) to go postal.
Meaning, he could have been upset about Gaza. Or about Iraq and Afghanistan. Etc.
I mean, there are legitimate grievances amongst the people of the Arab and Islamic world. That does not mean the way in which they deal w/ their problems is just or legitimate.
Terrorism is terrorism.
perfect comment by Spencer Ackerman, and precisely what made many of us take a closer look:
Instead, let’s examine what we have here, since we don’t actually have any substantive engagement with the thing-itself. We have a meta-observation that depends on a presumption that the rest of the world wants to ignore Something Sinister about Those People, and only Brave Truthtellers will tell the Truth about Those People. This isn’t journalism, or analysis, or criticism. It’s empty and vile innuendo. This is your racist uncle who shoots you a what’d-I-tellya arched eyebrow when the evening news shows a black man being arrest. The Atlantic is treating as journalism, and will continue to.
Of course these statements are completely altruistic …
Five out of 1 to 7 million that is q impressively significant percentage. Also, why doesn’t Goldberg bother to look into the special cases? Something about this feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let’s hammer it into Muslim heads: you are all terrorists, hopefully some more will join the cause for us to point fingers at. Maybe it is?
Including the perfect conspiracy tale headline?