The Reut institute, a Tel Aviv thinktank, has presented a report on the delegitimizers of Israel to the Israeli cabinet. Some of the language recalls the "loose coalition" language of Walt and Mearsheimer, accurately describing the Israel lobby. The Reut Institute was praised by Arianna Huffington on her visit to Israel. From Haaretz– oh and why can’t the American press cover the delegitimizers? I remember Benny Morris striking the gong on delegitimization in the New Republic a couple years ago. Hey, this is a story:
The report cites anti-Israel demonstrations on campuses, protests when Israeli athletes compete abroad, moves in Europe to boycott Israeli products, and threats of arrest warrants for Israeli leaders visiting London.
Reut says the campaign is the work of a worldwide network of private individuals and organizations. The network’s activists – "delegitimizers" the report dubs them – are relatively marginal: young people, anarchists, migrants and radical political activists. Although they are not many, they raise their profile using public campaigns and media coverage, the report says.
The "delegitimizers" cooperate with organizations engaging in legitimate criticism of Israel’s policy in the territories such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, blurring the line between legitimate censure and delegitimization. They also promote pro-Palestinian activities in Europe as "trendy," the report says.
The network’s activists are not mostly Palestinian, Arab or Muslim. Many of them are European and North American left-wing activists. The Western left has changed its approach to Israel and now sees it as an occupation state, the report says. To those left-wing groups, if in the 1960s Israel was seen as a model for an egalitarian, socialist society, today it epitomizes Western evil.
The delegitimization network sees the fight against the former regime in South Africa as a success model.
It seems this is aimed at domestic propaganda in Israel. A textbook attempt at discrediting the forces behind BDS as mere anarchists so that the average Israeli will continue to swallow the government propaganda and hate mongering whole without ever questioning the murderous actions of a rouge state.
So on the one hand Israel pumps out nonsense like that while on the other hand it turns around and tells the public that once they step out of Israel’s borders and venture into the outside world anti-Semites will eat them alive.
So which is it, Israel? Care to make up your mind?
The blowback from this is going to be important. In making such an issue over “delegitimisation” Israel is only leaving itself open for people to start questioning the truth. Israel’s only card in this game is its image, that by exposing the truth, the delegitimizers make it look bad. Israel wants to keep its mask of lies in place, but it can’t do this without admitting it is only a mask.
They’re talking about you Philo!
They’re talking about us Mondies folks!
And they’re right to be nervous. Cause it’s spreading and people all over can now smell the stench of zio-slaughter… the eye searches for what the nose can smell eh.
Only yesterday in Hollywood-CA, I happened to meet a fresh-faced nineteen year old hiphop/gamer, you know the type. He started talking about gang wars in LA and El Salvador. Then he said, “It’s like what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians everyday except it’s illegal for gangs here to do it” – he was referring to how gangsters terrorize struggling neighborhoods.
I did not expect this example from such a localized citizen of Los Angeles.
The lamb-mask is peeling off the face of zionism.
Good! We need to keep it up, keep up the pressure.
“The cabinet should also confront groups trying to delegitimize Israel but embrace those engaged in legitimate criticism.
The report adds that Israel should not boycott these groups, as Israel’s embassy in Washington does with the left-wing lobby J Street. Boycotting critics merely pushes them toward joining the delegitimizers, Reut says. ”
They name Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as legitimate criticism.
They are talking about you Phil.
That was an “interesting” descripti0n of the Huffington article. I didn’t see any direct or implied comments about Reut.
You are a player in this.
Its important enough for your attention, for your focus for now a few years.
And, one reason that you’ve described that its important to you, is that it is important for the world, and your home community, US. And, certainly, actual threats are real (not imagined), directed at all parties. And, certainly things can spin out fast.
So, given that it is important, sensitive and dangerous, YOU have to do your self-defined job well, very well. And, that takes clarifying what your goal is, and also clarifying how you hope to get there.
Vague qualifiers of “I haven’t yet decided what I think” are fine if you are going to apply the arms-length journalistic standard, which you don’t. If you are going to be involved, be an advocate, you have to clarify what you are pursuing.
This is not opposition to a war 12,000 miles away (Vietnam) to protect yourself or family from the draft, or even to a war 8,000 miles away (Afghanistan), or 7000 miles away (Iraq).
Phil is a player and you’re not – and you just can’t stand it.
My, my. Dicky Witty projects (Freudian) his own character onto Phil, still annoyed that Phil has a blog and he does not. As for myself, I find it annoying that Dicky boy sucks all material and civil rights benefits from being born in the USA, returns nothing to the USA–except his tribal racism. Let’s have a poll: Who is more American, Phil, or Dick? Please include Why.
“They name Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as legitimate criticism.”
AI doesn’t take a position on the “legitimacy” of a state–they stick to their mandate of criticizing human rights violations. I think (but am not positive) that HRW is the same. Both accuse Israel of war crimes, so if the Israeli cabinet took this report seriously they’d start whatever the Israeli equivalent is of impeachment proceedings, along with war crimes investigations, trials, and so on.
Delegitimization appears to be a buzzword for “comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa”. If the shoe fits…. Also, when a government is guilty of terrible crimes and shows no willingness to investigate itself (and that’s most governments guilty of terrible crimes), then to some degree it is illegitimate or deeply immoral or whatever else you wish to call it.
Do you get the distinction between criticism and demonization?
Yeah, I get the distinction, but I don’t think you do. You often react to criticism as though it is demonization. Take an Israeli atrocity and a similar Palestinian one and you will condemn the Palestinian atrocity without reservation (while perhaps acknowledging historical background), but unless the Israeli killers are far right extremists, you will usually downplay the severity of their crime or find some way to put the blame for it on Palestinians.
The criticisms of HRW and AI of Israel are much tougher than any I’ve seen from you–their criticisms of Hamas atrocities are more or less the same as what you would say.
Off-topic–
I was clicking on some of Phil’s links and found this interview with a witness to the massacres in Gaza described in Joe Sacco’s latest book–
link
I agree that there are people who go too far in criticizing Israel–for instance, I think comparisons to what the Nazis did are over the top. People on both sides should stop dragging in the Nazi comparison. In that respect I’m critical of Norman Finkelstein. I think his books are a very valuable resource and will probably buy his new one (as I doubt it will appear in local libraries), but it’d be better if he toned down some of the rhetoric When he sticks to the facts of what Israel has done and how its apologists have whitewashed its crimes he does a valuable service, but he might be limiting his outreach with some of his language.
Donald, from the Palestinian POV, other than the fact they are not being tossed into ovens, or literally penned in and starved of essentials by barbed wire–and if so, then what do you call the open air prisons and wall?–is there no similarity at all by a comparison with Nazi Germany? Don’t forget to include a comparison of Nazi ethnic superiority with Zionism. You could even factor in that Nazi Germany supported itself, while Israel, dependent on US welfare dole and EU reparations and guilt, can’t quite be so independent in pursuit of its military and ideological aims.
There’s about a zillion comparisons one could make–in some ways the best one would be to the treatment of American Indians by European settlers. Though in many cases US treatment was worse. On the other hand, nowadays nobody claims Native Americans have to be confined to their reservations. (Though to make the comparison exact you’d have to imagine 200 million or so Native Americans confined to a continually shrinking 18 percent of the US land mass as the whites continue to steal more land.) The South African apartheid comparison is maybe even better and it obviously rankles, but in that case I have no sympathy, as it is a case of the shoe fitting.
Comparisons to Nazi Germany in the 1930′s would be legit, but when one thinks of Nazi Germany one normally thinks of death camps and genocide and the mass slaughter of tens of millions (counting all the victims). Pulling the Nazi card is the kind of thing that both sides do just to rub salt in each other’s wounds.
I think you are confused about my characterizations.
I don’t seek for Gazans to not self-rule, nor for West Bank Palestinians. My criticism of Hamas is of decisions and actions.
And, I save my criticism of Israel for settings in which it is distinct, and possible to be heard as content (dissenting), and not condemned here for not being sufficiently condemnatory.
I don’t think apartheid is parallel, nor the experience of Native Americans, nor naziism, nor Northern Ireland, nor the Balkans.
What is going on in Israel/Palestine is unique to itself.
What is needed is change to a humanization of all the people and peoples that reside there.
If criticism helps that process wonderful. It might not be the key though. Quiet and mutual humanization might be better. Definitely, ANY dissent that reaches the level of threat, including the threat of deligitimazation of Zionism (Israeli national sovereignty), likely will be harshly rejected by Israelis.
There are finite number of options to pursue, and dissent that does not distinguish between what its goal is, only reaches complaint, and doesn’t reach change.
Encouraging revolution in some form is the lazy approach. A gamble with others’ lives.
RE: “What is needed is change to a humanization of all the people and peoples that reside there.”
OK, Dicky, after decades of the US masses being pumped with the romantic narrative of the movie Exodus, and decades of stereotyping the Arabs as camel jockeys at best, what say our MSM start showing both sides of the issue in detail for mass consumption, you know, so that we can all make responsible decisions regarding our foreign policy in the Middle East? You should be writing letters to the NY Times about its lop-sided coverage and opinions on the Middle East whenever Israel is involved, not telling us here on Mondoweiss that all people should be humanized. You’re like a German patrolling the Warsaw Ghetto who sends letters to the resistance that all people should be humanized.
Again, I think you are confused (or intentionally misrepresent) about my views.
I suggested strongly to Phil and others in media, that they develop a documentary of the history of the region, or some digestible part.
It could not be done accurately by any definition of “objective fact”, as many exagerate their subjective interpretations to. It would more resemble Morris’ setting of multiple narrative, “Righteous Victims”.
From a setting of multiple, equally accurate (and equally innaccurate) perspectives, there are three options.
1. Impose the Zionist narrative (as you wrongly complain that Exodus did)
2. Impose the Palestinian narrative
3. Reconcile, accepting both as relevant and accurate.
“And, I save my criticism of Israel for settings in which it is distinct, and possible to be heard as content (dissenting), and not condemned here for not being sufficiently condemnatory.”
You criticize Israeli crimes in a mild way here and at Realistic Dove, but criticize comparable atrocities (the deliberate killing of civilians) in a much more forthright manner, without equivocation, when Hamas does it. To the extent that you represent a typical liberal Zionist, it’s going to be difficult to reach a fair peace agreement, since when there is violence you will find some way to put most of the moral blame for it on the Palestinian side, whether or not that is the case. Or to put it another way, by definition violence is always initiated by Palestinians (the day to day violence of the occupation doesn’t register) and Israelis are only guilty of overreaction. That’s the mindset of many liberal Zionists and that aspect of their thinking (and yours) needs to change.
Exactly. And I posted a whole bunch of stuff on the cease-fire and the violence of both sides.
Israel did not honor the cease-fire from the get-go, carrying out cross-border attacks and not lifting the siege sufficiently.
It’s not difficult to understand.
Who does Witty cite? What are his sources?
We cite the mainstream NGOs, the news reports. We compare the violence and the day to day stuff.
We cite the scholarly record.
What does this fellow do? Nothing. He speaks in abstractions.
It reminds me of this MLK quote:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
– Martin Luther King, Letter from Birmingham Jail, 16 April 1963.
Of course, Witty isn’t even a moderate. So MLK’s words are better suited for someone less fake, less ideological, but still unfair and myopic.
I will leave it up the readers of this blog and their fact-finding abilities, to decide whether or not the film Exodus (sponsored and funded by whom?), which was the version of the I-P conflict given to generations of USA citizens,
(complete with Newman’s blue eyes and Eva Marie St’s shiksa beauty), to decide if that film (and book) played a key part in the average Americans view of Israel’s formation and entitlement to US taxpayer (huge) taxpayer dollars and equally endless US vetoes in the UN Security Council whenever the conduct of Israel was under scrutiny.
Tell us Witty, why you think I mislead the American readers of this blog about how the movie Exodus filled the American public with a stupidly romantic version of Israel, to harness both USA treasure and lives in the service of Israel, a foreign country with its own agenda not the same as the USA’s?
It’s Pseudo-Socrates again!
“‘Do you get the distinction between criticism and demonization? “‘
Yes witty. It’s criticism when it’s about the Palestinians, and demonization when it’s abotu Israel.
Did I get that right?
“I don’t seek for Gazans to not self-rule, nor for West Bank Palestinians. My criticism of Hamas is of decisions and actions.”
But when Israel make the same decisions and actions, you blame Hamas for it.
“‘And, I save my criticism of Israel for settings in which it is distinct, and possible to be heard as content (dissenting), and not condemned here for not being sufficiently condemnatory. “‘
Translation: Criticism of Israel is only acceptable if it can be blamed on the right wing extremists.
“I don’t think apartheid is parallel, nor the experience of Native Americans, nor naziism, nor Northern Ireland, nor the Balkans. ”
Who cared what you think Witty? Those who know what apartheid is, such as Desmond Tutu and Nelsom Mandella to this Israel is an apartheid state, so you’ll excuse us if their opinion carries more credibility than yours.
“What is going on in Israel/Palestine is unique to itself.”
Only in so much as it’s worse that what was going on in South Africa.
“What is needed is change to a humanization of all the people and peoples that reside there. ”
Translation: Whatever happens, Israel must not be held accountable.
“Encouraging revolution in some form is the lazy approach. A gamble with others’ lives. ”
Translation: A gamble with Israeli lives cannot be tolerated, but the status quo, which is destoying Israeli lives, is acceptable for the time being.
One need only look at the day to day violence on the part of Israel, to comprehend the degree to which Witty has gone into utter denial and spin.
For example, these are some headlines from the last week or so. I won’t include the hyperlinks, because this blog limits hyperlinks, but I am happy to provide them.
Israeli occupation troops kidnap 150 Palestinians in two days
Israeli Army Open Fire on Gazan Farmers and International Observors
Israeli warplanes bomb southern Gaza
Israeli warplanes target Gaza airport
Now just imagine if Hamas had perpetrated any one of those crimes? Witty would be screaming from the rooftops that Israel has the right to defend itself, but because it’s Israel doing it, he will insist that any retaliation by the Palestinians is irresponsible, foolish and evidence that they are itching for war.
“Do you get the distinction between criticism and demonization?”
Well, maybe not, but I bet the detailed and rapid and respectful response Phil gives to all your comments is lost on you, Witty.
You should thank someone who does you a favor, Richard. Especially someone who spares you an embarrassment.Didn’t your Mom stress that when you were growing up?
What we have here is…
a) A strawman. The alleged “delegitimation” is an insinuation leveled against a non-defined group, and thus nicely impossible to verify.
b) A feeble attempt at divide et impera.
c) A likewise feeble attempt to take control of the debate – the critized party assuming the right of telling critics what they are allowed to criticize and what they have to keep their hands off… unless they want to be ghastly demons… I mean demonizers.
The historian Paul Johnson interview repeat of 2/7/10 CSPAN2 show today, regarding the question, is it the times or the man, prompted by a call-in generic question on the subject–Johnson said in response (essentially) that there is no question that Hitler was a beneficiary of a change in general perspective reaching a turning point. Reminds me of the old saw about the wheels of justice turning slowly, but grinding well… just look at
the arc from the Balfour Declaration to the Gaza Turkey Shoot. Now, digest this:
link to gilad.co.uk
The important question is “what is Phil doing?”
Is he an advocate for a position? Is he an investigative journalist (on a specific story)? Is he an objective journalist?
Is he a talking head?
And, to the question raised in the article, does his undefined role attempt to delegitimize Israel, as distinct from criticizing actions and policies?
If any regular on this blog remembers Phil ever saying or implying (however faintly) that Israel has no legal right to exist, please step forward.
If you had to choose who is the “tough love” parent, and who the “spoiled brat enabler”–in which category would you place Phil Weiss, and which Dick Witty?
For purposes of this exercise, please view their respective writings as impacting the larger community, meaning both the USA and the World.
And Phil is smarter than to love knee-jerk defenders that pose only for or against as the range of comment.
Dick witty, are you infected by the famous anti-semi disease? Can you please define what is the demonization of Israel?
Then why don’t you be as smart as Phil instead of raising a question calculated for bi-polar response:
“And, to the question raised in the article, does his (Phil’s) undefined role attempt to delegitimize Israel, as distinct from criticizing actions and policies?”
Do Dick Witty’s pattern of comments over the years attempt to white-wash
Israel’s actions and policies, as distinct from objectively evaluating that subject?
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s fame.”
What is legitimate dissent vs demonization/fanaticism?
A very good question.
My dividing line would be any effort that seeks the dissolution of Israel as Israel, or the elimination of the prospect of a viable Palestine would be demonization.
I would consider the analysis of the Gaza/Israel conflict in December that regards Hamas’ actions as not materially consequential, not constructing a setting of war, is demonization of Israel. Goldstone for example did NOT conclude that in the slightest. He criticized the extent and manner of Israel’s otherwise legitimate military response.
Norman Finkelstein on the other hand, did describe Israel’s response as not excessive, but any as war crime. If I am summarizing his comments accurately, that would constitute demonization.
Question: What do you mean by “Israel as Israel?”
Question: What do you mean by a “viable Palestine?”
Question: Why do you bring up the fact that Goldstone concentrated only
on the actual Israeli full scale IDF attack on Gaza for the Turkey Shoot weeks, and did not
include the time leading up to it? Why do you assume Israel’s military response (including the proportion I assume–you didn’t say) was “otherwise
legitimate?”
BTW, anyone can check out if Witty’s characterization of Finklestein’s characterization of Israel’s response is accurate. I submit, it’s not.
Viable Palestine is one that is functional, facilitates healthy citizenship, has a thriving independant and interdependant economy, is contiguous within the West Bank, and has good neighbor relations with its two neighbors (Israel and Jordan).
Israel as Israel is one that is simultaneiously culturally Jewish and affords full equal rights to all residents in a color-blind manner.
Goldstone made the distinction that Israel had a right, an obligation even, to militarily counter the initiation and then escalation of shelling of Israeli civilians. His investigation was limited to specific inquiry into examples of war crimes. (His conclusions extended in ways beyond that to generalizations of intent and scope of intent – Its definitely a baited setting for him as the definition of some of the crimes as distinct from errors rest on the question of intent.)
Its not an assumption, but a reasoning from facts, that Israel had a responsibility (more than a right or legitimate justification), to shut down shelling on civilians, especially that had escalated to reaching two moderate sized cities before Israeli military response.
Palestinians, of course, not being entities with human rights that are equal to those of real people like the Israelis, do not have the right to stop the killing of their people by Israelis, nor do they have the right to fight against an immoral blockade, nor do they have the right to support BDS or indeed, to do anything else except plead for a just solution, something that might eventually be generously bestowed upon them if they just sit quietly and accept the abuse heaped upon them by their moral superiors.
I don’t think the Palestinians should fire rockets, but as usual the much greater violence along with the daily grinding oppression that the Israelis were inflicting before the Gaza War doesn’t count at all with RW. Again, the Witty rules of proper discussion are as follows–
1. Palestinians start violence and commit war crimes. It is okay to say this–indeed, it is obligatory.
2. Israelis overreact and accidentally kill civilians. It’s not okay to call this war crimes–it’s demonization,( since it puts morally superior people on the same level as demons–i.e, Palestinians. )
Witty would not acknowledge the part in parantheses. But that’s the foundation of his set of principles.
An odd description of Palestinian choices.
Palestinians are various. I don’t lump them the way that you imagine that I do.
I believe that the best Palestinian aspiration is for a good life, that includes freedom of movement, full civil rights, opportunity, family/community. I don’t believe that the best Palestinian aspiration is rage.
Again, the concept of “Keep your Eye on the Prize”, requiring forming and honestly articulating what that prize is.
In most cases, many Israelis, and many diaspora Jews would support their pursuit of just goals, while they rationally avoid (are repelled) by only condemnation.
Donald,
Periodically you speak rationally and considerately, then periodically you resort to misrepresentation and lying frankly.
“Donald,
Periodically you speak rationally and considerately, then periodically you resort to misrepresentation and lying frankly.”
Thanks, Richard. Seriously. I much prefer it when you just come right out and say such things.
What you don’t seem to recognize is that the considerate rational Donald is the same person who loses his temper with your doublethink on atrocities. It really is quite maddening to see you stating general principles that I agree with (that one could find being stated by Michael Lerner, for instance) and then mix them with rather typically grotesque apologetics for Israeli war crimes. You have a double standard for Palestinians and Israelis and you simply ignore us when we point out uncomfortable facts, usually running away to another thread or saying you won’t be bludgeoned. Your stance is exactly the same as one can find among any half-hearted critic of his own side in some conflict, where the person has an uneasy conscience, but can’t bear the thought that his people or his side could be as bad or worse than the Other. You find it easy to see Hamas crimes for what they are–you can’t bring yourself to see Israeli crimes (on a larger scale) in the same way. It amounts to a form of racism. And when called out on this, rather than question yourself you call me a liar.
I think this is progress.
Viable Palestine is one that is functional, facilitates healthy citizenship, has a thriving independant and interdependant economy, is contiguous within the West Bank, and has good neighbor relations with its two neighbors (Israel and Jordan).
Oh, so for a state to be viable it does not have to be sovereign, but it has to have good relations with its neighbors? So, let’s see, where does that leave Israel…
I think I caught one of them deligitimizers, officer!
I believe that the best Palestinian aspiration is for a good life, that includes freedom of movement, full civil rights, opportunity, family/community.
Civil rights, as in the right to vote on the government that rules them? Which happens to be Israel? One man (or woman), one vote? One state?
The deligitimization continues…
Btw: Gaza is to be penned in and permanently ghettoized as an warning for the West Bank? Or not included in Palestine for which other reason?
I agree that Goldstone did all he could to limit Israel’s exposure to war crimes and maximize the Palestinian exposure to the same. He’s a self-proclaimed Zionist, after all.
Yet, even by only focusing on what happened during the Gaza Turkey Shoot (ignoring the entire historical context; indeed the whole prior year’s steps leading up to it), what he reveals does not paint a pretty picture of Israel, any way a fairly objective observer looks at it. The point you are intentionally missing, Dick Witty, is that what Israel did goes far beyond any reasonable view of what an country needs to do to secure the homeland. Your comments are in accord with the doctrine of preemptive war; that is, that any sort of ambitious expansion of exploitation of the other can be justified by playing the victim when it is obvious to any objective viewer that you hold all the power cards–I hate to see the USA copying Israel in this
atrocious manner–but it has been doing so. Well, Stalin and Hitler would
enjoy how you are playing your tiny hand Witty. What we do know is that neither you, nor your son will pay any price for what you support. Many of us resent that hypocrisy and malicious effect.
The Israeli thugs want to empty out the West Bank and Jerusalem of Palestinians – move them by force to Jordan. Simultaneously they want to ‘give’ Gaza to Egypt. Neither Jordan nor Egypt find this a solution in the slightest – the Palestinian opinion in this doesn’t count for the Israelis either. Theer plan is also to crack down on Israeli Arabs and make their life so unbearable that they up and leave of their own volition to either Jordan or Egypt.
The problem with this plan, apart from being evil and craven, is that Israel’s state-terrorism and greed is now evident to the larger world which makes for executing this plan immensely risky now.
I believe they assaulted Gaza last year with such brutality, in the hope of emptying out Gaza and moving thereby the settlers back in. But it didn’t work. The Gazans help-up their own despite the IDF berserkers.
The zionists always underestimated the Palestinians’ attachment to their land. In 1948, they really thought it would only take some ten years of ‘cleansing’ the land.
If they wanted to empty out Gaza, they would open the borders and allow the Gazans to leave.
potsherd,
They were expecting/hoping for a larger refugee turn-out at the Egypt border before they opened the floodgates. They wanted to deliver the double-whammy of terror followed by evacuation. A repeat of ’48 but with bigger guns this time round.
But it failed because of the internet too.
The only way to reason with RW is to do what Azulai (the policeman) does in this clip, borrow from religious text to make your case for he doesn’t speak the same language we do on planet earth.
link to youtube.com
Witty: “Israel as Israel is one that is simultaneiously culturally Jewish and affords full equal rights to all residents in a color-blind manner.”
Oh, I get it–like the fact that Israel has protected 137 Jewish sacred sites
in Jerusalem but not a single Christian or Muslim sacred site? You should
reread the other thread on that single issue alone on Monoweiss. Museum of Intolerance. Such a state, Israel as Israel–who could want more? Reminds me of that sign: Arbeit Macht Frei.
Mondoweiss, not Monoweiss.
Or if you are from outside the progressive spectrum of nutcases its called Mondolies
Zing!
Yeah, he’s an advocate for justice in the Middle East, and concerned about his country, the USA, and, as well, for the reputation of both the USA and Israel (the self-defined state of the Jews worldwide), hence the long-term survival of both. Now, as to you…
You are very confused about my attitudes “citizen”.
The question is whether Phil advocates for deligitimization and then some revolution, or for reform.
If he advocates for reform, democratic reform, then he and I are close allies.
Democratic reform would amount to a revolution in Israel–same in the US, for that matter. Imagine a United States where a President was held to the same legal standards on human rights issues that we use for deposed dictators who’ve outlived their usefulness. Imagine an Israel where a Prime Minister shares a prison cell alongside Marwan Barghouti (not that I know for sure that Barghouti really is guilty of terrorism, but suppose for the sake of argument he is).
The world would be dramatically different if Western leaders were held accountable for war crimes–in other words, if the rule of law actually applied to them, as it is supposed to.
You really don’t need to put my pen name in quotes, Dicky Witty. I’ve been a life-long US taxpayer and I served in the USA combat force as a grunt; as well my two best subjects in law school were Constitutional Law and Evidence, for which I have
certificates of excellent scholarship. Furthermore, I paid for my own higher education by working in Chicago Steel Mills and getting academic merit scholarships.
The question is whether Phil works for objective justice, the best guarantee of peace anywhere, anytime. I say he does. And that you are doing your best to keep him from striving for truth, hence also striving to inhibit the natural consequences of truth over time.
Wow Citizen – you are too cool!
And you are so very aptly named.
The US would take revolution in some form to transform to a peer democracy, mostly for its scale. A more human scale state need not be so necessarily imposing.
Israel that isn’t the case. A democracy of 8 million can very well be a peer democracy. It is much moreso than the US is. It is possible for citizens to meet officials walking the street in Israel. Its not in the US. (I did meet Robert Reich in Cambridge once though, when he was Secretary of Labor.)
Citizen,
As we are both working people, I would assume that you would then treat me respectfully, rather than your common trash-talk.
Why not let Phil answer the questions posed to him? They are not mean-spirited in the slightest. Critical definitely, confused definitely.
Asking someone to clarify what they are doing is a great question.
Unfortunately, there’s nothing contradictory about a democracy that commits war crimes. It’s rather like the Old South–white people had the vote and they voted to keep the blacks down for as long as they could.
Richard Witty, you tell me how you define “common trash-talk,” so the followers on this blog can judge for themselves to the degree, if any, as to whether I am guilty as charged by you, of that activity over the years I have been commenting on this blog. First you discredit my American citizen credentials, indeed, my whole life in that vein (without knowing me or my life) by the simple device of putting my pen name in quotes–an easy thing to do from your comfortable keyboard safeguarded by US citizens, mostly Gentile fireman, cops, and Military, etc. No such group have you ever been part of. I am concerned with the blood and treasure of the American people, and with Justice throughout the world. I don’t want my country failing to pursue the lessons learned at Nuremberg with so much
cost. “Never again,” applies to the whole human race. Else there really is not human progress except in the field of technology.
Why should I allow you to impeach Phil’s motives? All regulars on this blog can judge for themselves if Phil is a “delegitimizer.”
You don’t really ask Phil to clarify what he is doing; you instead consistently try to
weaken his resolve to get to the truth of the matter by offering up tidbits
that will fog up a clearer POV–you are, in sum, an unpaid stringer for the AIPAC subscribed MSM–US Citizens need less fog, more clear day.
In short, you are a Zionist zealot (crafting your obfuscating lingo via abstract Western Civilization rhetoric) and that’s not good for the USA, or Israel, or the World.
You’re picking a fight, rather than dialoguing.
I would assume that the majority of individuals here similarly to me, do not think primarily in terms of American loyalty in the baiting terms that you present, but to a larger humanism.
Again, I have family in Canada, in Great Britain, Israel, and close friends in Mexico, France, India that are more prominently my community than a random Texan for example. I too live, work, pay taxes, volunteer, am at the ready, to help citizens of the US in ways that I am able. Thats enough for me.
I don’t need the trivial fascist baiting of “dual loyalty” to contend with.
Loyalty has no meaning at all if one is proportionately equal to all one says he or she hold dear. I’m not picking a fight at all. I am saying you are dishonest and arrogant if you think any reader here is naive so as to think when interests or agendas collide, they will buy your “fascist baiting of “dual loyality’” claim.
I am not a fascist. You are.
To be precise, you are a hard core Zionist. That’s the post-1945 version of the pre-1945 Fascism.
Point is, we really do have to get beyond what Truman saw; the former underdog becomes the oppressor once in power. Wake up, Dicky Witty!
Citizen, you make infinite sense compared to Witty’s heartless and despicable prevarications.
“Why not let Phil answer the questions posed to him?”
ROTFL!!!! Yeah, Phil should be sweeping in here, with respectful, detailed and footnoted responses in about 5,,,4,,,,3,,,,
You are higher than a kite on ziocaine, WItty. Ohh, did I say “kite”?
The Haaretz articles goes on to say: “Reut lists the network’s major hubs – London, Brussels, Madrid, Toronto, San Francisco and the University of California, Berkeley.” As a Torontonian, I’m as pleased as punch! Take that, Vancouver – this is way better than getting the Olympics.
Did you see how only Ireland was placed between Iran and Israel in the parade of the nations? This was at least dimly symbolic additional to alphabetical.
As a graduate of Berkeley High and the University so named, I am doubly proud.
Interesting piece –
“… young people, anarchists, migrants and radical political activists.”
My only disappointment is that other “think tanks” (stink tanks, septic tanks, etc.), are not as easy to refute as this one. Oh well, I guess you cannot have everything handed to you on a silver platter.
They don’t know anything because they are young; they are for chaos; they are transients with no proper loyalty; they want to tear down the wonderful status quo…
Gee, did we ever hear this before from any regime in history, e.g., in the last century?
We won’t even talk about before then, before it was given real industrial strength.
you can bet the zio-fascists are watching, listening, taking names and all the rest of it to everyone who participates in Mondoweiss – it’s what they do – perpetually seeking to monitor and control debate and perception … and we idiots here in America have let them have free-run: let’s not forget the 4-part Carl Cameron piece that ran on FoxNews (of all places) just after 9/11 detailing an extensive israeli spy operation and the little gem that israeli companies have the exclusive contracts for all U.S. wiretap operations and that through back-doors for “maintenance” they can potentially listen in to any electronic communication anywhere going into or from the entire United States – they claim they would never surreptitiously do such a thing for their own purposes, of course (pardon me while a barf)
israel is going into desperation mode, the consensus forms quickly when it does – they’ve held off the majority of the public around the world correctly perceiving their heinous actions long enough but Gaza shattered the illusion utterly and thanks be to the gods the internet has brought the pictures and words of the truth to all and the abject ugliness that is the zionist regime and murderous racism of israel is exposed naked to the world … so, yeah, they’re vicious and ruthless and we’re on their list people
Again, the important distinction is between criticism and demonization.
In your chosen blog content Radii, the same logic applies. There is nothing that renders a movement dismissable as demonization and exageration.
Oh, you mean like the US generations brought up demonizing all Arabs?
(And conversely, making angelic Israel a la Paul Newman’s pose?)
So how many new Hitlers have we had since the original one? Well, for three, the PLO’s former spokesman, Iraq’s former spokesman, and now, Iran’s spokesman.
Are you surprised Citizen? Didn’t you know the zios have an endless supply of hitlers on hand?
Yeah, on the local blog level here, Witty’s doing his best to not call Phil a self-hating Jew. It’s really a gym work out for Dicky boy. (PS: Conrad knew the heart of darkness.)
I don’t think of Phil as a self-hating Jew.
As little contact as we’ve had in our adult life, I do remember him as an inquiring and largely conscience driven individual.
People shift from conscience to ideologues in their life. Some events (especially personally threatening ones) are that compelling. From Phil’s comments, I don’t believe that he’s done that.
He flirts with fascistic thinking though, that you do as well. Phil isn’t as binary as you. There are only periods when he is so angry as to divide the world into them and us. Other times he recognizes that there are MANY important perspectives and references.
before Hitler there was Chmielnicki.
Hey Dick, I think you are much more binary than I am. I get along well with Phil and his writing, which just might be a tiny bit of evidence of me not being binary; after all, I’m a Gentile American; OTH, I don’t get along with you at all, which just might suggest something about you as an individual, yes?
You don’t flirt with fascistic thinking–you are a fascist; you just refuse to see
that fascism might be part of the current Zionist regime Israel spiel & modus OP.
You are not Martin Buber, Dick Witty.
You are Bernays selling Israel uber alles. I hope we can stop this cancerous tobacco ad.
Chmielnicki:
Sounds like a name you’d scare little children with.
It also sounds like a venereal disease.
Got some news for you Radii,
no one gives a shit about this blog, on that level anyways. You guys aren’t really accomplishing anything for the Palestinians. All you guys really do is pat each other on the back, do some Israel hating, and post some already disproved conspiracy theory. Its really not that threatening.
y hallo thar yonira
you forgot anti-American
dhimmitude
hatred of sweet sweet freedom and liberty
And you are here because you are a masochist?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Phil was a Zionist agent who set up this site merely to keep you trolls occupied, thus preventing you all from doing any real good or creating any real change for the Palestinians.
Yeah, yonira, keep sticking your finger in the dyke wall scribbled with “Israel is really a great human state”. Keep shitting on actual Shoah victims.
yonira,
What a pathetic attempt at planting a seed of doubt. My goofy goldfish is a better strategist than you.
Sounds like you’re just jealous of Phil because he’s got an alright fanclub whereas you got one that’s shitty.
I recommend ignoring Witty forever. We’ve had this same exact discussion over and over, where he denies denies denies, and we persist persist persist.
Just kind of fruitless. It’s been nice, not having him around for the past several days. I think it’d be easy to just think of him as a forum-bot, that we don’t pay attention to.
That would be your definition of “democracy”, no?
Don’t like the question of demonization vs criticism?
I will debate WJ anytime.
I will debate any Zionist, so long as they are SINCERE.
You are not.
“Sincere”.
What could you possibly mean by that?
I’ve been consistent, candid, hopefully clear.
Your response to me, after I had made this long, exhaustive post on the Gaza massacre:
link to mondoweiss.net
You have no shame. No morality. According to you, it doesn’t matter what Israel does to the Palestinians. Palestinians should endure anything Israel throws at them because as you say:
Hence, in spite of the failure of Israel to live up to the terms of the truce. In spite of the humanitarian disaster. In spite of Israel breaking the truce – not just on Nov. 4th, but throughout the first several months with cross-border attacks, it’s the Palestinians who must compromise according to you.
I’ve had this conversation with you time and time again.
You possess an opinion Witty. Everyone can have one. That does not mean you are a sincere human being.
You are shameless and dishonest.
I should also add, that your comments are devoid of facts usually.
You speak in tongue.
You are the gift that keeps giving.
Israel has a historical record of breaking agreements, truces, etc.
So I can only imagine, you lecturing the victims on etiquette while they get bamboozled over and over.
Zeev Moaz explains the record between Israel and it’s Arab opponents.
From: Defending the Holy Land : A Critical Analysis of Israel’s Security and Foreign Policy
About the Author: Zeev Maoz is Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Davis. He is the former head of the Graduate School of Government and Policy and of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, as well as the former academic director of the M.A. Program at the Israeli Defense Forces’ National Defense College.
So, you believe that your comments were not skew to mine, but actually directly confronted my assertions?
The question of “who must compromise” is the way you may incite, but not the way that you can stimulate good effective judgement.
The judgement of leadership should answer ONLY the question, what action results in the best outcome for our people (or those that you sympathize with).
So, in my case I primarily sympathize with my family and family of families (so that includes Phil, as a life-long family friend). And, it includes Jews by some extension as sharing a common experience. And, it includes those that I affect, and those that are affected by my words and actions, in this case Palestinians.
How does one pursue the well-being of multiple communities simultaneously? By peace, not by militancy.
Militancy by definition is very selective in whom one is willing to sympathize with.
Right-wing Israeli militants. Left-wing dissenting solidarity militants. Right-wing Hamas militants. Each opposing the efforts that facilitate reconciliation.
Is that dishonest?
Do you believe that because there were differences in what the truce entailed, in what events constituted a breach, that that makes shelling Israeli civilians a good judgement on the part of Hamas? Or, the removal of Israel as Israel as good judgement on your part, and Hamas?
You are gullible to believe your selective reading.
Try something that confronts your understandings.
Challenge yourself. You’ve been told only. You haven’t found out for yourself yet on the importance of varying themes.
Relative to communities, there are a couple philosophical distinctions between needs and aspirations that are important.
One’s own community’s need trumps others rights. It is important to distinguish between a need and a compulsion. Maybe following WW2, Zionism was not a need, but an opportunism. I contest that it was a need. It was certainly experienced by the European refugees as a need, and sympathized with nearly universally on the planet.
Relative to Palestinians’ needs, the definition of need could theoretically be an open question. Jews sometimes reason “we migrated for millenia, others can as well”. (When “activists” state that Jews should just assimilate and not self-associate, they are asking that Jews continue to fill the role of “wandering Jew”.)
One meaning of the term “never again”, is that as a people we have settled in land, have transformed from homeless to homeful, and that prior migrating was something that we just did when we had to, but that WW2 was the last straw, that required “never again”.
Relative to Palestinians, that notion of “they can just move” is obviously impossible, in addition to being cruel. The assertion of “they can move” is no longer an open question, but an answered one.
So, the intersection of “We now have a home” and “They deserve a home” is reconciliation, “Enough” Zionism rather than expansionistic. Its nearly universally understood in Israel now.
“So, the intersection of “We now have a home” and “They deserve a home” is reconciliation, “Enough” Zionism rather than expansionistic. Its nearly universally understood in Israel now.”
Yeah, universally understood. Which is why settlement activity continues. Which is why when Obama makes a rather modest demand (stop all settlement growth), Netanyahu can thumb his nose at him.
Settlement activity is the logical extension of what Zionism has been about from the beginning. One can sympathize with the plight of WWII era Jews (though I’m not so sure all the Zionists did) and still see that the only way they could have a Jewish state was by kicking out a lot of Palestinians, which they did. And then lying about the circumstances, which they also did.
A lot of Israelis now realize that to keep what they have they can’t continue to do what they’ve been doing for many decades. Or they say they realize it. Meanwhile, settlements continue to expand. So maybe they realize that they can in the short and medium term continue to do what they’ve been doing, secure in the knowledge that no American President will stop them and the Palestinians can’t match their violence and so the only thing they really worry about is Iran.
At best we’re not talking about reconciliation here–we’re talking about Israelis maybe realizing in a purely pragmatic way that they’ll be stuck with a bunch of non-voting Palestinians in their state if they don’t come up with some sort of solution sometime in the future. And meantime, hey, let’s take some more land.
Witty, I want you to quote where I said shelling Israeli civilians was a good judgement.
You are a liar.
The point I was making in documenting, in detail, the truce – was to show that Israel has NO moral high ground, to launch Operation Cast lead.
YES, they are obligated to stop the rockets, but if they are committing WORSE CRIMES and instigating the rockets, then they should not EXPLOIT the diplomatic/PR/military advantage they have to attack Palestinians and use the rockets as an excuse.
WHICH IS WHAT THEY DID
Yes, the shelling of Israeli civilians is a war crime, and yes, Hamas should be investigated and all the GIVENS any sensible person would apply to an entity committing crimes.
The point is that you constantly, try to present a false dichotomy in this conflict.
Israelis are not suffering as much as the Palestinians. Not even close.
I’m not indifferent to the suffering of Israelis.
Want to know WHY, Witty? Because I don’t issue apologetics for those rockets.
I’m not defending Hamas, I’m citing the historical record. You on the other hand, cite nothing. You simply speak in tongue.
That’s why you’re worthless. You can’t communicate with other people without hiding behind layers of bs.
You have to preach me your sermon. I’m gullible? You haven’t read the goddamn Goldstone report, and you’re lecturing me?
Go to hell, scumbag.
no such luck, you awoke him.
Yes, consistent; candid, no; hopefully clear; yes, we do get that your are a hard core Zionist.
Time for another self-image adjustment.
My experience is that you are apologizing for the rockets, in the form of “Palestinians are the greater victims, they should defend themselves by any means necessary. They are the occupied and are merely defending themselves.”
I guess that to you doesn’t sound like apologizing for the rocket-fire.
The time that it was relevant was December 17 to December 27th of last year. During that critical period, Phil did not deem it important enough to even note that the rocket fire had resumed, and had escalated, and that Israel waited ten days to initiate any military response.
“Go to hell scumbag”. More brilliant response.
I do think you are gullible. I don’t believe that you’ve read the history of the region from a moderate or right-wing Zionist perspective, and therefore then engage in self-talk, which you call well researched.
Its an impossibility to describe your research as thorough when it is so selective. Maybe I’m wrong.
The thesis that I stick to is mutual humanization. Israelis regarding Palestinians as human beings deserving of civil rights, dignity, self-governance, and Jewish Israelis as human beings deserving of civil rights, dignity, self-governance.
I love how Witty just owns you guys on here, it gets you so mad its laughable. Keep it up Witty!
Germans were victims of their Nazi regimes, Sadly some Israelis are also victims of the ZioNazi doctrine.
No, you are willfully ignorant.
As I said, point out where I said shelling Israeli civilians was understandable.
The reason I went into detail w/ the truce is to show that Israel had no moral high-ground.
If one person is carrying out tons of crimes, and the weaker party carries out far far less relatively speaking and on top of that is suffering far more – then the more powerful, guilty entity should not exploit the situation.
Israel knows it has the PR, military and diplomatic advantage.
So no one in the mainstream talked about all the stuff Israel was doing to the Palestinians in Gaza. No one put Gaza in context, by talking about the history of the occupation there, and especially the de-development of Gaza’s economy.
People praised the aide, even though Israel was blasted by the NGOs and UN, as well as independent human rights workers who had been to Gaza and saw that it was just an unacceptable amount.
You act like there is an ocean of information about these rockets that I’m ignoring.
I don’t trust you enough here. Maybe I’ll look back in the archives.
In any case, the point still stands. It’s not that I’m not ‘focusing’ on Israeli suffering, it’s that they are not logistically suffering as much so what am I going to write about?
The psychological impact of the rockets? I posted a graph of all the attacks on both sides for the entire year of 2008, Witty.
I posted lots of information, from mainstream sites.
When do you EVER make a substantiated argument?
You can keep calling me gullible. I do read. I’m not going to read Joan Peters or Alan Dershowitz for ‘balance’. If you want to debate me on the history of the conflict, past or present, then do it. But if you’re going to make these disgusting insincere abstract arguments which are basically PR for yourself – then fuck off.
This is why you were partially banned by Richard Silverstein. You don’t contribute anything.
When have you said anything other than this usual vague bullshit:
Yes, and you can keep telling yourself that. It doesn’t make it true. I couldn’t care less about ‘feelings’ – I care about the facts and REASONABLE conclusions to draw from them.
I fully expect you to continue speaking in abstractions. Hence, why I asked people to ignore you. You would be banned, if Phil weren’t your friend. You couldn’t pull this song and dance off at JSF for example.
It’s not that your POV is challenging. It’s not. You’re full of shit. It’s that you don’t say anything. You’re just copy/pasting the same brochure over and over.
So yea, go to hell.
You spent a great deal of ink talking to yourself, again.
You have spoken of Hamas “having no other choice”. I’m not going back to “research”.
I suggest that you read moderate historians like Walter Laquere – A History of Zionism, or Howard Sacher – A History of Israel, or on Palestinians one of new historians work Baruch Kimmerling, or Bennie Morris or Tom Segev.
Read material that challenges your current thinking. Explose your current thinking to real inquiry. You might end up changing nothing of your view, approach, perspective, choices. Or, you might end up concluding the same as currently, but with some basis of respect for those that you counter, and therefore also some basis of convincing them. I doubt that you’ll become an enthusiastic expansionist Zionist, but you might become an advocate of peace, more than an advocate of “justice” defined as militancy.
There are two path for compassion:
1. How can I help (in development, in mediation/reconciliation)
2. How can I help (in defense, in rationalization, in war)
Either/or makes the only path for helping into warring (which side are you on). That is demonization.
It creates itself.
Richard, people lose their temper with you because you consistently downplay Palestinian suffering and you’re dishonest in debate. Virtually everything you’ve written about Gaza centers around your attempt to put all the blame for the war on the actions of Hamas in late December. You ignore the blockade, you ignore all the violence that Israel inflicted on Gaza for years. You are determined to put everything in a framework that I summarized earlier–
1. Palestinians inflict violence
2. Israel responds.
You ignore all evidence that doesn’t fit your framework and when people become angry you act like it’s because of their unwillingness to be rational, when you show no tendency whatsoever towards honesty or rationality if they challenge your storyline. Evidence means nothing to you, not if it hurts your feelings.
We’ve had this conversation countless times. There is probably no chance that you will ever show any real integrity.
Again, you confuse my comments to be generalizations, when they are far more specific.
“‘You have spoken of Hamas “having no other choice”. I’m not going back to “research”.”‘
You have never gone back to “research” Witty, instead you did everythgin you could to avoid it, and ignored the mountain of evidence that everyone has presented to you.
Instead, you chose to cling to your theories that a “practical ceasefire” had been established and that Hamas ‘escalated the war” even though Israel were already blockading Gaza and killing Palestinians in Gaza. When asked for links to reports confirming your version of events, you have always skulked away.
You that insists that Israel had no choice because, according to your version fo reality, for some unexplained reason, rockets starting appearing and Israel had to defend itself.
Dud Hamas have a choice? Yes. That choice was to die quietly or to fight back.
Donald,
I suspect that Witty gets his kicks out of provoking others into losing their temper. He prides himself on maintaining an even monotone temper, and prolonging a discussion while avoiding the debate itself. Perhaps in his mind, he believes that the first person to crack (ie. lose their temper and become emotional) loses, so in his mind, accepts this as a sign that he’s winning the debate. So long as he doesn’t bite, he’s showing us how serious and credible he is.
I’m pretty sure he learned this technique from the Hasbra playbook, which recommends that the propagandist need to maintain a calm disposition. He believes he can get away with playing down the Palestinian suffering and the crimes of Israel so long as he thrown around meaningless platitudes like, mutual respect and humanism.
Witty feeds off others, because without an audience, he is irrelevant. So I agree that it is worth posting detailed responses to his lies and deceipt, because we can all learn from one another, but let’s not waste any more energy trying to engage Witty in a discussion. He’s not interested and he’s not hear to learn anything.
“I suspect that Witty gets his kicks out of provoking others into losing their temper. He prides himself on maintaining an even monotone temper, and prolonging a discussion while avoiding the debate itself. Perhaps in his mind, he believes that the first person to crack (ie. lose their temper and become emotional) loses, so in his mind, accepts this as a sign that he’s winning the debate. So long as he doesn’t bite, he’s showing us how serious and credible he is.”
I think that’s pretty much it except that I’m inclined to believe he fools himself first–he probably does think he’s candid, a peacemaker, a veritable Gandhi of the internet and when he dodges refutations of his position he probably tells himself he’s just not going to deal with the lies of demonizers. It’d be pretty horrifying if he were putting on a conscious act–I think he’s more like some people I know on other subjects (like creationism). They say they want dialogue, but facts contrary to their beliefs just bounce off without any effect. There’s no conscious deception (or not much)–it’s self-deception first.
Witty owns nothing but his lie factory. He invents events that never took occured (such as December 17) and bases his thesis on these non existent events. He has never produced a link or news report to back up any of his claims.When asked to, he either dodges the question, clams he has no access to the link or dissapears from the thread, to return at a later date to repeT the same lies.
For example, Witty will never address the fact that Uamas proposed q return to the ceasefire on the 18 th and that Israel (who aknowledged receiptof the offer) rejected it and repeatedly ordered Washington to block calls gorceasefire at the UN.
Witty is one of those Zionists who know that the Zionism project is a failure, he keeps telling lies and trying to manipulate people exactly like what the Israel gov is/was doing from 1948. Lies and propaganda! Witty is intellectually dishonest colonialist right wing guy.
Witty is the kind of person who lectures the raped and beaten woman, about etiquette while absolving the abusive, menace of a criminal who carried out the crime.
Yes,
I do urge that the raped victim, not kill men randomly for the abuse that she suffered, that she retain her ethical commitment, as traumatized as she is.
Hey, since when did you, Dick Witty, acknowledge that the Palestinians are the rape victims? Quite the contrary. Your comments on this blog have defended the rapist all along; yet you seek to ask the victim for mercy? No, for concession of equal victimhood. What a guy.
I don’t speak in those graphic terms. Perhaps you haven’t read my comments clearly.
”I don’t speak in those graphic terms.”
Yes, those graphical terms are terribly inconvenient aren;t they Witty?
Witty’s problem is that he thinks someone ought to care about his opinions.
No one does.
Except maybe yonira, which is like worse than no one.
Yea, as if opposing his BS is opposing ‘democracy’ itself. I think he just said that to me above, lol.
A confident non-questioning supporter of universal humanism.
Priceless. Yeah, Richard–who on this thread, for example, does not view him or herself as a “confident non-questioning supporter of universal humanism”?
Please apply the ethics of universal humanism to the innocent children of Gaza who died from Operation Cast Lead. We all know the death tally. And we look forward to your response.
Cliff,
Consider the following math.
I am fully committed to the safety, well-being and vitality of Israel and Israelis.
I am only very committed to the safety and vitality of Palestine and Palestinians.
From your comments, I perceive (correct me if I’m wrong) that your views are not the reverse of mine. From your comments, I perceive that you are very committed to the safety and vitality of Palestine and Palestinians and relatively indifferent to the welfare of Israel and Israelis.
If you and those that share your political perspective, were similarly very committed to the welfare of Israel and Israelis, then there would be an intersection, a path for peace.
Its the either/or that makes moving forward impossible, the failure to hear of the needs and perspective of the other, in favor of some authoritative “truth”, that is in fact a supportable perspective/interpretation, but in fact an interpretation, that is also contestable or skew to reality.
Witty, get a grip. Didn’t you ever watch Dances With Wolves? Consider we are now
post Nuremberg trials of 1945. You need to fast forward to this century, not get stuck in the pre-1945 century. Your POV is killing many every day, and otherwise making their lives miserable. I know you are totally sheltered thanks to Gentiles in your home, to spout off whatever, but–don’t you think you should actually use your what is at this point your imaginary humane brain? Try to think; what would the Jews be without Gentiles? Just a bunch of Jews fighting amongst themselves. Feel Better?
You continue to play the Zionism drama thats why you are such a fucking Nazi Zionist.
You know very well god dam you that Palestinians don’t have anything to negotiate, The state of Israel has all the cards so shut up your pussy please.
Witty, your “fully committed” versus your “only very committed” does not sound
like your other self-described self above in this thread, where you say you are an unquestioning believer in universal humanism. Relative indifference indeed. If you are even “only very committed” (not fully) to the welfare of Palestinians, as you say,
you’d factor into your comments the most obvious fact, the gigantic disparity in actual power as between the state of Israel (and sitting on top of the only world superpower) and the Palestinians. We all know Goliath had needs too.
Witty’s disatribes remind me of the standards statements that we heard from Washington. When the Palestinins carried out acts fo violence, they were universally condemned. When Israel carried out acts fo vilence, Washington woudl call for “restraint”, while asserting that Israel had the right to defend itself.
Witty is not even a liberal, he’s in agreement with the Washington concensus.
” I am only very committed to the safety and vitality of Palestine and Palestinians.”
It’d be more accurate to say you’d prefer not to see Palestinians suffer and would like to see them prosper, but you’ll make excuses for Israeli brutality, rather than see Israelis risk any suffering to a much lesser extent. You’d allow the legitimacy of the blockade on Gaza until all weapons can be kept out, while reacting vehemently against any much lesser sanctions on Israel. I haven’t seen you say anything positive about any form of even limited boycott (such as against Caterpillar).
As for the dissenter side, as you call Phil’s posse when you’re not calling us Phil’s posse, we should be concerned for the well-being of the ordinary Israeli and to the extent that we’re not, we are also an obstacle to peace. I think most of us do want both sides to live in peace, but I have seen people on the pro-Palestinian side say some pretty cold-blooded things and that’s an obstacle. Anger against Israeli atrocities and callousness, though, is justified and necessary, unless Israelis start admitting that yes, they have committed terrorist acts and otherwise acted as oppressors and haven’t just acted in self-defense against Palestinian terror.
It’s interesting to learn from an Israeli think tank that Israeli lies propagated through Zionist-owned mainstream media, books, cartoons, Hollywood, powerful Israel lobbying groups and over 100,000 idiots operating phoney Muslim and Christian websites and spamming the internet discussion forums – has failed to hide the true evil nature of the Zionist regime. On September 30, 2009 – Canadian author and blogger, Greg Felton, wrote in an article titled Israeli propagandists shoot themselves in the foot as they shout off their mouths:
“If you have ever visited a blog or on-line discussion group on the Middle East you have doubtless had the misfortune to run into them. They are known by the language they use: depraved sexual insults, bile, bigotry, threats, disinformation and character assassination. That’s right: I’m talking about “hasbarats,” zionist trolls who infect the Internet with hasbara, pro-Israel propaganda. Of course, mainstream media hasbarats have been around for decades, as have “hasbaratchiks,” fifth-columns in foreign governments who subvert national policies to serve Israel. The Internet, though, is the latest, some might say the greatest, propaganda playground, and Israel cannot cope with factual, passionate, well-documented stories that expose its war crimes and unrepentant criminality……
Report: Israeli Hasbara (propaganda) is failing
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
you know those nature specials that show the snail with the pulsing eye stalks ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWB_COSUXMw
… turns out a parasite has infected them and takes over their bodies making their eye stalks pulsate with visual markers that attract predators so the parasite can continue its life-cycle
yonira and several others that troll on Mondoweiss are as obvious as these infected snails – you’re pulsating with infection – in your case the infection of a desperate and tyrannical desire to control debate and quash ideas you don’t like
I posted to this when it it was first brought up by Shmuel in the comments area. So I am not going to repeat what I said point to point again, however I will say something to the idea that this “think tank” (stink tank, septic tank, etc.) says it is mostly dealing with outliers (outside the fold). It is the simple fact of the nature of both the US system and the Israeli that there are those on the “outside,” simply because they are exclusive. Both nations practice a form of elite control, where decisions of import are left to the “responsible classes” (as spoken of since the inception of either country). So it is rather easy to call someone a radical or insignificant merely because of the form of the countries ex operato (this varies in degree but not in kind with this exclusive group of Hegelian nations).
In fact, it is best that they have this view of a burgeoning opposition, because their views and assessments are blinded by their feelings of superiority and impunity. When all is said and done, and they are rudely awakened by a strong and viable movement, some which are in the forefront and others in support, it will be too late. So while one may credit them with recognizing a problem existing, you can take heart from their self-imposed blinding hubris.
SUPRISE!
Might I possibly turn to an fascinating aspect of this debate. The interesting question is why does israel care so much. It has largely contributed to starting numerous wars including the recent attack on Gaza, and is both maintaining the longest period of oppression in recent history and the evidence is overwhelming that it has indulged in extensive violations of severe Geneva conventions, to the point of committing war crimes. This behaviour has many similarities to north korea, zimbabwe, sudan and russia, and the previous south african regime. Worse in some some respects, and less in others, but of the same nature. None of them respond to criticism by whining about being ‘delegitimized’.
This word doesn’t mean anything as far as I can tell. An unpleasant, aggressive, apartheid state is still a state, recognised by the UN. That is all that legitimate really means in real politic, and Israels politicians and numerous lawyers have said as much.
Why then to do they react so strongly? Is the explanation just basic psychology, that the citizens and supporters actually in their heart of hearts strongly suspect that the original creation of Israel was not legitimate, and push this ugly thought away in a form of transference?
This would explain a great deal, including the approach taken by defenders on this blog.
I am not suggesting of course that this is the only reason. Nationalism and ethnicism are common foundations for fascism and oppression.
I wonder if the other possibility is that rather than ‘legitimate’ Israel’s spokespeoples are trying to mean, in a round about way, ‘ member of club of western democracies’, i.e. a ‘nice’ state? I still think that transference must be important, or why choose this particular word? Nevertheless, in a legal sense, the context for ‘legitimacy’ doesn’t make sense, whereas ‘niceness’ would.
If this is correct, then trying to change perceptions to acknowledge that Israel is not nice is clearly a reasonable goal. It just doesn’t sound so dramatic (OK, meaningless but impressive, 8-).
Elsewhere on this blog, readers have highlighted the simply extraordinary amounts of money transferred to Israel and its neighbours by the USA and to a lesser extent other entities. I include the UN palestinian support in this category. These transfers are clearly harmful. It may be argued that they reinforce these states including israel as ‘renter’ states, in the same way as the oil states. The ‘curse of oil’ is well recognised, and means that it reduces the need for the state to live from taxation and therefore to obtain consent.
These huge subsidies allowed the wall to be produced, allowed Israel to repeatedly attack its neighbours, without impoverishing its citizens. In the same way that any government rent damages democracy, they are hardly less damaging to Egypt and Jordanian autocracies.
I have seen multiple regrets on this site that the US will never use the subsidy to leverage Israel. Surely, the argument should be that all subsidies should be withdrawn from the region, except for very limited, practical reasons?
It is a great shame that one person has been allowed to divert at least 50% of this thread to his own pronouncements and vacuous opinions, and provoked responses that are really not worthy of most of you.
Simply pass him by, and let him be a voice in the wilderness, with no-one to answer him back.
Perhaps Yonira got it right:
I love how Witty just owns you guys on here, it gets you so mad its laughable. Keep it up Witty
By the way, is Yonira a he or a she?
A ‘he’.
And yea, I really hope people ignore the guy.
You can’t debate people who are insincere. So we can cite sources, and he’ll just do his ‘mutual humanization’ song and dance.
In fact, you guys are derailing the discussion too, by humoring him.
the problem is that 99% of the Zionists elites are like Dick Witty thats why we don’t see in progress in the peace process, and the whole world is suffering! Beleive me guys the same puppets exist elsewhere i saw a French one yesterday on the TV who invented new formula: Being anti-american is being anti-semi.
You certainly can debate people that have different fundamental references and approaches than you, especially those that candidly convey what those references and approaches are.
In this case, the sincere moderate approach that is critical rather than demonizing is the most effective.
“Demonizing”:
to make into a demon
to characterize or conceive of as evil, cruel, inhuman, etc. to demonize a political opponent
In Witty’s case, he’s not candid at all, and when faced with facts and sources he throws out ethical abstractions to fog the issue at hand. What he’s doing here is demonizing the commenters and content of their comments because what they point out factually describes an Israel that’s not so nice after all, an Israel
that needs a friendly interdiction to save itself before it gets tasered in self-defense to protect the whole neighborhood.
Witty, if the shoe fits Israeli actions, then wear it.
Yeah, Witty is a waste of time if you expect him to respond to any detailed post–he usually runs away, but if not he still doesn’t respond to the details. I think the detailed posts are worth typing up–I learn something from reading others and I’ve found it interesting to type up my own detailed responses, but I know there’s zero chance he will respond to any facts or arguments that make him uncomfortable.
Still, one could take the position that he wastes too much space. So maybe we could suggest to Phil that he be banned on all threads except, say, a daily open thread where he can post his Deep Thoughts to his heart’s content, and anyone masochistic enough can try and engage him, or alternatively, respond to his posts in detail, knowing full well he won’t pay any attention to anything he doesn’t want to see.
Or we could just ignore him. But opinions like his are pretty common–the problem with RW personally is that he doesn’t interact with anyone else in a serious way. He’s here to dispense wisdom, not to learn anything.
I’m actually far far more serious than you attribute.
In that in this limited involvement with the issue (my time is spent doing taxes, teaching accounting, and assisting energy conservation entrepreneurs form their business strategy and record-keeping), I am suggesting that the radical approach is both innaccurate and inneffective.
Its actually most important that it is inneffective. Accuracy is important but here and elsewhere is most often stated as a vanity “I told you so”.
On evidence, I am skeptical of “evidence” from radical sources. When Norman Finkelstein links to a report, the report is evidence (also potentially selective), but his comments are interpretations, decisions of emphasis. In all interpretation, there is a utilitarian question of “what is this information useful for?” EVERY comment is set in that context. There is no “truth” as Cliff likes to site. There are multiple components of truth, selections of which are useful for a purpose.
For the purpose of compassion, the truths that enlighten of others’ experience are useful so that good options may be designed and applied. The truths that result in contempt of the other are not useful as they only motivate warring.
If you truly bear a universal humanistic attitude, then the most compelling of that worldview is that every person has the means to heal and mature, and the information and political efforts that are most useful then are to assist them to develop and apply their compassion in practice.
Jews, Israelis, need to hear how their actions are affecting others. But, in terms that trusts and invites them to act benignly. Terms that call people racist or nazi or fascist don’t invite anything. They are either habit or vanity. Good for self-talk, for convincing yourself about something that you are fundamentally not sure of, and require your gang to egg you on.
In contrast, sincere inquiry is different. It is not broadcast to the world, but set to open up to questions. “What does this imply? Are there alternative explanations?”
After that sincere inquiry, and formation of foundational conclusions and goals, the most humane and honest approach is to convey that respectfully and kindly, with determination for the goal of social improvement, not for vanity.
The word “I” is mostly a humble word, not a vanity word.
When one states “I conclude ___”, one is saying “I acknowledge that my conclusions are from the set of experiences that I have taken in, from the selection of information that I interpret as important, that those are subjective judgements, fallible.”
If any word is honest it is the word “I”. If any assertion is dishonest, it is the assertion of authoritative “fact” to content that varies radically by multiple honest experiences.
You speak in abstractions – always.
My point proven.
Truth is truth. Our conclusions are different.
So when I post a graph on the killings throughout 2008 on both sides, that’s a FACT.
When I post the comments by the UN, NGOs, etc. – that is a FACT that they, voiced their dissent over Israel’s behavior during the truce w/ respect to the aide.
You can keep interpreting this conflict like a painting. It won’t change history.
I mean, the ONLY reason you talk this way is because it helps mystify the conflict.
It removes it from reality.
So you can kindly go **$# yourself, phony.
I have no problem debating people on this conflict as long as it involves substantiated arguments. FACTS, REASONED ARGUMENTS, HISTORICAL CONTEXT
But all you do is write a whole lot of nothing.
Did you ever think that people here – who have known you on this blog for years – might have an ounce AT LEAST of honesty to them with respect to your views?
It’s not like a fringe here are saying this about you, it’s the majority if not ALL the regulars.
Sorry, we don’t speak Witty.
On ends and means.
The common caricature of the term “ends justify the means” is of a criticism of excessive or cruel means to pursue just or confused ends.
In practice though, the phrase may be used differently.
That is even in the use of the term “by any means necessary”. That is if you conclude that excessive or habitually condemnatory language is inneffective at changing hearts and minds, then “by any means necessary”, you would willingly adopt language and attitude that is effective at changing hearts and mind, and then changing policies and actions.
Relative to changing Israel, there are really only two choices of approach:
1. To persuade
2. To force
If it is possible to persuade, why would a peace activist a justice activist consider force, even BDS?
To make change, it requires identification of what is wrong accurately, identification of alternative applicable perspectives, and identification of alternative policies and actions.
Thats if you want to make change.
“In 1948 I was nineteen years old, with a five-month old baby, when a soldier knocked on the door and told me that I had just become a widow. Since then, Independence Day is for me a day of mourning. I lost my husband in the war, and for fifty years I have been waiting for things to get better. I had a moment of hope after Oslo, but my hope was murdered. Since then the sands have been running out for me, and now it is over. For me, it is finished. I was born here, I have become an army widow here, I went through all the wars and crises, always believing that one day it will become better. For me, this business called the state of Israel is finished. I am too old to continue waiting.
… I can’t bear to see it anymore, the injustice that is done to the Arabs, to the Bedouins. All kinds of scum coming from America and as soon as they get off the plane taking over lands in the territories and claiming them for their own. And they do it in full daylight, with the backing of the government. The army and police do nothing to stop them. Stop them? The army and police are helping them in every way. I can’t do anything to change it. I can only go away and let the the whole lot go to hell without me.’ ”
— from “It is No Longer My Country”; an interview with Israeli actress Elisheva Michaeli, published in Yediot Ahronot, 24 July 1998. (via The Other Israel).
“Because we took the land this gives us the image of being bad, of being aggressive. The Jews always considered that the land belonged to them, but in fact it belonged to the Arabs. I would go further: I would say the original source of this conflict lies with Israel, with the Jews – and you can quote me.”
– Yehoshofat Harkabi, former Israeli Chief of Military Intelligence, in “Peace Won’t be a Plane Ticket to Cairo”; International Armed Forces Journal, October 1973, p.30.
“We must do everything to insure they never return. The old will die, and the young will forget.”
– Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, on the Palestinian refugees, 1948.
“It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.”
– Yoram Bar Porath, in Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot, 14 July 1972.
As interpretations of events change over time, the assertion “truth is truth” is a false dogma.
The nakedness and triviality of what has been politically correct over the last 40 years that I’ve been politically active is my proof that inquiry into principles and purpose is part of the task at hand.
Please read my comments on ends and means. You have choices to make. Calling “truth is truth” and that compelling you to an angry approach that denies the accurate description by many is dogmatic, thin, false in fact.
I hope you’ve seen film or art that presents story differently from different honest, true, perspectives. Its important.
In this case, you are making choices about what are important facts as I am. Our differences are of emphasis and description of options and consequences to approaches.
“The Arab population of Palestine was native in all the senses of the word and their roots in Palestine can be traced back at least forty centuries”.
– Prof. Maxime Rodinson, Israel and the Arabs, (English edition, Penguin Books, 1982).
“The best thing is that you’re not obliged to follow any laws or rules. You feel like you are the law. You are the law. You decide. It’s as if the moment you leave Israel and pass through the Erez Checkpoint into the Gaza Strip, you are the law. You are God.”
(מה שהכי חשוב זה שזה מוריד ממך את העול של החוק. אתה מרגיש שאתה החוק. אתה החוק. אתה הקובע… כאילו מהרגע שאתה יורד מהמקום שנקרא ארץ ישראל ונכנס לתוך מחסום ארז לתוך רצועת עזה, אתה החוק. אתה אלוהים. )
- comment by one of the IDF soldiers interviewed by Israeli psychologist Nofer Ishai-Karen. Cited by Dalia Karpel in an article entitled The Person Who Gets People To Talk/המדובבת which was published in Ha’aretz’s Hebrew edition on 21 Sept 2007, but did not appear in the English edition. (Translation from Lawrence of Cyberia).
“There is … a difficulty from which the Zionist dares not avert his eyes, though he rarely likes to face it. Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having 52 souls to every square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews; so we must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did, or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan.”
– From a speech given by Israel Zangwill in New York in 1904, reprinted in Israel Zangwill, The Voice of Jerusalem (London: William Heinemann, 1920), p. 88, quoted in Hani A. Faris, Israel Zangwill’s Challenge to Zionism. (source)
“The residents of Lod must be expelled quickly, without classifying them according to age … implement immediately.”
– Order from Lieutenant Colonel Yitzhak Rabin, operations chief for the Israeli attack on the Palestinian city of Lydda/Lod in 1948 (and later Israeli Chief of Staff and then Prime Minister), to the headquarters of the Yiftah Brigade, 12 July, 1948.
We must define our position and lay down basic principles for a settlement. Our demands should be moderate and balanced, and appear to be reasonable. But in fact they must involve such conditions as to ensure that the enemy rejects them. Then we should manoeuvre and allow him to define his own position, and reject a settlement on the basis of a compromise position. We should then publish his demands as embodying unreasonable extremism.
– Gen. Yehoshafat Harkabi (former head of IDF Intelligence); Maariv, 2 November 1973. Cited by David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, p.181 third edition (2003).
Nope, sorry Witty.
This is not a movie. It’s history.
And while there are two sides, there is only ONE REALITY.
No amount of bullshit rhetoric will change that.
Cliff,
Even those compelling quotes that have obviously motivated you can be conveyed in ways that do not adopt demonization as mode.
For example, in addressing my comments, you speak to me with condemnation rather than respect that I have different experiences, motivations, goals.
You call me racist for regarding Zionism as potentially good, instead berating me that Zionism is racism itself.
If you read further, you would discover that there are similar quotes published of early Zionists looking for a refuge from Russian pogroms that were harrassed similarly on migrating to Israel/Palestine. And, grotesque language published during the Arab riots of 36-39, civil war of 47, and by Arab states seeking to remove Israel after the UN ratification in 48.
I don’t look for those quotes or parade them, but I’ve read them.
They prove some facts, but they don’t prove “fact”. That is a selection.
They don’t assist the formation of coalitions of those with good will and political consciousness. Rage is your litmus test.
Rage is more of a cage than the Bantustans or blockade. It limits options.
And you know personally that your views have changed over time, and will again.
Its easy to dismiss art as inconsequential, as saying nothing. But, that description of actual events being perceived very differently by different people is accurate in this case.
The questions include “what really happened?”, selections.
And, “what was important?”, selections, interpretations, judgements.
And, “what is possible and what is goal”, judgement, choice.
To not engage those question humbly, to infer “ONE REALITY” is to self-delude.
It is the commitment that is necessary for war, but not for justice.
Your generalities are mostly fine, Witty. Don’t demonize–check. Humanize both sides–fine.
But you don’t listen. You use double standards on human rights and it comes out as racism. People point this out in endless detail and you always ignore the details and start giving lectures on not demonizing, though it’s perfectly okay for you and for us to be harsh truth-tellers about Arab crimes. It’s not necessary then to talk about different perspectives and multiple truths. Somehow it’s clear when Israeli children are blown up that the Arab terrorists behind it have been deliberately evil. Only when Zionists are cruel to Arabs do we have to listen to their rationalizations and never ever come to a conclusion about their guilt. Which is racism.
It’s why you ought to be banned or limited in some way or just totally ignored. Whatever your motives, you have a long record of trollishness, of not interacting in any sort of honest way with people and the worst of it is that you continually preach about humanizing the Other and listening when you don’t do it yourself.
Which is a shame. Someone should be here to argue for a humane version of Zionism against people who think it impossible , but your record on this is horrible. And no one is less likely to change than someone who already thinks he’s perfect.
Of course I listen. I just don’t adopt the litmus test of rage.
My comments are strategic, insightful as to the affects on Jewish and Israeli society.
If you believe that your dissent is a communication process, then you’d learn from my responces, even that is limited to learning what might be effective lines of communication and agitation.
You don’t listen, Richard, and my experience with people like you is fairly broad, actually. Creationists argue like you, for instance. Facts bounce off them because they think they know a deeper truth which makes inconvenient facts a matter of interpretation. What one has to do with people like that is discredit their views with others–they themselves won’t change unless they make up their minds to do so and you find yourself engaged in an endless argument that goes nowhere because the creationist takes in nothing that you say and they do it with this sense of superiority. You’re a very familiar type to me.
As for Israeli society, it’s a bad idea to pander too much to any culture’s sense of narcissism. Palestinians need to be told (and have been told) that terrorism is immoral–Israelis need to accept that their own country has employed terrorism and practices something close to apartheid. Some of the comments in this blog go too far and we could use more honest liberal Zionists to do some talking back. But you’re no help at all. I wish Phil limit you to one comment thread per day, one designated as the open thread, for instance.
“A very familiar type”
You hear the word “interpretation” and you conclude denial?
There have been many liberal Zionists that have posted here, that have been chased away.
Look at how commentary on J Street is addressed, condemned as not committed enough.
My observation is that there is a litmus test based on expression of rage. The standard of commonality is dissent (what one condemns and opposes), rather than what one proposes.
rage? don’t talk to us about rage, we got nuthin’ compared to the this insanity. this is the mentality supporting israel’s behavior. you’re barking up the wrong tree trying to muzzle our team. you want peace? go spend your efforts on some site and calm these fanatical zionists. that’s what’s needed for peace.
If there is such a thing as a liberal Zionist, you are not it Witty. People like Dershowitz are considered to be liberal Zionists, becasue like you, they are liberal in all matters except when it comes to Israel.
You’re as much of a liberal Zionist as George Bush is a compassionate conservative, so if you’re idea of liberal Zionists have been chased away, it’s because they were dissonest, inhumane propagandists who soiled this blog with their hyporcisy and double standards.
The only liberal Zionist on this blog is Wondering Jew. If you want to grow up to be a liebral Zionist, there’s an example for you to follow.
Richard,
You’re like a lawyer who’s foever arguing a case in spite of the mountains of evidence which implicates his client. You’re dancing and jumping around, tryign to distract the jury, insisting that they shouldn’t believe their eyes, because evidence is in the eye of the beholder. You tell them to ignore the really nasty evidence as exagerated or tainted, because it can’t be true.
You try to cloud the debate, or steer it off topic altogether. Every now and then, the prosecution presents a new piece fo evidence that you cannot explain away, so you call for an ajourment or simply don’t turn up for the day.
In many ways, you remind me of the many right wing ideologues I debate on other blogs. Like you, they tend to ignore sources and evidence, and instead they resort to phylospphical and idelogical debates. They don’t need facts to tell them what they know.
You bany around words like rage, humanism, and mutual respect, because you are only prepared to accept this debate on the narrowest of terms. Israelis must be treated with kid gloves at all times and never sufgfer the consequences of their actions.
You are convincing no one Witty, and i for one am beginning to resent the fact that you consume so much of every ones time with your noise and nonesense.
There you are confused Annie.
I am attempting to make your “team” more effective at conveying the experience of Gazans accurately, so that the world can see, and so that intelligent well-meaning people can work to create actual alternatives to the current setting.
Rage continues the knot from what I’ve observed. It had done and continues to do less than nothing to improve the condition of anyone there.
Its how dissenters get delegitimized, by berating rather than conveying and persuading respectfully.
The hearts and minds that you would need to shift are not the right-wing bloggers, but the middle, those that have conditional views. The right-wing has unconditional views largely, as do the left.
Shingo,
Consider that raging has hindered your effort, that there is another form that would be effective to convey the experience of Palestinians and particularly Gazans.
You and others speak in terms of me “never learning”. I’d like to site an intimate reference that I shared at a counseling session yesterday. Last year I was fired from a CFO job that I had held for 9 years, and experienced that as traumatic, Kafkaesque, powerless. In describing what that experience was like, my reference was to Gazan civilians with nowhere to go, noone listening to even appeals to reconcile.
Its offensive to me to be berated for mutual sentiments, for not joining in the demonization of either.
I assume that you all have other politically oriented objectives than to help Gazan and other Palestinians, that you prefer some revenge rather than seek some transformation.
Its a tragedy for them that you are so unwilling, or unable to adopt other means.
“‘I am attempting to make your “team” more effective at conveying the experience of Gazans accurately, so that the world can see, and so that intelligent well-meaning people can work to create actual alternatives to the current setting.”‘
How can you possibly do that Witty, given that you have such a hostile reaction to facts and evidence?
What you are really trying to do is conveying the experience of Gazans is terms of the least consequence for Israel, aren;t you Witty? How can you have any grasp fo the experience of Gazans when you prescribe a blockade for them, that you consider unaccaeptable for Israel?
It seems your new buzzword for this week has been rage. Is that the secret word you got told to use from your Hasbra mothership? When the Goldstone report came out, it was strawdog this and strawdog that.
‘”Its how dissenters get delegitimized, by berating rather than conveying and persuading respectfully.”
That’s interesting , because delegitimization it seems, is what also happens to those who observe ceasfire agreements.
”The hearts and minds that you would need to shift are not the right-wing bloggers, but the middle, those that have conditional views.”
The Middle is no different to the right. You claim to be the middle Witty, but your are on the same page as the Wasghinton consensus, which includes the Jor Liebernmans of this world.
The middle, or the centre, have become the new extremists, and you have pride of place amongh them.
Self-talk Shingo.
You misrepresent my views to claim “advocacy” of the blockade.
The Baird proposal is an example. Absent the rhetorical flourishes, the proposal is very similar to one I presented here over a period of weeks.
Seeking viable solutions is different than “advocacy” of a blockade.
Rage is not hindering our effort Witty, For a start, we are not enraged, we are simply digusted, and you Witty are simpy disgusting.
You see, for your “rage” (your Hasbra buzz word weekly for the week) to have any validity, you woudl have to provide evidence that the absence fo rage has produced results, and it hasn’t. For many months, you have assured us all that moderation and Obama’s softly softly approah, was the only viable option, and all we have seen is the situation grow worse.
So take your “rage” taling point and stick it whe ther such doesn’t shine Witty.
I am not the least bit concerned with your experiences of being victimized for losing your job or being offended Witty. You seem to be under the impression that this blog is here to serve your nasricistic indulgences. No one cares Witty. Got that?
To use your analogy Witty, the person who fired you from your postion hasn’t taken away your house or your money. They didnt stop you looking for another job. They didn’t ring other potential employers and tell tehm not to hire you or consider you for employment. They didn’t stop you carrying on with your life and deny you the freedom to do whatever you pleased.
Unless they did, then your experience bears no resembalnce whatsoever to the Gazan civilians, becasue ulike them, you could go anywhere you pleased.
“‘Its a tragedy for them that you are so unwilling, or unable to adopt other means. “‘
More hyprocrisy from you. It is you that has nsisted that only your way and your presriptino woudl produce results. it just so happens that your prescriptino is the same one that Washington ha always adopted, and it has failed for 40 years.
Yet, you still insist that you kno better. No one listens to you Witty. All we are here to do is set the record straight and point out what an assinine and racist hypocrite you are.
Don’t mistake the reponses you get for anyone taking you seriously.
No it’s not self talk Witty. Self talk woudl suggest I hold an opinion no one shares with me, but I can point to the majority fo poster here who do.
Do you not advicate the blockade? Have you not opposed the unconditional lifting of the blockade?
The Baird proposal will gain no traction and has no hope of seeing hte light of day. You have long caimed to support a 2 state solution, but you have insisted that it only be achieved by indulging the Israeli leadership. You have advcoated that more kindness and more leniency will change their position.
That mnakes you either extremely naiive or extremely dissingenuos. It’s kin to Hitler saying he wanted peace, but had to massacre marge groups of people because they woudlnt give him what they wanted.
You”re not part of the solutino when you are proposing stratergies that are guarnateed to fail. That makes you part of the problem.
I think you prove my point more than you counter it.
Excuse me for confusing your inneffectiveness at helping Gazans by the term rage rather than disgusted.
I think both descriptions apply actually.
The two-state solution at the green line is counter to the current Israeli leadership position. How do you conclude that it entails “indulging the Israeli leadership”?
The question is of your determination. Are you determined enough to adopt “by any means necessary”, if the only possible means in fact are sober and respectful efforts to persuade?
Also, somehow you didn’t hear that my reference of comparison of those that are powerless are Gazans, rather than some other reference.
Dude, just ignore him.
Why debate anyone who can’t cite sources, can’t make substantiated arguments, doesn’t read documents yet questions them, etc. etc. etc.?
The guy is a TROLL. And you, and others here, are feeding him.
“I think you prove my point more than you counter it.”
You think a lot of things that have no relation to reality Witty.
You endorse indulging the Israeli leadership because you oppose any policy that compels the Israeli leadership to change their policies ie. rejecting a 2 state solution. It is human nature to oppose change if their is no pain involved.
Your last question is not only hypothetical (more that one means does exist) and is a false choice, because respectful efforts to persuade have proven to have failed.
‘Also, somehow you didn’t hear that my reference of comparison of those that are powerless are Gazans, rather than some other reference. “‘
Oh I heard it alreight. What I reject the fals eanalogy that your temporary and trivial setback has any relatioon to the Palestinian experience.
Perhaps if you had retured from work, having been fired, to find that your family house had been bombed or bulldozed by your former empoyer, and your family massacred, you coudl not possibly understand the Palestinian experience.
Yes you’re right Cliff, but somtimes the best way to deal with annoying pests is to squash them, like mosquitos for example.
Take a lot around this conflict, as it’s fought intellectually in debates in real life and on the Net.
I just don’t think we strengthen ourselves by playing along with this clown.
And I’m not trying to say I’m any better, since I have a little patience. Just think a smart person like you is wasting your time w/ an obvious agent provocateur.
Its ok if you don’t hear sympathy.
Its a tragedy for Palestinians though that need hearts and minds to change, rather than just the self-talk of activist organizing.
Sometimes that is what is needed and possible. Other times, malicious forms of agitation is counter-productive to good.
Hence the distinction between criticism and demonization.
Actually, early in the thread, I was inquiring as to what Phil is doing.
Well, here’s an inquiry as to what you are doing:
link to veteranstoday.com
Well, I hate to break it to you, pal, but whatever Phil is doing, it sure looks to me like taking you seriously as a thinking person ain’t one of ‘em!
But you just go on claiming you’re an “intimate friend of the family” or whatever.
Say Richard, maybe Phil’s busy. If I were you (hope the Evil Eye didn’t hear) I would put all my questions, including your accusation of “flirting with fascistic thinking” in a long e-mail, no, better you should write it out longhand, it’s more personal, and send it him in a registered letter, with a SASE. Let’s see him ignore you then! Send a copy to Alan Dershowitz and the Israeli Embassy, too! That’ll really put Phil on the spot!
Thanks for the laugh, Witty. In that way, you are one hell of a democrat, there’s something for everybody.
Citizen, that was a response to Witty’s “Actually, early in the thread, I was inquiring as to what Phil is doing”
Well, yes, Mooser–I knew that when I wrote my last comment on this thread.
A very interesting debate. More than ever I strongly believe that the sustained denial of human rights to the Palestinians for over 60 years, and the more nuanced but no less rigid advocacy that we see for Israel here, directly reflects personal guilt.
The problem with this is that the guiltier we feel, the worse we behave to prove to ourselves that we have no guilt.
I really don’t know why you guys waste your time on Witty. It’s like you want to debate him, to make yourselves feel better. He’s an ignorant ideologue, so of course it’s easy to contradict his flowery, empty abstract rhetoric.
How does that help YOU, though?
For example, a Zionist can come here and entangle people in the legalisms of the conflict. They can impose on you the paradigm of Islamism, and frame all Palestinian identity/resistance/plight through said paradigm.
How do you intellectually disassemble these false dichotomies of ‘civilized’/intellectual Israel versus ‘uncivilized’/crude Palestine?
It’s not hard, and most of you can do it. But you won’t get any better, patting yourselves on the back, by debating Richard Witty.
You notice how he will make a post, and then respond TO HIMSELF?
I feel like Mugatu here. Aren’t you all sick of the same pattern of commentary on the blog, over and over?
Phil writes an interesting post. Some comments follow, jerk comes in and obfuscates everything, talks about ‘mutual’ blah blah while focusing on the vastly less crimes of the Palestinians, whether through Hamas or ‘intransigence’ of the civil society to willingly subjugate themselves, and then you all engage him, in an exchange you’ve no doubt had a zillion times before.
“He’s an ignorant ideolog.”
This post was on “delegitimizers”. On topic. Topics that I don’t have anything to contribute to, I don’t.
I’m not at Israeli peace work professionally or anything near dedicated commitment right now. I do share what I see, mostly oriented to communicate to Phil.
He hears from many like you and many like me, and sways.
There is a way to present the valid arguments of support for Palestinian rights convincingly. Cliff and Shingo aren’t accomplishing that.
Referencing 1948 might sound appealing to and the present may appear to be a continuation, but the world is different now.
Israel exists, and won’t stop existing except by expanding, as Barak yesterday referred, and as you and many others here have referred.
So, the big question is what is the goal?
In 1980, I lived in DC near the Iranian Islamic student organization on 16th street on Rock Creek Park. The journalist collective that I was a part of had some of the students over for dinner a couple times, and spoke often. Most that we had contact with were not future power players in the Iranian regime and we later learned that a few that we had known were purged and murdered, as also occurred with some of the Central American activists that we knew from Nicaragua.
In 1979, the goal of the Iranian revolution was a coalition of Marxists, Islamicists, secularists, poets. In 1980, the Iranian revolution had purged the Marxists, secularists, poets violently.
The clarification of goal turned out to be important. Single state or two state. Sharia or civil democracy. Halachic or civil democracy.
While mentioning these questions seems to distract from the unity of dissent, those of us that have experienced purges even third hand, necessarily take the question of goal seriously.
Opportunists hide among dissenters. Its not just the rabid Zionists that scheme. I don’t scheme. I am what I say I am. I’m far less bold than I was when younger. I fear more now having seen things, having current responsibilities and associations, and less physical energy.
I “respond to myself” to elaborate an afterthought in the same thread. Don’t exagerate the importance of it.
“There is a way to present the valid arguments of support for Palestinian rights convincingly. Cliff and Shingo aren’t accomplishing that.”
Seeing as you’ve managed to alienate everyone on this blog, it’s safe to say that your e ndorsement as to whom we’ve manger to convince is of no consequence.WholeS.
While you despetately try to convince the world that I coherent phylosophical diatribes are a substitute for fact, evidence and justice, the rest of us have left you behind.
Why do you even bother to post here Witty. No one’s interested in your lies.