So much for friends on the left; J Street's twitter feed has put out a bizarrely-vicious thrust at Richard Silverstein, urging followers to read Adam Holland's "excellent take of Richard Silverstein's disgusting racist and crazy attacks on Holland & others." The tweet links to Holland's attack on Richard Silverstein, an honorable and independent journalist if ever there was one (and in the great American tradition, self-appointed). Holland accuses Silverstein of the use of racially offensive stereotypes, including the phrase, "rich, pro-Israel Jews." What does Holland want to do to our political vocabulary? And there's this kind of thing:
After the 2010 Haiti earthquake, [Silverstein] bizarrely condemned Israel for sending portable hospital facilities to assist the victims, an act of charity that many people regarded as heroic. Silverstein called it "the Zionization of disaster relief" in a blog post that was subsequently reposted on neo-Nazi and other racist websites.
I don't know what J Street means to achieve by going after non-Zionists. And as the late Tony Judt said, just because some bigots endorse what you say doesn't make you a bigot. Thanks to Max Blumenthal.
What do you, and Richard S, have to gain by going after liberal Zionists?
Its the “war” of ideas, yes? You think J Street and Holland are “Israel” now, and that you and Richard S. are the saviors of the political consciousness of the planet?
Richard Witty said, ‘Here I go again, thread-jacking. My concern for liberal Zionists is false. I am not one myself. I endorse Israel’s illegal colonization of the West Bank, and I say the illegal settlers have the right to stay on the land they stole. That’s not what real liberal Zionists think.
‘The great Richard Silverstein annoys me almost as much as Phil Weiss. I’m able to attack him less because he has me on a diet over at his (excellent) blog.’
“I’m able to attack him less because he has me on a diet over at his (excellent) blog.’”
Witty also tends to approve whenever a critic of Israel is attacked. It takes the pressure off Israel and puts it on the critic and that’s what he seems to favor. He liked it when Richard Bernstein did his thoroughly dishonest attack on Human Rights Watch–HRW’s sin was that it criticized Israel’s atrocities just the way it criticized the atrocities of any other Mideast country. You’re not supposed to do that.
Hophmi below is right about one thing–Richard S considers himself a Zionist last time I saw the issue raised. He really is a liberal one though, unlike RW.
Phil,
Have you noticed that Richard has been particularly scathing over the past few months? In fact, ever since the last fund drive. I seriously hope you have gotten better at choosing your friends.
Witty,
Phil may not be a savior, but he’s got a moral bone that you never were born with. May God forgive you.
>> Have you noticed that Richard has been particularly scathing over the past few months?
It might have something to do with the fact that Phil publicly debunked RW’s claims of a “special friendship” with him. That must have been a solid blow to his ego, because now he’s “just another guy” on MW. :-(
Richard Witty said, ‘Ouch, Saleema. I have gotten nastier recently. Part of the reason is that my claim to a personal relationship with Phil Weiss has been exposed as a great exaggeration. I insinuated we were great friends; I regularly gave him pretentious older brother type advice here at Mondoweiss. But it turns out we’ve only seen each other face to face 4 times in the past 40 years.
‘My enraged reaction to this small emerging truth raises an interesting question. How would I respond if I had something real to be angry about? What if I lived as a Palestinian in the West Bank, under decades of military occupation, watching illegal settlers steal more of my land every day? What if I lived in Gaza; by now I would have lost friends and family members, some of them children, to Israeli military attacks.
‘My pious calls to “humanize the other” issue from my bucolic college town in western Massachusetts. But even here, you can see I have a temper.’
Witty, Mr. Weiss has been about as supportive of J-Street as he could have been, without compromising on his own stance on Palestinian rights and international law, before this. In spite of very vocal warnings by other people in the community here, myself included. It’s you and J-Street that constantly go after people like Mr. Weiss and Mr. Silverstein, not the other way around.
And let me reiterate, for the nth time: J-Street is a waste of time. It’s AIPAC light. They’re interested in Palestinian human rights about as much as Witty is interested in parroting anything other then his repetitive talking points.
J Street seems to behave much like, say, a centrist Democrat (Obama or Clinton). The people they get really tough with are the people to their left.
Exactly what there is to gain by going after right wing Zionists – after all, as you repeatedly demonstrate, they are both the same,
Witty, Phil goes after people who portray themselves as ‘liberal’ but are hypocrites when it comes to Israel.
I second what Saleema said.
Phil Weiss has real courage and is a moral giant. You should consider yourself lucky that your intellectual dishonesty, lies and cynicism are tolerated on his blog.
He’s making a difference by reporting on the day to day banality of evil, of the occupation as well as the analysis he presents. That’s not even considering the great reports we get from guest commentators.
What have YOU done? You are a leech.
Richard,
“Liberal Zionist” is an oxymoron. One cannot profess to be both a “liberal” — in the true sense of the word — and a “Zionist” at the same time.
As Ilan Pappe says, “Liberal” Zionists are like “Diet” Coke…it’s the same thing!
As if J-Street is anything other than a repackaged AIPAC.
Troy, and the Trojan Horse come to mind.
Agreed POA.
I signed up to get teh J Street newsletter email, but every time I see it appear n my in box, I roll my eyes. I’ve been meaning to un subscribe.
I’ve just decided it’s time to tell them to go forth and multiply.
Troy Street
I think we should expect these kind of attacks – not just on Silverstein but on anyone who dares point out the truth about the Lobby’s profound influences on American politics. Not to mention blogs like this one that have posts exploring ‘jewish privilege’. Anyone who has been in the comments trenches of supposed left-leaning blogs like DKos or FDL knows that the mere mention of ‘Jewish’ and ‘wealth’ in the same sentence, gets the howling furies on their tail.
As israel becomes more and more extreme in its policies against non-Jewish people – inside and over the Green line, as it departs further from a democracy and inches closer to a theocracy, their supporters in the US will be called upon to raise the ante and go after any and all who point out the truth in this country and other western countries.
I think we’ve seen nothing yet. The way the hyenas went after the flotilla activists is just a start. I expect it’ll get increasingly ugly. WE should all be prepared.
I agree BTW that J Street is a Trojan horse now – even if it started with better intentions. It has been corrupted by the need to raise money and jewish sources of money are, for the most part, deeply reactionary. Therefore, it’s bound to happen that J street – as it’s vision of an elusive 2-state solution recedes further and further, will be called upon to defend that which is reality – namely, the settlements. But to do that means going after some of their very supporters, which Richard Silverstein originally was.
That’s a big boo-boo by J Street whose raison d’être is not very different from AIPAC’s, only it speaks more softly and dresses better. If Silverstein has never been afraid of the Mossad and keeps hammering at it at every opportunity and exposing its dirty laundry, I can imagine what he’ll now do with J Street with which he had been uncritical and unduly polite, the last time I checked unless he changed lately.
Given how crazy theyhave already become, I don’t think it can get much worse without them resorting to death threats. Serious Danaa, they have already become raving lunatics at Walt’s Blog, and moderators are going to have to ban them.
As for J Street, they might as well merge with AIPAC, given how redundant they have become.
we’ve seen nothing yet
richard is getting the ‘outside the tent’ treatment.
Reut’s Broad Tent and Red-Lines Approach.
this is the structure/ outline of israel advocacy wrt the deligitimazation campaign. i posit j street does not waver outside these boundaries. this clearly outlines the lines not to be crossed. it is not a broad tent, it is a narrow tent.
Oh, please. Anyone who has seen the way Richard Silverstein writes should understand that the man opens himself up for this kind of criticism. He’s a cynical, angry guy.
And by the way, he considers himself a Zionist. Call him an anti-Zionist; watch what happens.
Silverstein has a super-short fuse and a zero tolerance for nonsense, especially for the kind spewed by the Zios here and it’s his right to be that way. Other than that, what’s your problem with the stuff he writes or with what he wants to call himself?
What should I call you, Mr. Full time Internet BS poster, on oh so many sites? You may think you are a “liberal Zionist”, but seems you are a biased shill who knowingly turns the truth on its head.
But do tell me how you describe your full time “role”…
What criticism? You mean, superficial jabs that essentially boil down to – ‘antisemite!’?
There is no legitimate Zionist intellectual curiosity/criticism. Get your head out of your (proverbial, of course!) ass.
You are a one-trick-pony, hophmi. BTW, your PR job over at the congressman’s website was pathetic.
He’s a cynical, angry guy.
ooh, he’s angry. well, he must be mentally unstable. afterall, who else would get angry over some arab kids getting a dose of white phospherous, or some old lady getting shot by the gallant IDF. or getting force fed bullsh*t while being condescended to, by the PR hacks of the GOI. no, of course, there must be something wrong with him if he’s angry.
you really are a vile, insinutating piece of work, hophmi. and what’s more you’re not fit to carry on a conversation with the likes of weiss or silverstein. for all their faults, they are your intellectual and moral superiors. so, look down, avert your eyes, when talking in the same forum as them.
“you really are a vile, insinutating piece of work, hophmi. and what’s more you’re not fit to carry on a conversation with the likes of weiss or silverstein. for all their faults, they are your intellectual and moral superiors. so, look down, avert your eyes, when talking in the same forum as them.”
ROTFLMFAO. Get a grip. Go help a Palestinian if your ego allows it.
ROTFLMFAO
yes, i understand from your comments that LOL/ROTFL…. is your natural state, because this site and its commenters are a joke to you afterall.
my comment stands: you have insinuated that silverstein is somehow unstable and not to be taken seriously in your typical smarmy, flippant manner, rendering declarative judgments without a jot of evidence to support them. since it’s silverstein’s character you’re assassinating, why don’t you go confront him on his site with your allegations? or does your fellow ‘zionist’ delete your commentary and treat you with the contempt you deserve?
Who knew marc b.’s ego was an Israeli death squad sent out to put a bullet in the back of his skull? Because that’s what happened to one of the most recent notable Americans who tried to bring aid to the Palestinians.
If Phil and Richard addressed ideas, policies, practices SOLELY, and restrained themselves from warring on good people, they would attract and deserve much more respect.
Headlines matter. Yesterday’s headline of “The Empty Pieties of David Grossman”, was a hatchet job.
Silverstein does similarly. He’s more involved in comments than Phil and OFTEN grossly insults his commenters.
Liberal Zionism cannot be written off, cannot be regarded as distracting or coopting “enemy”.
For two good reasons:
1. Justice nor peace is constructed by victory at warring. One side “winning” is not winning for anyone with a head and heart.
2. The dehumanization of the other by calling someone “enemy” IS what needs to be opposed, as that is what constructs the willingness to suppress. Any commentary that adds to regarding the “other” as merely a function/roll/name-call continues the relationship and going both ways. When one regards the other as merely a function/roll/name-call, they create the precedent for reciprocity.
That description reciprocity is a component of David Grossman’s world view, and is a component of Phil’s.
Phil warns that ‘if Israelis continue regarding the other as function/role/name-call, then that’s how you will be treated’. Sadly he refuses, or ignores, or doesn’t think its important to apply the same logic to Palestinian solidarity.
He would be called disloyal to the cause. But, that would be a nutless shell, a mission without a great heart. (Grossman has a great heart, the nut of all prospective political motivation.)
All of you guys have to mature to the point that your political ideology takes a form that can be stated as proposal, in positive terms. The silhouette methodology keeps everything stuck.
The two of you are not innocents, not “civilians” in this war.
Even if you’ve come to a partisan attitude, even to explain that conviction, how it emerged, and open for inquiry and input into that decision, would enlighten, and if done in an entirely different tone, would enhance the prospect of similar inquiry by others.
The “war” analogy is the propaganda one, of manipulation, not the social change one.
More respect from who Witty? You? Oh my, I can only imagine the sleepless nights they must have had over that issue. Seriosuly Witty, you have destroyed your credibility and integrrity to such a degrre that any recommendation, advice or praise you give is a kiss of death. A recommedation from you is about as worthless as one from david Horowitz.
That’s how low you’re sunk.
Good people don’t repugnant arguments but even so, you are an abismal liar. Attackign someone’s argument is not waring on anyone. Phil has never attacked anyone unless their behavior has demanded it.
No it was a headline (the only thing you read anyway) and it was very powerful critique of Grossman’s pathetic apologia. If you don’t like it, feel free to get lost.
I’ll assume you are lying, as you always do.
Of course it can because it’s irrelevant and incosequential, not to mention dishonest and fake.
Witty, why don;t you just go away and stop poluting thsi forum? You have nothgin of value to add, your posts are usually incoherent and the few that are not are dishonest, hypocritical, repetitive, boring, and cowardly.
Your blog is a miserable failure because you are.
Richard Witty said, ‘Once again, I’m lying. I say I’m a liberal Zionist. But I support the illegal settlements/colonies in the West Bank. How am I any different than Netanyahu/Likud?’
>> One side “winning” is not winning for anyone with a head and heart.
A person with a head and a heart would be able to condemn ethnic cleansing, everywhere and always, as immoral and unjust. He would not say:
>> RW: I don’t know.
- or -
>> RW: If I was an adult in 1948, I probably would have supported whatever it took to create the state of Israel, and held my nose at actions that I could not possibly do myself.
>> The dehumanization of the other by calling someone “enemy” IS what needs to be opposed, as that is what constructs the willingness to suppress.
Unlike calling someone “dissent” who seeks both peace and justice (as opposed to “peace, not ‘justice’”). Because, y’know, no one EVER wants to suppress dissent.
“He’s more involved in comments than Phil and OFTEN grossly insults his commenters.”
By putting them on a diet when they hijack the comment section.
He also reacts with anger when commenters make racist comments. That includes people on both sides of the issue. There are comments made here by both sides that Richard S would not tolerate for a second in his comment section. He has a temper, no doubt. But he’s far preferable to some mealy mouth apologist who almost never raises his voice while saying some very disgusting things in a polite tone.
As for the enemy thing, when you speak in abstract terms I agree. The end goal should be reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians and the process of getting to that point is going to involve liberal Zionists. But some self-described liberal Zionists really aren’t that liberal at all–they are just bigots who use the language of reconciliation while justifying coercion and violence against Palestinians and opposing even nonviolent means of protest against Israeli apartheid. Sound like anyone you know?
Richard Witty said, ‘Ouch, Donald. And you are right to point out that my animus against Richard Silverstein is mainly because he doesn’t let me comment 10,000+ times at his website.’
Excellent post as always Donald,
What an apt and concise description of Witty.
Your pot shots at me are a majority misrepresentative of my views and of my actions.
You are reacting to criticism of the conclusions and methods that dissent applies.
For Richard S or Phil to complain that others are demeaning them, is hypocritical.
In the last week, Phil has dissed Andy Bachman, a kind liberal man, David Grossman, a kind liberal man, others.
Phil makes good arguments about the likelihood of dehumanization of Israelis if they dehumanize Palestinians. The opposite is true too, which he neglects, that if Palestinians and solidarity dehumanize those they criticize or oppose, they will be dehumanized, thought of as a type rather than as persons.
Our actions matter. What we do affects. Sometimes it comes back to us directly, sometimes ironically.
Richard S misrepresents and is misrepresented. Phil misrepresents and is misrepresented. Israeli PR misrepresents and is misrepresented. I’m sure you’ll say the same of me.
In all cases, its time to kindly and respectfully represent.
Here’s an interview with David Grossman–
link
Grossman appears to be one of those “kind liberal” Zionists who just can’t help himself–he’s got to tell convenient lies absolving Israel of blame for the wars it starts. I’m not being snarky. He probably is kind and he was bothered enough by the war to say it should have stopped after three days, according to the interview. But he lied about what led up to it.
It’s the usual story–Israel left Gaza and those bad evil Palestinians fired rockets at Israel, so Israel had no choice but to defend itself. This is inexcusable BS. The truth is complicated, but no decent person who wanted to tell the truth would reduce the story to something so deliberately misleading. Or rather, no decent person would do this unless he was so caught up in an ideology he just can’t help himself. And so he falls back on the standard hasbara line that seems to be told about every single act of Israeli violence no matter what the actual circumstances–”It’s not Israel’s fault, we were provoked. Maybe we over-reacted a little.” It’s that last sentence that distinguishes the “liberal” Zionist from the rightwing ones.
Liberal Zionists are usually in conflict with themselves. Some, like you, Richard, will simply resolve the conflict by tossing out the liberal part most of the time, keeping just enough to fool yourself. Grossman is better than that, but he’s obviously got his limits. At the other end of the spectrum there are people like Jerome Slater, who never lies about what Israel has done, but still believes that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state.
Your comments are the absolute worst kind of hypocrisy. Kindly and respectfully, my eye!
I’d rather you express yourself like eee. I’d rather you proliferated settler mentality rather than couch your Zionism in artificial, hollow, deceptive rationalizations with superior-minded self-restraint. You are a millions miles removed from Palestinian suffering and reality. You Liberal Zionists who paint a pretty picture of Zionism while enabling Palestinian suffering indefinitely, sicken me.
Liberal Zionists need to be exposed as J Street is being exposed as enablers of the only kind of Zionism that has ever existed off paper; the kind that cleansed hundreds of thousands of people from their land with terrorist acts; the kind that demolished tens of thousands of homes, the kind that stole hundreds of thousands of acres of land from an impoverished, dispossessed people, the kind that is holding millions of people in limbo and bondage for decades while it violates their rights and the kind that lies profusely in the media and manipulates governments to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
This is what you, with your “respectful” subterfuge, are enabling
“You Liberal Zionists who paint a pretty picture of Zionism while enabling Palestinian suffering indefinitely, sicken me.”
Like most extremists, you can’t stand any voice of moderation.
there’s nothing moderate about zionism. nothing at all. quit trying to normalize apartheid.
Zionism is the self-governance movement of the Jewish people. You want to call that immoderate, you’re out to lunch.
The only relevant question, good ones, is how it accomplishes that, unkindly or kindly.
But, unless you believe that there is no animosity and no violence from the Arab world, whether justified or not, then you will note that it is a “rough neighborhood” with no simplistic answers.
Richard Witty said, ‘Here I go again.
‘What I don’t try and justify is why I, Richard Witty, an American who has spent a few weeks in Israel in his entire life (not since 1986), has the right to leave my bucolic town in western Massachusetts and fly to the eastern Mediterranean to “self-govern” based on a 2000-year-old claim, while a Palestinian my age, whose parents were chased out of Israel by fire and sword and who still has the keys to the family home, is not even allowed to visit.
‘I won’t even try and justify this monumental, self-evident injustice.’
“But, unless you believe that there is no animosity and no violence from the Arab world, whether justified or not, then you will note that it is a “rough neighborhood” with no simplistic answers.”
The Arab world? There is is either no limit to the man’s ignorance or to his dishonesty. Over 95% of the Arab world’s population is currently under one form or other of a peace arrangement with Israel. The only 2 countries still openly hostile to Israel and not into some understanding or business dealing with it are Syria and Lebanon and of these 2, Syria is not being true to form with its the annual Golan apples funny business. This victimhood and self-pitty shit about being surrounded by 400 million Arabs wanting to kill the Jews is nauseating.
Jordan and Egypt are the only two states that have any formal recognition of Israel, and clearly the concensus of recognition with Egypt is stressing. (You didn’t read the article with the removal of the Israeli flag from its embassy, with no military protection of the embassy offered by Egypt.)
Walid,
Did you not notice that there were three considerable terror incidents in the past week, and close to 200 rockets fired on southern Israel. The prerequisite of recognition of Israel is not there.
It is an important discussion to inquire into what are moral and justifiable diplomatic and/or military responses to events, but to declare that there is no animosity, acted on, no violence, no threat, is just ignorant.
“This victimhood and self-pitty shit about being surrounded by 400 million Arabs wanting to kill the Jews is nauseating.”
These were nowhere close to my words.
I’m curious, Witty? Are Palestinian corpses COMPLETELY INVISIBLE to you? I mean seriously. I think Israel could kill 3,500 children and you’d still be droning on about the rocket attacks.
You are right about Silverstein, Donald. He even took me to task once (for one of my more intemperate posts, what can I say? some days it’s hard not to boil over…..). But yes, he has little patience with people speculating over the line, and tries hard to keep some line on conspiracy theories of all kinds, that while delving into Mossad’s “daring do”s and IDF’s and shabak’s shadier sides. His comments section are unfortunately innundated by some weird people who seem to have more of an issue with him personally than concern about the issues raised.
I do think we are kind of lucky in the comments on MW. The good ones way tip the scale enough to where it’s easy to just gloss over the untoward/stupid comments and even the occasional weird ones who may stray in now and then. There are enough people to serve as anchors to keep the conversation on high level, sometimes very high. For that reason I think it’s been wise of Phil to keep Witty around (ouch!) and let hophmi and GF and LLI, Jonah, Jon S etc belt out their discordant tunes. They are well taken on – as well they should – without Phil having to interject at all. But then I am glad not to be reprimanded myself, at least not too severely, for my own occasional lapse into intemperateness. I am sure several of us are in the same boat.
I am glad not to be reprimanded myself, at least not too severely, for my own occasional lapse into intemperateness
imho we have lots of leeway here because the zio norm or ‘moderate’ is so radical and over the top but that’s just the nature of defending colonializm, ethnic cleansing, occupation..zionism in a nutshell. it occurs to me fleetingly on occasion i should feel a tinge sorry for them, tasked w/defending the indefensible day in and day out. those fleeting moments dissipate almost immediately.
annie – and a great job you do, taking on all with thunder and lightening galore (yes, we had one of those – finally – in poor parched Texas – just as plans were laid to take a west coast break from middle country and middle ages).
And speaking of thunder, has anyone seen Avi lately? asked on another long gone thread, but you may not have time to keep checking them musty old places….
thank you tripletime, you know i love your contributions to our conversation here. i have no idea where avi is and i miss him. i’ve been thinking about him frequently lately. i hope nothing around here drove him over the edge.
some very exciting news, i just put up a draft and i’m still literally shaking China announces support for Palestinian UN statehood bid.
i don’t know if phil or adam are around but i wish/hope this could get on the front page soon.
“… thunder and lightening galore (yes, we had one of those – finally – in poor parched Texas ”
Must have been from all your praying, Danaa.
If J Street is recommending a writer (Holland) that cross-posts on the insidious, profoundly Islamophobic site, Harry’s Place*, which has made an art out of being an apologist for Israel’s crimes through the use of pseudo-journalistic ‘exposés’ of any public figure sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, complete with torturous logic and based on so many false assumptions, the whole tour de force of hateful bile comes crashing to the ground under any real scrutiny, then J Street is OVER, if it ever got going.
*link to hurryupharry.org
Indeed it is.
I just unsubscribed to their newsletter, which I’ve been meanign to do for quite some time. I was almost tempted to write them a scathing email telling them why and how irrlevant they are, but why waste the energy?
Can hardly blame Silverstein for losing his temper.
I lost mine long ago over this fake peace process industry that’s been going for decades.
We need more tempers, all directed at congress and the zio cretins.
Give them hell.
“I don’t know what J Street means to achieve by going after non-Zionists.”
Richard S is not a non-Zionist. I believe he refers to himself as a “cultural” or progressive Zionist which in my opinion is an oxymoron.
Although, I don’t wish this kind of J Street smear on him; this may be a good thing after all. Richard has a very good blog but sometimes his ties to Zionism get in the way of his objectivity and result in biased, flawed judgment.
It’s disingenuous to claim one is a Zionist and then truly committed to the plight of Palestinians and human rights. I would say that everyone who started supporting J Street and has now distanced themselves from it, should have come to the conclusion already that “liberal, cultural, or progressive Zionism” is a contradiction and oxymoron and that one must abandon Zionism to be true to the other. The “recovering” Zionist that protested the Aipac convention understands this; I believe Phil understands this, but Richard S. still has some waking up to do.
Maybe this J Street smear will do the job and maybe other so-called “liberal Zionists” will in future wake him up once and for all. It’s my hope that sooner or later he realizes that hanging on to Zionism is compromising his integrity and alienating people who appreciate his blog.
“Liberal” Zionism is a twisted fairytale and he needs to get over it and move on without the baggage of Zionism weighing him down.