An important moment. Larry Derfner reports that he was fired by the Jerusalem Post for a column in which he stated that Palestinians have the "right" to use terrorism and that he would do everything he could to stop them from exercising that right, oppressed or not-- a statement he subsequently apologized for.
From his blog: “I got fired by the Jerusalem Post today”
Posted on August 29, 2011 by Larry Derfner
I got fired by The Jerusalem Post today. The paper got hundreds of notices of cancellations of subscription after my blog post (“The awful, necessary truth about Palestinian terror”) of Sunday last week; the reason being given for my firing, though, is the substance of the essay, despite the apology I published later. A page-one notice to this effect will be published in the Post tomorrow.
My apology was to have run in the Post yesterday, but a logistical mix-up prevented it. Today the paper ran a column by Isi Liebler titled “Justifying murder – an abomination,” which, like nearly all of the right-wing websites attacking my original essay (I took it down from my blog upon publishing the apology), it gives extremely short shrift to all the things I wrote that show my intent was not to encourage terror, but the opposite:
Thanks to commenter thankgodI'matheist
A tragedy. Larry is a good man, and a compelling writer.
The article went too far though.
Richard Witty said, ‘Look at me endorse censorship
‘What if Phil and Adam decide that I, Richard Witty, ‘go too far’ here at Mondoweiss? Will I get the same treatment as Larry Derfner?
‘Also, Larry Derfner actually lives in Israel. I haven’t been there since 1986. But naturally I have a better, more informed opinion of what happens there than he does.’
James North said, ‘I am a crotchety old man full of hate. one time, a few months ago 1 person said that they thought this nonsense was funny so I have over played it. for some reason Phil and Adam keep allowing me to mock a fellow commenter without knowing (or caring) that it makes a mockery of their blog’
Your last sentence is quite ironic
Why aren’t there any funny, creative Zionists? Why are you invariably foul-mouthed simplistic bullying parrots?
Thank you, James North for explaining what Richard Witty’s platitudes mean. As others have commented before, Richard is important because he speaks for the liberal Zionist camp. His mode of speech is quite common. I find it’s more effort than it’s worth to expose the positions behind the stream of unexplained judgements.
I find James’ comments to be insightful and comic. Keep them coming.
Elliot: Thanks for the endorsement, but I have one very small disagreement. Richard Witty believes the 550,000 Israeli settlers should be able to remain in the West Bank. To me, this moves him out of the “liberal Zionist” camp. There’s little practical difference between Richard and Likud, despite his hippie language of “humanizing the other.”
i agree james. this buttresses the claim this is a ‘balanced’ site. we’ve got a zionist wolf in liberal sheep’s clothing opening a significant number of threads here taking first stab at the discourse. can’t expect more ‘fairness’ than that. think of the effort it must take to get so many of those first comments up there but he strikes again over and over.
what does your creed tell you about judgment, shouldn’t you know more about his article before jumping to conclusions? Have you followed the link? Or were you too buzy to be the first?
What Richard needs to realize is what the whole world can see clearly:
Larry Derfner:
What’s needed very badly, however, is for Israelis to realize that the occupation is hurting the Palestinians terribly, that it’s driving them to try to kill us, that we are compelling them to engage in terrorism, that the blood of Israeli victims is ultimately on our hands, and that it’s up to us to stop provoking our own people’s murder by ending the occupation.
AAAAAHHHHHHH! don’t say it! you’ll loose your reputation and your job and be an outcast!
Richard Witty said, ‘I am familiar with Derfner’s original article. I did bring it to the attention of Mondoweiss visitors. And I also went on the Jerusalem Post website to criticize the very paragraph LeaNder cites above.’
Richard Witty said Larry went “too far”, he made a “gross mistake” but now “thankfully” he has learned his way and changed his “convictions”. Richard Witty can say that because Larry is his “personal friend”.
Please note that the article never appeared on the Jerusalem Post website.
North apologized for that error, but not everywhere obviously.
The Palestinians do have the right to defend their people from military attack by using whatever means they have at their disposal. They have the right to defend their land from being stolen from them by whatever means are at their disposal. That’s undeniable. Those rights are enshrined in the UN Charter. ( Funny that you talk about the Hamas charter all the time, Richard, and yet are silent when it comes to Hamas’ right to resist and respond as per basic human rights outlined in the UN Charter.)
Perhaps using the word “terrorism” was inappropriate. But then again, he’s writing for the JP which is a right-wing propaganda rag, so really he shouldn’t be surprised that they’d fire him for suggesting the Palestinains have any rights whatsoever when it comes to their occupation and oppression.
stevieb- Please cite the section of the UN Charter that asserts the rights of occupied people to resist. What does this right include? Does it include the right to blow up civilians?
Interesting to note that Larry Derfner included his reading of Roger Cohen and The Finkler Question in his post regarding his firing. Interesting to note that Mondoweiss has not yet dealt with the Finkler Question except for one quote from Shmuel from Magnes Zionist.
“Interesting to note that Mondoweiss has not yet dealt with the Finkler Question ”
I’d like to see Phil read and review it. I’ve only read reviews (life is too short to read novels I’d probably just find annoying), but it sounds rather like a series of cheap shots at people who think that Israel is as bad as, say, apartheid South Africa.
On the right to resist–it seems to be common on lefty blogs to claim that occupied people have the right to resist “by any means necessary”, a quote which I think comes from Malcolm X. I doubt it’s an actual legal right, because it seems to contradict my (admittedly very vague) understanding of the laws governing war crimes. It does seem fair to point out that powerful countries seem to have whatever level of morality they think they can afford and it’s hypocritical to hold Palestinians and others to standards that we ignore when it suits us. If the US refrains from carpet-bombing civilians these days, it’s probably in part because the government realizes it would do more harm than good in the long run, even from a purely selfish viewpoint. But what the US and Israel both do (IMO) is target civilians in plausibly deniable ways. We both also support or have supported groups that do murder civilians without bothering to cover it up.
will get on it, donald. i saw it at my sister’s last passover or thanksgiving and was turned off
Are you saying that palestinians do not have a right to fight the idf and other colonial agents of their oppression wj?
Does this right have to be enshrined in the un whatever?
And did anyone say blowing up civilians was resistance?
And didnt jewish terrorists blow up civilians during the mandate and the war of independence?
Stop your hysterics.
wonderingjew,
The answer to your question about the rights of occupied people (or read Hostage’s stuff in the archives) is on former Ambassador Craig Murray’s site. Search for it. One search term “San Remo” might help.
RW on Mondoweiss: “A tragedy. Larry is a good man, and a compelling writer. The article went too far though.”
RW on Larry Derfner’s post at Israelleft.com: “I’m also very sorry that you got fired. You didn’t deserve to be.”
So Richard, which is to be?
I don’t think this is an important moment. The Jerusalem Post is not going to give a platform to a guy who says Palestinians have the right to blow up Israelis. If a New York Times columnist wrote that Iraqis had the right to kill Americans, he’d be out as well. Derfner was irresponsible; he knows it.
interesting. and susan sontag got shown the door after she wrote in the new yorker that the 9/11 attacks were courageous…
“If a New York Times columnist wrote that Iraqis had the right to kill Americans, he’d be out as well.”
Of course the NYT does publish columnists who call for brutal measures against Iraqis.
brooks
If the link works (I don’t know if you need a NYT subscription) you need to click to the second page, where you will find David Brooks saying –
“History shows that Americans are willing to make sacrifices. The real doubts come when we see ourselves inflicting them. What will happen to the national mood when the news programs start broadcasting images of the brutal measures our own troops will have to adopt? Inevitably, there will be atrocities that will cause many good-hearted people to defect from the cause. They will be tempted to have us retreat into the paradise of our own innocence.”
“Of course the NYT does publish columnists who call for brutal measures against Iraqis.”
Yes, and Israeli papers publish columnists who call for tough measures against the Palestinians. The point is that whatever pretensions newspapers have toward objectivity, there is still a certain nationalistic element to what they will allow. The point is that the Jerusalem Post is not acting any differently than the New York Times would in this regard, so I don’t see the importance of the story.
Hophmi, we both agree on how the NYT and the JP behave–however, I think it is important to point out the moral hypocrisy behind it. Actually, I don’t know that the NYT has fired anyone for a Derfner-like offense, but probably because they’ve never hired anyone likely to commit one. But they did hire Brooks, who said what I quoted above.
Then why the hell do you spam us with MEMRI citations? Putting aside that most of them are phonier than your legal qualifications, if you really believed that nationalism was ho-hum who-cares, then why do you make an exception out of Palestinian nationalism?
“If a New York Times columnist wrote that Iraqis had the right to kill Americans, he’d be out as well.”
Quite true. Yet when the Times/WashPo, etc. wrote editorials and op-eds advocating the Iraq war where we killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and lost over 4,000 Americans based on lies, no one lost their jobs.
NoPod lose his “meddle” of freedom when he said that he prays we bomb Iran? Nope.
But I guess your moral high horse has plenty of room to spare along side the poeple whose words set the war(s) into motion.
And we wonder why we are hated.
sill argument, if you said the baghdad times it would be relevant, but, in the case of Hophmi’s argument, what you are saying doesn’t make sense.
Moving the goalposts…..
It’s a silly argument to you, because you think like a tribalist. Mark and I are pointing out that columnists don’t get fired for advocating terrorism as such. It’s not a moral position that the newspapers adopt, though they probably pretend it is.
It’s a sill argument to you because you’re confused about the analogy, just as you didn’t understand simple debate points sabout economics and accounting when we were discussing Israeli welfare.
The goal posts are cemented in. No one lost their job advocating mass killing of Iraqis and Iranians. Donald’s spot-on.
“Yet when the Times/WashPo, etc. wrote editorials and op-eds advocating the Iraq war where we killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and lost over 4,000 Americans based on lies, no one lost their jobs.”
Or when Norman Podhoretz wrote an major op-ed in the NYT’s that called for the dropping of a nuclear bomb on Tehran, openly calling for the murder of millions of Iranians, in order to ‘save’ Israel….
MarkF,
Damn right.
The Jerusalem Post is not going to give a platform to a guy who says Palestinians have the right to blow up Israelis.
But eee contends just that! Consider: the last several days has seen eee justify various Israeli atrocities by saying (in so many words): “Hey, it’s war. War is messy and sh-t happens. Wish it didn’t have to be this way, but here we are. The Palestinians best hope is to sit down at the table and accept what we dish them, for if they want to play tough, we’ll cream ‘em.”
Now, I accept this as an intellectually legit position. But the conjugate of this argument is that there is nothing “wrong” with Palestinians claiming “the right to blow up Israelis”, as per Hophni’s refrain. War is messy, and sh-t happens. Right, Hophni?
I’d have less of a problem with Israel and its bullshit if it just took a page from eee’s book and stopped being so mealy-mouthed about its true nature. It is an amoral, selfish, shitty little prick of a country. Fine! It isn’t the first and it won’t be the last.
But please please please stop the whiney indignation when someone points out the consequences of reciprocity. If it can’t walk the walk, stop talking the talk. -N49.
>> But please please please stop the whiney indignation when someone points out the consequences of reciprocity.
It ain’t easy being an oppressor-victim.
Do the Palestinians have a right to blow up Israeli civilians? I find that an irrelevant, useless and very vague question. All I care about is the fact that they are doing it. Who is this arbiter of rights anyway? Or, what are the ground rules for determining rights? We cannot agree if parents have the “right” to circumcise their kids, so we are going to agree on this issue?
But that is being too reflective. The simplest interpretation of what Derfner wrote is that Palestinians SHOULD kill Israeli children. That is the interpretation people will latch on to and why Derfner got fired. You don’t tell your customers their kids should be killed even if you believe it.
>> The simplest interpretation of what Derfner wrote is that Palestinians SHOULD kill Israeli children. That is the interpretation people will latch on to and why Derfner got fired.
The simplest – and most honest and accurate – interpretation is that occupation generates retaliation/resistance/blowback.
The interpretation simple people like you will derive – and which dishonest people will promote – is that Palestinians SHOULD kill children.
The simplest interpretation of what Derfner wrote is that Palestinians SHOULD kill Israeli children.
eee, this is a very cult-like response.
Derfner said nothing of the kind. He was simply explaining the reasons behind it when it occurs. But it is not Palestinians who killing Israeli children that is the problem but Israelis killing Palestinian children.
I imagine the JPost was looking for an excuse to fire Derfner since his witty columns have exposed the crud that exists at the heart of today’s Israeli society in which the racist sentiments of transplanted Australian Isi Leibler and the odious Carolyn Glick are the norm.
“Derfner said nothing of the kind. He was simply explaining the reasons behind it when it occurs. But it is not Palestinians who killing Israeli children that is the problem but Israelis killing Palestinian children.”
I see you are not a universalist either. For Israelis, Palestinians killing Israeli children is a problem even if it is not for you.
“But the conjugate of this argument is that there is nothing “wrong” with Palestinians claiming “the right to blow up Israelis”, as per Hophni’s refrain. War is messy, and sh-t happens. Right, Hophni?”
Look, I’m going to take the rare opportunity to agree with Jeffrey. Derfner is not a fan of Palestinian terrorism. He was making a root-causes argument. He expressed a widely-expressed view in a harsh and over-the-top way that offended the people who subscribe to the Jerusalem Post. The subscribers are, in my estimation, considerably to the right of the editorial staff.
It’s kind of like Ward Churchill using “little Hitlers” to describe Americans. Does Ward Churchill REALLY believe most Americans are “little Hitlers?” (Well, maybe.) But the substance of the his argument was similar to Derfner’s. The trouble was the way he articulated it.
I don’t think the JPost was looking for an excuse to fire Derfner. They’ve had their share of left-wing writers over the years. There are less in the newspaper than there used to be; more in the Jerusalem Report, their magazine. And it’s telling that most of the staff was apparently opposed to the firing.
Annie,
I just don’t see why it is a cult like response. People tend to latch to the simplest meanings of things and they are usually justified in doing so. When you take what Derfner wrote and add his apology I do not understand what he means. If he means that Palestinians think they are justified in killing Israeli civilians as part of their struggle, that is not news and many Israelis have already written that. But he means something else. What exactly? That Israelis should acknowledge that they deserve that their kids be killed? Well they don’t believe that.
he didn’t say their kids deserved to be killed, he said blood of Israeli victims is ultimately on our hands.
wrt: When you take what Derfner wrote and add his apology I do not understand what he means.
if you do not understand what he means try going back and finding the specific passages you think either contradict themselves or leave you baffled, then ask me again. try deciphering this, do you understand this?
I just don’t see why it is a cult like response.
well, because what he said was not heard, the response seemed visceral. there appears to be an incomprehension wrt the basic-ness of the message, a complete lack of grasping the meaning. like a wall going up and then a pack attack.
Who is this arbiter of rights anyway? Or, what are the ground rules for determining rights?
This is the real Israel, where the sole consideration is: can we get away with it? Morality according to who has the biggest gun, and who has the greenest money.
Bookmark this note, and add it to eee’s post about the settler-driven pogroms that would sweep through the west bank should the population there demand one-man, one-vote. -N49.
“Do the Palestinians have a right to blow up Israeli civilians? I find that an irrelevant, useless and very vague question. All I care about is the fact that they are doing it. Who is this arbiter of rights anyway?”
It is all too rare that purely sociopathic thinking is placed clearly and openly on display like this.
eee: Who is this arbiter of rights anyway? Or, what are the ground rules for determining rights?
Four Geneva Conventions, two Hague Conventions, three Geneva Protocols, the UN Charter, and the UN Convention Against Torture to start. Most of the body of international humanitarian law was borne of the atrocities of WWII in the hope that they would never again be repeated. To anyone. Anywhere in the world.
Rania,
3e doesn’t recognise international law. He believes that “International law etc. is only one tool for a country to pursue its interests. First come the country’s interests, then everything else.”
He would also rather not talk about rights (or “rights”, as he prefers to call them), because they “just cloud(s) the issues”.
Shmuel,
I would be happy to recognize international law, just give Israel veto rights in the security council. Until then, international law is as you say just another method for a country to pursue its interests. There is no arbiter of international law I trust and no mechanism of enforcement that I trust. As far as I can tell “international law” is just a tool used with great hypocrisy by countries such as Russia, China and most Arab countries. The UNHRC deals predominantly with Israel and ignores most other parts of the world.
“Rights” is a vague and obscure concept. What does it mean that you have the right to clean drinking water? Does it mean God needs to give you clean drinking water? If it means you should have clean drinking water then why use the “right” word at all. Seriously, what does it mean?
>> “I would be happy to recognize international law, just give Israel veto rights in the security council.” <<
It already has veto rights through its proxy, the US. That's why Israel ignores international law with impunity.
I would be happy to recognize international law, just give Israel veto rights in the security council.
The two are mutually exclusive.
Israel is not important enough to be given veto rights in the Security Council. (1) It is not one of the five “great powers.” (2) It has to be voted in (Israel has thumbed its nose at Security Council decisions for 60 years). (3) Switzerland, which has been a country longer than Israel, and does not require funding from another country or a super power babysitter, would be a more likely candidate as a member; it has not been selected yet as a two-year member. Switzerland also complies with, and embraces, the international law you deride.
Search Hostage’s archive for definitions of international law that are applicable and/or binding on UN member states.
Eee,
Seriously, what does it mean?
You can answer that for yourself by first distinguishing between opinion and fact. You know, google.
“odious Carolyn Glick ”
Jeffrey, Don’t you watch Latma? It’s a great, great show. Oh, sorry, you don’t listen to anything not from your side of the equation.
BTW, Jeffery, re Caroline Glick, you are not good enough to even shine her shoes.
latma who?
LLI-NOT!, Glick doesn’t wear shoes. Doesn’t need ‘em. She has servants like you who carry her around on a sedan chair. But I do respect Glick, having nominated her several times for the annual Ilse Koch Award although Melanie Phillips gave her a run for the money. Since you don’t like “odious,” how about malodorous?
The Iraqi-American connection is not the same.
Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 40+ years. Israeli Arabs ARE Palestinians too. Palestinian and Israeli identity are intertwined and Derfner’s views and commentary on the relationship is indicative of that intimacy.
I don’t think of it as the same thing.
What I think happened though is that Derfner was actually appeasing the majority opinion on this issue.
He calls Palestinian resistance terrorism. I don’t think he meant killing people on a bus or in a discotheque. He labeled it as terrorism because it might have been worse to say Palestinians have a right to *resist*, rather than right to terrorize.
All in all, it was a very weird statement considering his position in Israeli journalism.
I don’t think it’s fair to condemn him for this one statement given the context he provided and his ultimate apology.
The Israelis who clamored for his firing will not do the same for others whose views are much more consistently vile because they AGREE with those vile views.
I’d say 90% of the ‘moral outrage’ by a Zionist(s) always carries an asterisk.
An abomination. It proves the intolerance of Israel — and you can bet your last nickel that Larry would have been fired as well (with a lot more vitriol) if he were an American columnist and published the same blog post.
Maybe some of you will recall the dramatic photos in TLV airport with chaos over the “fly-tilla” — Derfner was right in the middle of the action. He’s a man of conviction.
Someone suggested that Larry should make reverse aliyah and come back to Los Angeles. He’s probably thinking the same thing.
I have been expecting this since I began reading his blog – long before the so-called offensive article. The progress of Larry’s awakening was palpable with each succeeding essay.
I cannot summon much sympathy for Derfner because his underlying assumptions are so repugnant. Derfner warns his reader that ‘we’re hurting the Palestinians by denying them independence: It’s so bad that it’s helping drive them to try to kill us’. In his apology he writes, ‘I would do whatever was necessary to stop a Palestinian, oppressed or not, from killing one of my countrymen’
‘Terror’ means attacks on civilians, which is illegal under international humanitarian law, and can never be justified, although in contexts of the extreme oppression of the perpetrator and his/her community, it can sometimes be understood. Palestinian civilians are daily victims of Israeli terror – in all its forms – so they know how unjustified it is, and never cease to call on the ‘international community’ to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law. The vast majority of Palestinians try to use their rights to freedom of expression, to peaceful protest, etc, to obtain freedom from Israeli terror and these non-violent tactics are brutally crushed. They are left angry, desperate, more determined than ever, but with no interest in the spilling of Jewish, Israeli blood.
If you read this as solidarity with Palestinians, you’re missing the patronising, Orientalist thrust of his argument. Palestinians are the Other and need to live apart, incapable of being one of his ‘countrymen’ (a country that belongs to this American only because he is a Jew) – they are prone to violence and the desire to kill Israeli Jews, so let’s not provoke them – as if Palestinians are sleeping lions being prodded with a stick.
The only thing he successfully does is expose the severe political limitations – and racist assumptions – of Zionist ideology and its incompatibility with international law.
funny you bring up international law when he gets fired for condoning suicide bombing.
Attack against civilians is terrorism a’la international law, but it doesnt say anything “suicide bombing” per se.
There has not been a suicide bombing there in years. You go right for the extreme, the shock value. Like showing photos of ‘terror victim’ Israeli children bleeding to death. I bet you laugh at the burned-to-a-crisp Palestinian baby photos though.
Some of the recent ‘suicide bombings’ in the world have left craters. An explosion that leaves a crater would be nearly impossible to determine a suicide bombing. The types of explosives that leave craters are not exactly accessible to your run-of-the-mill extremist. Mythbusters was unable to make craters using advanced homemade bombs.
My point is I doubt those early 2000s Israel suicide bombs were all suicide bombers or knowingly suicide bombers. It takes a special kind of nutter to kill themselves and Islam is against suicide just like the other religions. “Extreme” X-Games style Islam on the other hand, a product of Mossad laboratories copyright 1970, apparently allows it but you would have to be a very gullible idiot to fall for such a thing. More likely that bombings were labeled suicide bombings for shock value just like crimes are called ‘terror attacks’ when committed by Arabs.
I cannot understand what sort of brainwashing we subjected ourselves to, so that a person willing to die for their country or religion is subject of revulsion rather than grudging admiration.
I can understand if we were finding target of suicide bombers to be morally reprehensible – there is an argument that attacking civilian targets is unacceptable – but this knee jerk reaction that ALL suicide bombers are ex vi termini beyond the pale is pure wholesale propaganda masquerading for fundamental moral principle.
Glass houses my friend.
DBG, it’s wrong to call it suicide bombing. The proper term should be homicide bombing. The main intent of these perpetrators is to murder as many people as possible. Suicide explosive vests etc. are just the means, If someone tries this and fails, they are not charged with attempted suicide but attempted homicide.
This faulty term puts the emphasis on the murderer instead of the real act and it’s victim,s.
So what do you call it, LLI, when an Israeli pilot blows up an apartment building or a UN school from the safety of high altitude? I guess we’d have to call that homicide bombing, too! So are you equating Palestinian terrorists with IDF soldiers? I’ll buy into that, actually.
“DBG, it’s wrong to call it suicide bombing.”
LLI, That is the dopeys argument that you people push. It’s used to distinguish it from bombings where suicides don’t take place.
Zionism is racism.
Rubbish.
You just don’t like the idea that someone might actually consider that the situation Israel has deliberately created for Palestinians is so desperate that people will commit suicide over it and try to take Israelis with them.
Over 95% of suicide bombings in the world result from military occupations, including the now defunct campaign in Israel/Palestine.
Absolutely agree.
On his “A new appreciation for Israel” he said:
“And I still don’t see any contradiction between being a Zionist and believing that the Palestinians have as much right to fight for their independence today as the Zionists did before 1948.”
A statement I challenged there.
My 7.22 pm post was agreeing with Eleanor; don’t know why it ended up here.
I would add that, nevertheless, I respect Derfner for his courage and the fact that he’s got as far as he has. A long way from the tree, yet still under it.
it was a very brave post he wrote and i am not surprised he was fired. in fact i was just reading someone calling for his firing on another blog.
there is just a line you can’t cross in zionist discourse and stay within the realm of the acceptable and that line is applying the same standards for palestinians as zionists allow themselves.
“there is just a line you can’t cross in zionist discourse and stay within the realm of the acceptable and that line is applying the same standards for palestinians as zionists allow themselves.”
This is line you can’t cross in any discourse. You call the killing of your own countrymen justified, you’re going to be out at any major newspaper, whether it’s in New York, London, Paris, or Tel Aviv.
hoph:
“This is line you can’t cross in any discourse.”
++++ Roll back to 1948. Or go to settler violence against palestinians. Are there any lines you cant gross ?
Really? Has anyone in mainstream American media been fired for treating the killings of Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan as justified?
These are not the cases under discussion. Would a person in the US be fired for justifying the 9/11 attacks, that is the question.
eee does have a point here, an oblique one, as much as it pains me to admit that much. There was one person fired in the US for similar reasons – his name is Prof. Churchill Ward and his crime was to explain 9/11 as expected “blowback”. Like Derfner, he sought to explain, not justify. Like Derfner, he was villified by people who could not and would not see the difference. Unlike Derfner however, he was not a columnist and did not actually get fired. He just did not get tenure and was shown the door. The lawsuit against the University is still going on….. so far he has been winning in the courts. Collecting is another matter.
Where eee is right is that in the US it is also professional suicide to call the 9/11 bombers “brave”, to point out that it was understandable and expected blowback, or more grievously, to connect the motivations for 9/11 to the Israeli atrocities in Lebanon (one of the key things that radicalized Atta, according to those who knew him and his own writings and pronouncements). Israel’s actions were indeed a key cause for 9/11 happening (though not the only one). Israel was also a key cause for the murderous actions of the US in Iraq that lead to 1 M dead and a destroyed country. Say these things on the MSM and you will indeed get fired – fast (writing for antiwar.com doesn’t count as MSM. Salon is a question mark – Glenn Greenwald has said much about blowback and he is still going strong there and is even sometimes commenting on selected MSM channels. But he is special. One of a few who are “tolerated”, like Jeremy Scahill).
I can only assume that eee agrees that israeli actions are culpable as a contributing factors leading to the 9/11 attacks; which, BTW, only differed from other attacks on American interests by the effectiveness of execution. Oops! I forgot, we can’t possibly use words like ‘effective” in connection with any operation conducted by Ayrabs….the acceptable speech is to denounce them as “cowards”, right? do we still agree, eee, or have I gone a bit beyond your original intention? (which was, I believe to invoke the “you too suck” clause…).
People get fired in the United States for trying to bring up the attack on the USS Liberty, and it wouldn’t surprise me if we found out that people were forced out of the State Department over the murder of Furkan Dogan and the State Department’s unwillingness to protect the rights of Americans who’s ethnicity and/or religion fall outside certain privileged parameters.
“Glenn Greenwald has said much about blowback and he is still going strong there and is even sometimes commenting on selected MSM channels”
That’s the great thing about Glenn–he’s just about the only honest voice on human rights who comes close to being in the mainstream. Salon is one of those places which is right on the borderline between mainstream and marginalized left, and that also describes Glenn, I think.
On the other hand, Glenn is just about the only person saying such things regularly near the mainstream, so that sort of makes him a token.
Salon is one of those places which is right on the borderline between mainstream and marginalized left, and that also describes Glenn, I think.
maybe larry too. the sea will part for him.
No, it’s not. Homphi’s statement was “You call the killing of your own countrymen justified, you’re going to be out at any major newspaper, whether it’s in New York, London, Paris, or Tel Aviv.”
This makes the cold-blooded murders of Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan relvant. And there were Americans who excused these brutal slayings, and, as far as I recall, no one ever lost a job over it.
Danaa,
“eee does have a point here, an oblique one, as much as it pains me to admit that much.”
But you are playing into eee’s hands. He, and homphi, make these comparisons to the US on the unspoken assumption that the US is the gold-standard for rights and decent behavior. Looked at objectively, it’s absolutely the reverse. The US’s actions are as bad as Israel’s, if not as concentrated. The US speaks a game of liberty and human rights, but is often dangerously reactionary.
“This makes the cold-blooded murders of Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan relvant.”
Only in your world. Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan were not killed in America while taking the bus to work.
You call the killing of your own countrymen justified, you’re going to be out at any major newspaper,
hophmi , he didn’t call for anyone’s killing and you know it. your rebuttal is flawed.
Oh, G-d, please read. He called the killing of his countrymen JUSTIFIED. I didn’t say he called for the killing of his countrymen.
you’re right, i read that wrong. don’t know what’s up w/that. but i disagree completely it would be grounds for firing in any msm. heck, it’s kind of a no brainer after invading afghanistan one might write it’s perfectly justifiable and logical for an afghan to try to kill an american soldier. what’s so radical about that?
“heck, it’s kind of a no brainer after invading afghanistan one might write it’s perfectly justifiable and logical for an afghan to try to kill an american soldier. what’s so radical about that?”
Because it upsets the Israeli’s delicate egos, built around them being eternal victims.
Did barry rubin get fired for blaming the victims of the massacre in norway on multiculturalism?
Does Barry Rubin write for a Norwegian newspaper? Did he say it was justified because of multiculturalism?
Yes.
link to dailykos.com
Read and check the sources.
Youre right tho, rubin isnt writing from norway, so he has free reign to be openly disgusting.
“You call the killing of your own countrymen justified,you’re going to be out at any major newspaper, ”
That’s probably true. But it’s not a moral position these newspapers are taking, since one can certainly call for brutal measures against others without risking anything. You can deny atrocities committed by the US or its allies or you can advocate for atrocities and there are no consequences.
I messed up–this was supposed to go under hophmi’s 10:55 post.
Donald,
It is a moral position, just not a universalist one.
For example, say that we are back in WWII times and Truman decides to have a public discussion whether to nuke Japanese cities. Would it have been immoral for an American newspaper to support the nuking? Of course not (and almost all if not all did support it after it happened).
You probably meant “controversial” instead of moral.
Larry used one wrong word “terror”.
It was not what he meant to imply, which he later clarified.
Still, he did say it, and it hit a nerve.
Richard Witty said, ‘I’m leaving out an admittedly small part of the Larry Derfner censorship story, but a part which might interest Mondoweiss visitors. After Larry published his courageous piece, I, Richard Witty, went over to the Jerusalem Post website –and criticized him!!’
North,
What the F are you talking about? I consider Larry a personal friend. Your slander is not appropriate in this case.
Richard Witty said, ‘I don’t really know what the word “slander” means. James North said that I criticized Derfner’s courageous piece at the Jerusalem Post website. North is correct.’
Where?
What is the exact quote? I don’t think the article was published in the Jerusalem Post. I don’t read the Post, so how would a criticism of it appear there.
I definitely posted my criticism of his wording at his blog. Ask him personally about our interaction.
There are days when your “parody” reaches the slime level.
Lets ban dick witty for his support of terror and his support for the nakba and ethnic cleansing in general when advantageous
Come now Cliff, Richard serves a very useful role at MW.
He hasn’t worked it out yet but he’s actually obliquely one of the hardest workers for Palestinian self-determination here – by repeatedly demonstrating how repugnant zionism is in the real world.
Israel labels everything a terrorist attack. If the USA were Israel we wouldn’t have cities ranked by crime but by terror. Detroit would be the terror capital of the USA. San Francisco is nice but it sit on the outskirts of those terrorists in Oakland.
By their own definition, Israel does not commit terrorist attacks. That means they can resort to the worst forms of terror known to man but if they are the ones committing the act again by their definition according to Israeli law, it isn’t terrorism. Just like Golan Heights and EJ are a part of Israel (LOL!). Because they say so that’s why.
You’re right that it hit a nerve, but the paranoia has to stop. A bunch of attacks that nobody knows who the culprit is happen and a few people die derails the whole tent protest thing out of paranoia. What a sad state of affairs. When the US-led NATO war in Iraq kills that many children they call it a Monday.
The settlers got him fired. They will strangle all dissent and thus guarantee the collapse. Here is their work :
link to myrightword.blogspot.com
“What do you think?
Is Larry sane?
Is he criminal?
Is he an extremist?
A kook masquerading as a journalist?
Steve Plaut thinks these addresses might be of interest to you:
Yaakov Neeman, Israeli Minister of Justice
Fax 972-2- 6285438
Email: sar@justice.gov.il
Mail Address: 29 Salah a-Din Street
Jerusalem, 91010 Israel
The Attorney General of Israel (same mail address)
Phone 972-2-6466521 or 522 at the end
Fax 972-2-6467001
And you can also type your complain into this form:
link to forms.gov.il
The form is in Hebrew, but you can write in English. The bottom part of the form is where the complaint goes. The upper part is your name and contact details
If you fax, send a copy also to the director of criminal prosecution in the Ministry at fax 972-2-6271783
link to pmo.gov.il
and here’s the violation of the Penal Code, 144d2:”
Im sure the theiving settlers are upset with larrys extremism.
Not terribly surprising. No newspaper will support freedom of expression when money is at issue.
As for the essay, since it told brutal truths to a brutal population which refuses to hear it, partly out of thier hard-headedness, partly out of paranoia, and partly out of a peculiar form of tinnitus whereby the expression, “you are the real victim” rings constantly in their ears, it is no wonder it was ill-received.
Exactly. The same piece could’ve ran in the USA and he would’ve still been fired. Even in op-eds journalists can only bend the rules so far or else their careers are on the line. Even well-respected columnists are not immune to this. There are most certainly journalists who know the truth and are frustrated that they cannot report any of it unless they want to find a different career path. As much as we’d like them to have the guts to do such a thing, it isn’t worth it.
So they fired Derfner.
Did the Israeli people ever “fire” Begin, Shamir, and the otehr admitted terrorists of the early Zionist period? The guys who blew up nail-bombs in Palesartinian market-places? Those who murdered European officials?
No.
double standard.
Derfner’s original column can be read here: link to thepilotwoman.wordpress.com
Although there is some confusion in the column regarding distinctions between legitimate resistance and terrorism, as well as the difference between justifying and understanding terrorism, Derfner makes an extremely important point, (which can also be applied to “liberal” opponents of non-violent Palestinian resistance – especially BDS):
It was to the Jerusalem Post’s credit that it regularly published one dissident voice. It is to its discredit that its editors/publisher decided to give that voice the sack.
if A is hurting B and won’t stop, then B damn sure has the right to hurt A to try to make him stop.
eee, You would surely agree to this, no? -N49.
Shmuel,
Derfner is confused and so are you.
His mistake is the following:
that if A is hurting B and won’t stop, then B damn sure has the right to hurt A to try to make him stop
There are several problems with this statement but let’s focus on the major problem: If I keep squeezing your arm, it would make sense if you punched me or pushed me away forcefully. It would not make sense if you shot me. (let’s not use the “rights” terminology because it just clouds the issues). That is the main problem. Israelis do not think that Palestinians should not fight back at all. They think they should not fight back in the manner they did in the second intifada.
Now, you may say, how else should they fight as they don’t have an army or accurate missiles. But why should Israelis be sympathetic to this argument? Does it make sense to give your enemies abilities to attack you? Of course not. It makes perfect sense for Israelis to strongly resent the way Palestinians fight at the same time they acknowledge that they are limited in what they can do and be happy about that.
I also think that Israelis would resent less the Palestinian methods if they proved to be even a little effective. As they just undermine the Palestinian cause they are perceived by most Israelis as senseless. They are not meant to bring the occupation to an end, but to hurt any Israeli that they can.
Wow, this post is just one giant, moist, steaming pile of national mental pathology on display, right here…
Derfner is confused and so are you.
As a matter of fact, Derfner’s confusion mirrors the confusion shared by most Israelis. All Palestinian resistance (of varying degrees of violence and even non-violence) is “terror”. Israelis make no distinction between (Israeli) military and non-military targets and, in their own actions, advocate little if any of the proportionality you suggest in your squeezing/shooting analogy (indicative, in itself, of your perception of occupation and dispossession as minor acts of violence).
It’s a vicious cycle. Israeli actions aren’t so bad, so virtually any Palestinian resistance (even something like BDS) is disproportionate. And, if we reject virtually all forms of Palestinian resistance, how could the violence against them be so bad?
Israelis do not think that Palestinians should not fight back at all. They think they should not fight back in the manner they did in the second intifada.
What would Israelis consider legitimate Palestinian resistance? Throwing stones at soldiers/border police on active duty in the OT? Shooting at checkpoints? Capturing soldiers for prisoner exchange? Bombing/sabotaging military and or strategic civilian installations? Assassinating Israeli military or civilian leaders directly involved in the violence against them? Damaging the wall that has deprived them of their land and freedom of movement? Boycotting Israeli institutions complicit in their oppression? Protesting? Writing anti-Israeli graffiti? Singing liberation songs? Turning the volume down when Israel’s song comes up on Eurovision? What?
What would Israelis consider legitimate Palestinian resistance?
Any action against policemen or soldiers in the West Bank or Gaza would be legitimate if the PA declares that it is at war with Israel and leaves the Oslo process/framework. Otherwise, only action against policemen and soldiers acting in contradiction to these agreements is legitimate.
I am not writing a legal opinion, just explaining what actions I think the Israeli public will view as part of war and what we will view as terrorism.
Why only in the WB or Gaza? Strategic targets that plan, direct and assist the occupation from within Israel proper, would be just as legitimate, wouldn’t they? Israel certainly doesn’t let borders (or armistice lines) get in its way.
Why the requirement of PA declaration/withdrawal from Oslo? The occupation and its violence have not stopped because of the process, nor do they show any sign of doing so in the foreseeable future. The PA may do as it likes, but why should that preclude resistance (violent and/or non-violent) by Palestinians in general? Where did you get this “rule” from? Has Israel declared that it is at war with the Palestinians and left the Oslo process/framework? If not, is its violence against Palestinians terrorism?
Do you really believe that Israelis would consider Palestinian resistance legitimate under the circumstances you describe (or any circumstances)? I don’t. Did they consider the largely non-violent and minimally violent resistance of the first intifada legitimate? Derfner is right. When Israelis begin recognising the legitimacy of Palestinian resistance, they will begin recognising the travesty of Palestinian reality and the legitimacy of Palestinian claims. And then there will no longer be any need for Palestinian resistance.
Shmuel,
You are asking what Israelis would view as legitimate, I gave you an answer. You don’t like it, that is fine. Nevertheless, let me address your questions.
There are no Israeli targets that are purely related to the occupation, at least I can’t think of one. What did you have in mind?
If the PA does not represent the Palestinians then who exactly is Israel supposed to negotiate peace with? If it does, then it has taken a stand against violence and therefore any violence would be perceived by Israelis as terrorism.
Many Israelis viewed and understood the non-violent stand of the Palestinians in the first intifada. The left was much stronger and it did bring Rabin to power and allowed for the Oslo process. The more violence the Palestinians used, the more right leaning Israelis became.
Derfner is wrong. Israelis will recognize Palestinian resistance only if it makes sense to them in its goals and means and is accompanied by a sincere effort by the Palestinians to negotiate peace. They will never recognize the Hamas type resistance as legitimate because they feel it is aimed at annihilating Israel, not bringing peace.
eeee, you have stated several times that you are at war with ‘the Palestinians’. Isn’t that enough for them to be permitted to fight back? Isn’t the Occupation (itself an act of war by Israel) enough of a statement for them to have a right to retaliate? Whether against IOF or armed (and bloody dangerous) settlers? And since they have no army, isn’t it the right of individuals or small groups to resist, since they also do not have any elected representatives (their mandate expired some considerable time ago)?
No israeli recognition is based on morality or fairness. It is political.
Hence there is no resistance a zionist would accept.
I dont think the palestinians are looking for the acceptance of a fascist like eee, who is cut from the same cloth as the rabid settlers and the idf goons who abuse palestinians daily
You are asking what Israelis would view as legitimate, I gave you an answer. You don’t like it, that is fine.
It was a poor answer. You made up some arbitrary “rules” and tried to pretend that adhering to them would somehow convince Israelis of the legitimacy of Palestinian violence against them. Eifo atah hai, ben adam? As a matter of fact, I don’t believe you (self-described “average Israeli”) would be convinced of the legitimacy of Palestinian violence against Israelis under these or any other circumstances.
There are no Israeli targets that are purely related to the occupation, at least I can’t think of one. What did you have in mind?
Another arbitrary rule. Why “purely”? It should be enough that they are involved. I can think of quite a few, all over Israel, and I’m sure you can too. And as long as we are talking about Israeli points of view, an attack in “united Jerusalem” would widely be considered an attack within Israel proper, and we both know where Central Command HQ is, and which area falls under its jurisdiction.
If the PA does not represent the Palestinians then who exactly is Israel supposed to negotiate peace with?
The extent to which Abbas’ share of the PA actually represents Palestinians is indeed debatable, but since there is currently no Israeli “partner” for peace talks, your question is moot.
If it does, then it has taken a stand against violence and therefore any violence would be perceived by Israelis as terrorism.
Arbitrary rule. Israeli violence continues unabated, and Israelis have always considered violence (and non-violence) by Palestinians “terrorism” – long before the PA was a twinkle in Ron Pundak’s eye.
Israelis did not consider the non-violent and violent resistance of the first intifada “legitimate”. They were shocked by it, and many were dismayed at the end to their Shabbat shopping sprees in the WB. The mostly “Ahusal” left, with no real vested interest in the settlements, figured the occupation was more trouble that it was worth, and (mistakenly) thought it saw a way out of the entire conflict. Palestinian violence was never considered legitimate by the majority of the Israeli left.
The shock of the second intifada was somewhat different, and had far more to do with a sense of having been let down by the Palestinian leadership (heavily influenced by the Barak “no partner” spin machine), than with the actual level of violence.
Israelis will not recognise the legitimacy of Palestinian resistance (violent and/or non-violent) until they recognise the legitimacy of Palestinian claims (and not just the one’s they like). If, when and how that will happen is anybody’s guess, but this is the real legitimacy question – not whether Palestinians will accept Israel as the “state of the Jewish people” or not.
LOL Shmuel :-)
They think they should not fight back in the manner they did in the second intifada.
Israel killed hundreds of Palestinians, fired over one million bullets in the West Bank and Gaza in the first month (October 2000), invaded every major Palestinian town with tanks and armored vehicles, committed massive destruction, instituted long and repressive “closures” and curfews. etc. well before the first suicide bomber hit Israel (in February 2001), and you’ve got the gall to claim that the Palestinians didn’t fight back properly?
I also think that Israelis would resent less the Palestinian methods if they proved to be even a little effective.
Since the Israeli public reaction to BDS and non-violent resistance is much the same , it sure looks like ANY resistance is resented and considered inappropriate. Israelis won’t get themselves out of their self-made mess without foreign intervention of some sort, preferably of the BDS variety.
Yeah, right. For anyone wanting to understand the second intifada and its reasons:
link to en.wikipedia.org
The second intifada was planned and instigated by Arafat.
If there were a Wikipedia article telling you to jump off a bridge, eee, would you do it? Because I can go write it right now.
Threadbare hasbara.
The Mitchell Report, as quoted on that page here:
We have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the [Government of Israel] to respond with lethal force.
“What’s needed very badly, however, is for Israelis to realize that the occupation is hurting the Palestinians terribly, that it’s driving them to try to kill us, that we are compelling them to engage in terrorism, that the blood of Israeli victims is ultimately on our hands, and that it’s up to us to stop provoking our own people’s murder by ending the occupation.”
Tell the truth, get fired. Thank god we have the internet.
How can this be the truth?
If we (Israelis) “are compelling them to engage in terrorism” then Palestinians do not have free will. But that is absurd. Palestinians are not robots, therefore Israeli actions are not compelling them to do anything.
Perhaps he is trying to say that their best option against the occupation is terrorism and they chose it? If so, do you really believe terrorism (killing Israeli civilians) is the best option for Palestinians? It has only undermined their cause.
Or perhaps he is saying that it is only natural that Palestinians commit terror attacks as revenge for the occupation? If he is saying that he must accept that it is also natural for Israelis to commit terror attacks in revenge of killing of their kids. But he doesn’t say that either.
So what is he saying? Nothing that makes sense but certainly not the truth.
You didn’t have a problem with terrorism when it was Jews like you killing Palestinians and the British.
Larry Derfner remains a liberal Zionist.
It is very unlikely that he will recant his apology and adopt “by any means necessary” as the rah-rah crowd here endorses.
He’s a good man. Don’t treat him as some ideological tool, a cause celebre.
He did make a fairly gross mistake, and as writing is his craft, a professional one. I doubt though that his reasonable convictions will change, thankfully.
I was definitely critical of his original post, told him so in his blog, and in direct correspondence. I am supportive of his convictions, his sentiments, his determination.
You?
Richard Witty said, ‘Notice how I don’t say the Jerusalem Post was wrong to fire him. I’m actually happy they did, although I won’t dare say so.’
Its the Jerusalem Post’s right. They are a business.
I think that Larry added great value to the paper, and that his contributions stimulated important discussion on content.
Your attempt to portray me as a “staunch opponent” of Larry Derfner are out to lunch, and close to slander. It really is time that you stop.
If you slander me, then you will soon slander him. That is the danger of being “loved” by the dogmatic left.
Richard Witty said, ‘I continue to misuse the word “slander.” James North said I endorsed the Post’s firing of Larry Derfner. Just above, I do endorse the Post’s firing of Derfner, (an odd stance for me considering I say Derfner is a “friend.”) So where is North’s “slander?”‘
Is there a point to this North?
You really want to take this further?
Richard Witty said, ‘Just so we are clear: I approve of the Jerusalem Post’s firing of Larry Derfner for what Derfner wrote on his own blog. I think the Post’s action is just “business,” not censorship.’
Having been fired from a job that I didn’t feel was merited, I acknowledged it as their right.
But, not that they were right.
You are one of the least charitable commentators that I’ve encountered.
What would be success for you? For me to stop posting? Why would that be success?
Another notch on your guitar?
I don’t understand the appeal of being head interrogator?
How is the JP censoring Defner? Are they shutting down his blog? Putting him in jail? Of course it is business not censorship. A publisher not agreeing to publish something is not the same as censoring someone.
Richard Witty said, ‘This is what I wrote today to Larry Derfner over at his blog
‘Except here at Mondoweiss, I can’t seem to say the same thing. Instead, I waffle about the Jerusalem Post’s right to fire him. Why do I have two different views of this injustice, depending on the neighborhood I’m in?’
I still don’t understand your “shoot first” approach, North.
Didn’t you insist that the Goldstone Report was full of lies, Witty? And you didn’t read it? And we’re the ones who “shoot first.”
Never mind Witty. The rest of us (well, most of us anyway) get a giggle out of JNs translations, after we’ve failed to make head nor tail out of your comments!
I’m a longtime reader of this blog, but fairly new to contributing to the comments section. I would like to know why so many give this “Richard Witty” person and others like him so much attention? We all know these Zionists, even if they falsely identify as “liberals” or “progressives,” are part of the Hasbara brigade sent out to attack the blogasphere with their propaganda.
Of course, I understand the importance of confronting such mediocrity, but thanks to websites such as Mondoweiss, Zionism (and Zionists) has been revealed for the racist, facist ideology that it is (for those that missed the memo 100 years ago!). And like all such ideologies that have failed in years past, Zionism is dying before our very eyes. So lending legitimacy to these Hasbarists only serves their purpose to keep it alive…
I feel we’re better served worrying about the conflict outside the scope of Zionism, the merits of which were once debated. But that debate is officially over: Zionism is racism. The question now, it seems, is how to overcome the racism…
Imagine if in 1990 people were still debating whether apartheid was good or bad? We’d still be debating today…
I agree. I am guilty of giving them attention as well. If you look though my comment history I often respond to Witty. It’s upsetting though to see such a racist con-artist belittling the Palestinian identity and experience.
And I’m sure people feel the same about eee and the other racists.
I think the more well-read posters like to use Witty as a medium to educate too. If we didn’t have Witty to lie so prolifically, we probably would not get such great informative posts from Hostage.
Anyways, I do agree that overall it’s strange we’re still ‘debating’ whether Zionism is racism or not. Just as it’s strange we debate whether Palestinians are deserving of the same security concerns and respect as Israelis.
But the truth is that no Zionist is going to change. You have to consider the identity politics involved.
Jewish nationalism is not lampooned in the mainstream Western culture as it should be. Terry Gross’s recent concern about Christian fanatics hijacking our government is a great example.
Jewish identity is not fair game yet, and that is because of where we are right now in our political culture. I recall Chomsky talking about how Arabs and Muslims were savaged in the mainstream political culture in one of his old lectures from 1988. Think about how little that has changed!
There is an overlap of interests. It’s profitable for corporatists and war mongers to support Zionism, but at the same time when you look at who Obama he surrounds himself with and the rush from both sides of the aisle to castrate themselves for Israel…you really have to wonder where we stop and Israel begins.
Hi,
What Richard is exposing us to is called Gaslighting and is a recognised technique for driving people mad. Our reactions to Richard Witty are pure self defence – we take turns on this blog. But as Richard is relentless it takes fair amount of time and nerves.
shouldn’t some culpability lie with the editors who chose to run the article?
the truth hurts!!
Was the article published in the Jerusalem Post at all? I don’t believe that it was.
Be careful before believing North’s intentional lying.
North is not a liar. Lying implies intention.
You are a documented liar. You lie prolifically.
Stop slandering someone who has the stamina to read through your bullshit daily and the creativity to lampoon it so skillfully.
Richard Witty is right. I was mistaken. Larry Derfner’s article was posted on Derfner’s blog, not in the Jerusalem Post, and it was there that Richard criticized it. I apologize to Richard for my error.
Thank you North. You are a “gentleman”.
Are those the same denial quotes that you put around “justice,” Witty? And “torture?”
Simple question.
Did you lie or did you make a mistake; an error?
You didn’t lie. Dick is being disingenuous as usual.
James –
Sure.
On your second point, I disagree. Supporting the settlements is well within the mainstream. As you know, it was the Liberal (Labor) Zionists who put the settlers there in the first place. To this day, there is no serious movement in Israel to dismantle the entire settlement project. Certainly, not in the major West Bank settlement blocs such as around Jerusalem and straddling the Green Line along the Modi’in corridor. Even among liberal Israelis, the controversial term “settler” in Israel applies only to a fraction of the whole. The average Jerusalem and Tel Aviv suburbanite does not consider himself to be a “settler.” That’s the other people. The ones with the 10 children and the crazy beards and no decent job.
I don’t see Israelis mobilizing any time soon to change that.
Witty would not be considered an extremist in Israel.
Elliot: Thanks for the endorsement, but I have one very small disagreement. Richard Witty believes the 550,000 Israeli settlers should be able to remain in the West Bank. To me, this moves him out of the “liberal Zionist” camp. There’s little practical difference between Richard and Likud, despite his hippie language of “humanizing the other.”
Elliot: I see your point entirely; thanks for taking the time to make it. I guess I was guilty of wishful thinking, hoping that “liberal Zionism” was actually more “liberal” than it is. I know you have plenty of experience in Israel and I’m sure your analysis is right.