I think there's a problem with intemperate (and sometimes worse than intemperate) comments at Mondoweiss. It is enough of a problem I think it could drive away well-intentioned liberals who need to hear this blog's message. If they visit the wrong thread and see certain comments they are likely to think "This blog is populated by nuts or worse" and go elsewhere before they give the place a chance. By the way, I'm not Jewish and I mean well-intentioned liberals of any or no faith. I know a fair number of Christians who would be instantly disgusted at the least whiff of anti-semitism or even what they might think is anti-semitism but isn't. The latter problem has to be overcome with persuasion, but the former problem is solved by just being sensitive, knowing how something might sound and not saying it. Yes, sensitive. The goal is supposed to be peace and justice, reconciliation, all that good stuff. If we can have that in a blog comment section anything is possible. I might even try it.
(Oh, and I'm not giving advice to those who supported the Gaza War. Good luck defending that with sensitivity.)
Here's a list of the sort of unhelpful comments likely to give people uncomplimentary ideas about this place:
1. A suggestion that Israel be nuked or might be nuked by the US. Completely insane. Anyone who visited and thought that was representative of a large fraction of the commentariat would think he or she had entered a lunatic asylum. It isn't, but it would be good not to see such a thing suggested even once.
2 A suggestion that Israel be made to behave via a conventional war. This suggestion has been made by a few people outraged over Israeli violence, with the idea that Israel needs to be coerced into doing the right thing, but it seems more than a little odd at a website pushing for peace and justice. (I exclude a no-fly no-rocket zone proposal for Gaza and Israel, which seems reasonable if politically impossible). A large scale conventional war involving Israel would have wildly unpredictable consequences, most of them probably bad, and the one that is certain is that a lot of people would die. Wars do that. Anyway, Israel has nukes, which adds to that unpredictable consequence problem and gives this idea that final extra push needed to place it in the "completely insane" category. Besides, people in the peace and justice crowd don't like to see their would-be allies advocating war. One can see their point.
3. Any suggestion that some sort of Jewish writing or behavior created the Nazis. At best this just seems wrong. Perhaps some Jews joined in the almost ubiquitous anti-semitism of Western culture before WWII and said deplorable things. By all means condemn any who did, but it doesn't explain Nazi fanaticism. There's a giant chasm here. At worst there's an occasional suggestion that Jewish behavior actually provoked the Germans and led to the Holocaust. I haven't seen that in a while and the poster, probably not coincidentally, seems to have been banned later on. We're way over in anti-semitism territory here--the boundary is pretty far off in the distance. Such comments should be deleted immediately and the thread sown with salt.
4. Any generalization about "Jews". Any general comment about any ethnic group is most likely stupid and anyway, anyone talking this way sounds like he should be wearing a sheet. Most people here avoid it. Good. Also, maybe a website devoted to exposing the injustices committed by Israel might not be the best venue for discussing Jewish history and culture in general. One probably wouldn't go visit a blog devoted to denouncing Islamic terrorism with much hope for a fair-minded discussion of Islam without any spillover from the threads discussing the ideologies of various terrorist organizations. But Phil is interested in the sociology of Jews in America and fair-minded discussion is possible, even in a (God help us) blog comment section. (Personally, I'd rather read a nice mainstream book or books on the Jewish history, when I get around to it. Suggestions are welcome. One person has made one already.)
5 Any hint that because anti-semitism isn't the problem it once was, it isn't a serious problem. This is wrong. People are still attacked even in this country for being Jewish. It's happening now: hate crimes in New York area. You don't need a Hitler to have a problem with bigotry--individual nuts without government support can still be dangerous. And one form of bigotry feeds others.
6. Finally, we can be rather hostile to liberal Zionists even when they are in agreement about Israel's crimes. I'm not sure that it matters if someone thinks there could have been an alternate history where Israel could have been formed without injustice to the Palestinians if they agree that what actually has happened was unjust. There will be serious debates over one state vs. two state solutions, but in the end it is the Palestinians who have to decide what sort of solution they should go for.
Duly noted. Now, what were we discussing?
In all seriousness, Donald, while your intent is benign, this idea is ludicrous and dangerous. You wish to water-down the discourse on Israel so as not to turn away fence-sitters. But, in seeking to do so, you play directly into the AIPAC hand of inducing fear in honest, not prejudicial individuals whose legitimate criticisms of Israel become tepid out of a terror that intellectually dishonest or deficient minds might twist their words into something sinister, or extrapolate meanings that are not intended.
Not here. Things must be said, and they must be proclaimed loudly and in the harshest of terms, if necessary. People have been tip-toeing this issue for decades. This is a forum for the truth. If you or others can’t handle this truth, this movement has no need for your feeble minds. We need strong, opinionated, well-versed individuals in this movement. Not people whose primary concern is not to offend anyone.
Any “offensive” dialogue we might offer up pales in comparison to the daily affront to Palestinian dignity and humanity that Israel sustains. I’ll continue to combat these genuine transgressions and injustices, and I’ll leave the hypersensitive imagined ones to you, Donald.
As MLK said, and a subject of another article on MW recently, who wants peace if it only assures peace; we need conflict to establish peace with justice.
I disagree, this isn’t asking too much. The front page sets the tone, and while there are people who find the whole site inherently offensive, and obviously Donald isn’t calling for people to stop making any general comments about Jewish organizations or other controversial positions that are par for the course on this site. There is a difference between doing that, and saying things that make one sound enthusiastic about a bloodbath in Israel, or other things that reasonable people could understand to favor violence.
Hi Exiled At Home,
I concur, wholeheartedly. Well said.
Another reason for not commenting at Mondoweiss might be very plainly shown in Donald’s article. That is how ineffecient the Mondoweiss computer system is! What happened to the list of specific comments, and the table showing how many similiar comments are in each area.
Well, at any rate I hope Phil Weiss gets his fondest wish, and Mondoweiss becomes the foremost liberal-Zionist and just-war site.
Hi Mooser,
What is it that you are missing exactly? We’ve worked hard to make the site better organised and easier to use. Let us know please how we can make things better.
alec, Mooser was horsing (moosing) around – again…
Here is the give-away:
“What happened to the list of specific comments, and the table showing how many similiar comments are in each area.”
Good luck with that table……
PS I was trying to pick out my favorite comments from this thread. Gave up when I realized that it’ll take all day, if justice is to be served (and that’s just for picking, not even munching!)
are you trying to tell us that we should impose some kind of additional “soft version” of censorship because YOU think that some statements here may offend some??
I find your post outrageous. What a nerve .
In times when free speech and truth are NO existing on MSM, and basically the websites like this are THE ONLY alternatives for people to exchane independent info and opinions, you are asking for censorship??
“dumvitaestspesest says:
January 17, 2012 at 10:58 am
are you trying to tell us that we should impose some kind of additional “soft version” of censorship because YOU think that some statements here may offend some??
I find your post outrageous. What a nerve.”
I totally agree.
Furthermore Donald is using my ( and some others) comments and theory on possible US intervention on Israel because he doesn’t ‘agree’ with it and can’t find any historical or real world argument to defeat that possibility.
It would never happen because He Says so.
The day Mondo institues Donald’s “personal Christian” attitude and beliefs, that sound like mental nazism, on what can and can’t be said (within reason), what might or not be possible, what should or should not be done or thought….then that is day Mondo has left the realm of realism.
And will see most here flee and this site not attract anyone but the Donalds.
The fact that he was allowed to post this is not a good sign.
Donald, I have never said this to anyone else on here but you are truly disgusting, who do you think you are to tell others they must conform not only how you want to talk but also to “”your beliefs”" about the topic here.
What would be ironic is that now that discussion is wide open on even MS press net comment sites with next to no censorship that Mondo would fall victim to the Donalds.
I agree.
I find it peculiar that a country that brainwashes its citizens about the glory of free speech and freedom of expression is filled with many who seek to regulate speech and curtail others’ right to free expression. It’s quite a bizarre notion.
What nerve indeed … and Donald Johnson misses the point of how the internet works: it is a self-organizing structure that exists in real time and is fluid and dynamic
No censorship is good censorship – that is the motto on 4chan/b and their overall site – and sometimes anarchy, nihilism, and the disgusting reigns – but nobody asked anybody to go there – can’t take it or don’t want it, don’t enter the Dragon
Low to moderate censorship is acceptable to most and most sites have some kind of filters at least in terms of their editorial content and comments policies to marginalize or simply omit the crackpots and those who like to yell “fire”
Any censorship above that level is anathema to the notion of how the internet should work … especially on such a critical subject as I/P
DJ, the ebb and flow of those who visit and their input is a living thing constantly transforming and those who don’t want it/can’t take it will move on, as they should … we don’t need your rules, however well-intentioned they may be to promote civil discourse
Thank you Donald for your sharing your concerns. I disagree with you however, and appreciate that this blog treats its readers as adults, able to weigh and sift and evaluate the merits of comments all on our own. I’m sure Phil and Adam already do some basic filtering of purely racist or hateful comments, but I wouldn’t want any further editing.
If we start worrying about hurting the feelings of “liberal Zionists” it’s a slippery slope into political correctness and the “policing” of views as practiced on the (worthless on I/P) DailyKos.
Donald thinks that regulars here don’t have the brains to see what a suggestion America attacks Israel is, which is merely rhetoric for hoping that America won’t continue to kowtow to Israel Firsters, which is the real case to be addressed, and is addressed here all the time. If the real or potential audience Donald is thinking of does, will, or would drop coming to MW because of a single instance recommending US attack Israel in the context of all that MW has provided over the years, and does everyday, than I say, good-riddance to that potential audience as they are not looking for enlightenment from US mass media at all on the question of the US-Israel relationship and its effect on the US, Israel, and the World.
I don’t know what you’ve been reading but I have never come across a single comment – ever – wishing for Israel to be nuked. True, I don’t read all comments but I am fairly active. A single nutcase doesn’t do it.
As for generalisations about Jews. It’s a fact of life that most Jews in America are Zionist at least in mild principle. Most are also oblivious to the details of the occupation, preferring a cartoonish black/white portrait of the Palestinians.
This is not an end point, but it has to be the starting point of any conversation about Jews vis-á-vi Zionism.
I could go on, but your list is just weird. You’re not even Jewish either.
Reminds me of a quote I read that supposedly Lenin once said when it came to the Polish communists helping in the revolution:
“They are insecure. So they are more Russian than the Russians”.
One last caveat: I’ve seen genuine outbursts of anti-Semitism here. It doesn’t happen often, but at times it does. I always condemn it when it does and when I see it. Your post however, has a net so wide you would essentially be unable to discuss any of these issues from a sociological perspective – at all.
I hope this post is the last post, one of the most lazy pieces of writing I’ve ever seen. It’s a kind of ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ kind of post. It assumes you’re already guilty of all kinds of things from scratch – and this coming from a non-Jew.
Heh, chutzpah kid.
Hi Krauss. I’m not with you here. I imagine there may be some quarrel about Donald Johnson’s items, but the atmosphere can be offputting, and it’s a fringe of commentary that causes it, and the outreach issue, to all Americans and others of conscience, is crucial. I think the comment board is one of the great values of this site. It is filled with authoritative voices, informed voices, moral voices. But I think it suffers from some dark sentiments. I know that many comment boards have intemperate voices. And polarization of the issue is of course inevitable, there are two sides here generally speaking. But our side will win with the truth, with facts and logic, and lose by invective.. Phil
Phil,
I get the impression that when you set out to start Mondoweiss, you didn’t think through the purpose of this website. Perhaps if you clearly defined Mondoweiss’ objective, readers and commenters would have a clearer idea of the framework within which they are operating. For now, it seems that you intend for Mondoweiss to be mere words on a screen. So they inform people. So what? Define the objective.
phil, i agree w/krauss about the nuking comment. i’ve never read anything like that here. do you think it would pass moderation?
also, anyone visiting here today who reads this main post (not comments mind you) would get the impression from reading donald’s essay that we have or would allow comments like that.
i think it would be at least helpful if donald pointed to which thread a commenter made a statement like that, because i don’t think one exists. it is number one on his list and the implication alone is very damning to the site.
Annie,
As you probably know, it’s atypical for Phil to come out of his hiding and respond to objections, as many have been voiced in this thread. Phil has a tendency to disappear whenever controversy involves him personally — in this case, a website he founded.
Phil,
All those essays you wrote where you described your wife’s frustration with your political argumentation at various social events give one the impression that you are brave so long as those disagreeing with you limit their responses to a few stern or surprised looks. What happens when people say a few harsh words or speak bluntly? Do you immediately leave?
Donald is referring to my and I don’t remember who else’s discussion/theory about whether or not the US would ever militarily intervene with Israel—-that came about because of Slater’s Just War discussion.
I maintained that it is possible, not probable, but possible. And I further maintained that the US should if events ever became extreme enough to warrant it, do just that.
Donald and Slater thought that was UNTHINKABLE.
Donald and Slater think is it UNTHINKABLE because Israel is Jewish.
Slater further thought it was UNTHINKABLE because Israel is such a military power.
I made an logical argument against thinking anything or either of those reasons is UNTHINKABLE with some examples…but because Donald and Slater are religious or Israel centric or whatever kind of ideologues , REALISM plays no part in their UNTHINKING.
And they will not allow anyone else to THINK outside of NEVER WILL HAPPEN.
I suspect because of… OH MY GAWD….if anyone ‘even thinks’ or hypothesizes about real world possibilities then it might happen…like you know ‘magical thinking’.
I further said that if the US told Israel not to attack Iran and they did anyway their planes should be shot out of the air..for the “Greater Good”
of preventing a backlash and war…and I stand by that 100%.
Anyone who thinks there aren’t a hundred different scenarios, including this one, and particulary plans on what the US might do if Israel ever used a nuke, floating around the War College and pentagon planning is an idiot.
i think i read some of that conversation. i am hindered here by my desire to not pick the slater scab given how crazy things turned for me last time i confronted his ptv. so i won’t. but i find it very very telling after that discussion we’ve got a proposal here for a new list of rules.
i will make a prediction. these are part of the ‘birthpangs’ we’re going to be seeing a lot more of from ‘liberal’ zionists as they realize they are not winning the pr battle. they will kick and scream but they won’t get their way, not here. that’s only my prediction.
btw, they should just go over to dkos and talk them into lifting their ban on mondo. then they could have discussions over there about all the posts here with team shalom moderation rules. or they could start a new blog with just the posts from here and their own commenters discussing them, if they wanted to. but no, they want to discuss it with us by their rules. crazy. they want to silence us. i seriously doubt it will work and they will go on kicking and screaming about it too.
If the U.S. ever became aware that an Israeli launch of its nukes in an aggressive war was imminent, it is conceivable that nuking Israel might be the only effective way to prevent such a launch.
I think I would still be against nuking Israel even then. I’m not convinced there wouldn’t be other ways to stop the launch. Nuking Israel would not, I think, prevent Israel from using it nuclear weapons on its Dolphin submarines, might even encourage such a use. And the very idea of the U.S. using its nukes again bothers me a lot.
But it doesn’t make sense not to allow a discussion of this idea.
I cannot believe Phil has come out in such pure support of the thrust of Donald’s article. To me, weighing the overwhelming comments on MW from day one to now, I conclude that Phil does not read the comment section of his own blog often enough. That Donald gets to suggest one comment over all these years shows the tenor of so many comments over the years is really annoying, to say the absolute least.
“i find it very very telling after that discussion we’ve got a proposal here for a new list of rules.”
And its shame cause that was a thread Mondo should be proud of. I mean that sincerely.
American you happened to perform a very valid retort to Slater’s defense of just war theory. This type of argument is done all the time. Most recently ‘what if Iran started assassinating American physics’ I just saw on Stephen Walt’s blog. No one would seriously suggest that this was advocacy to kill Americans.
Donald is one very sensitive guy.
but if donald’s point 1 is accepted by mw’s editors & the rest of the internet, discussing such real world scenarios on the internet becomes taboo, with israel having a free ride to talk about nuking iran without being subject to criticism nor warnings as to the consequences to itself, should it carry this nuclear madness to completion. civility, is thy name not dr. stranglove?
“American you happened to perform a very valid retort to Slater’s defense of just war theory. This type of argument is done all the time. Most recently ‘what if Iran started assassinating American physics’ I just saw on Stephen Walt’s blog. No one would seriously suggest that this was advocacy to kill Americans.
Donald is one very sensitive guy.”
Yep, that’s me. Are we talking about the same post, the one where American runs through various options on how to deal with Israel and ending with the oh so dramatic warning that Israel should realize that America could take them out with a ballistic missile sub? American doesn’t mention that part in his summary.
So what’s the objection? That it only happened once or that it was perfectly reasonable?
“But it doesn’t make sense not to allow a discussion of this idea”..lysia
No it doesn’t. Talking about the so called inconceivable is one way to make people consider just how much of what is now done by nations was also once inconceivable.
Preemptive war, torture, extrajudical assassinations, detentions without due precess of law, a whole list of things were once ” inconceivable” for the US.
By the way, on Israel and nukes, it turns out that the Israeli population is much more sensible on the subject than Israeli governments have been: Richard Silverstein: Israelis Willing to Renounce Nuclear Weapons for Mideast Nuclear Free Zone:
Unfortunately, I’m not sure history bears Silverstein out. All the historical evidence is that in 1939 an easy majority of Germans did not want their country to go to war.
By the way, if a comment to Silverstein’s posting is correct, that Telhami poll is only of Israeli Jews. If Israeli Arabs were included, the results would presumably be even more decisive.
I am going to be very impolite and uncivil to you Donald and outright accuse you to your face in this thread of “deliberately” lying by trying to misrepresent what I said and meant in my comment.
Here it is:
“Just how delusional the zionist government of Israel really is is what disturbs me. Recently we had Slater, as some other zionist have claimed here before, say that it would be a political impossibility the US would ever intervene in Israel and that Israel would be some kind of military match for the US . Both of these beliefs are very naive. Anyone of a certain age or familiar with history has seen countries politically swing from one extreme to another for one thing, meaning no politic policy of any country should ever be taken for granted or as written in stone by anyone.
I am sure the Israeli government knows that the US could take out Israel with one Boomer precision ballistic missile submarine that is undetectable and would render the Israeli so called Sampson option and nukes irrelevant. But the worry is that they don’t think the US would ever go that far against Jews no matter what they do and therefore push us and/or the world to the point of military force because they ignored all warnings.”
Perhaps your zionist christian religious background you have written about here causes you to put ‘your own interpretation’ and/or meaning into whatever someone else says.
As you know this comment was made in reference to Slater saying one reason the US wouldn’t attack Israel is their military power (and their nukes).
The actual reality is just what I said…..that the US could with one Boomer ballistic sub take out Israel before they even got their boots and render their Sampson Option useless.
This is a fact. This is a fact that illustrates and was meant to illustrate how dangerous delusional thinking on the part of zionist or anyone is when compared to reality.
It was not, as you well know, saying or advocating that the US SHOULD do this.
Your reply to that comment was asking the thread to look at what a INCONCEIVABLE thing I had said.
When I responded further, correcting, right then, your misinterpretation of my comment you responded with some snarky nonsense about aliens.
And now you do it again.
I don’t know what your personal motivation is slandering me and mispresenting my comment is and don’t care…you did it , that’s enough for me.
But it makes you the last person here who has any credibility in suggesting how other commenters should behave.
annie, i think i pulled one such comment, nuking. so i was inclined to think that’s not unusual.. phil
American, maybe in the rather strange environment that we have in the MW comment section a discussion of how we could declare war on Israel and they couldn’t use their nukes because we could take out their entire country with a single ballistic missile sub seems, well, normal. To me it looks bizarre and if people really came here and saw that thread I think they’d conclude we are a bunch of lunatics. That’s what the alien reply was meant to convey. The kindest interpretation is that it was like a bunch of people in a bar who’ve had a little too much to drink discussing how to build a starship with tin cans and carbonated beverages as the fuel supply. It’s either comic or frankly, so freaking stupid it’s embarrassing. Why would any sane person even contemplate such a scenario? Oh yes, gotta avoid self-censorship, encourage the free exchange of ideas. Well, then maybe my alien invasion scenario needs to be taken into account.
So now we’ve got two choices–I was wrong for bringing it up at all because it was only one post or some of you can defend it. I actually hope people go with option number 1.
No Donald, if someone read that thread they would think those like Slater claiming Israel was a match for the US capabilities and those like you saying a military intervention against Israel by the US is a absolute never happen impossibility–were the ones drinking in a bar……having never visited history, having no understanding of how reality can change.
You are in fact the dangerous ones.
When I talk about this I am not bragging on US power like some kid or taunting or issuing threats and dire predictions–I am telling you what is possible.
As I said before not probable, but possible and to rule out any possibility in todays world and take anything too much for granted is absolute stupidity.
But go ahead live in a box.
oh, just saw this phil, i guess i never saw one of those on here. yes, i would agree advocating anyone gets nuked is incitement.
Donald as this thread goes on I am beginning to conclude that you are disingenuous. I went back and read your link to American and it is very difficult to say that he was advocating nuking Israel. At the most he was playing a ‘what if’ game. Martin VanCrevald pointed out a number of years back Israel’s nuclear war options. Among them was Israel using its bombs against Europe. Many commentators here and elsewhere have accused him of advocating this action if Europe fails to support Israel in a crisis. I never read him that way — he was simply reporting what Israel is capable of doing.
In any case the issue of all out nuclear war with Israel at the center is on the table — VanCrevald is close to Israeli military leaders so he knows their thinking but this is something that Moshe Dayan, as a major government official, has definitely threatened. You may wish to suppress the discussion of the implications of this possibility, but do not accuse American of introducing it into MW. The Israelis themselves have openly warned the whole world what they are capable of doing. It is only natural for the rest of the world to consider ways to protect themselves from this Samson option. American was quite legitimately considering possible scenarios.
Donald you often made a lot of sense here, but on this question I think you are being extremely naive. It is difficult to talk about nuclear war in the ME but it is real possibility and Israel is at the center of this possibility even if you are in denial.
I completely agree. Not only was it very valid, it was a completely obvious one and it was begging to be asked.
Even more importantly was the fact thy Slater struggled so much to give a satisfactory answer to it.
Do you mean like Hillary and her all options are on the table quote?
Nobody who is civilized wants anyone to be nuked,but does not the naked Zionist control of our nation(and lets not go into it’s not true,because it is a fact of our lives)engender anger?The chicken and egg thing?
I think the Israeli solution is Jewish pressure on Israel to make peace,but where is that?Other than Norman Finklestein , Mr.Weiss , Mr.Horowitz and Mr. Chomsky and very few others,where are those voices?
Our only American solution is to elect Dr.Ron Paul,he will end the blank check that Israel cashes in on every day.
So true. It IS the responsibility of Jews to fix this injustice Zionism created. But alas, the few will have a minimal effect and the majority won’t fix it because, why should they go out on a limb when they have it so good, when they are the favored, why rock the boat for the rights of others, why risk it?
It’s the tribal thing that gets in the way. Humanity and conscience be damned.
Ron Paul could easily make it to the convention picking up delegates here and there with the backing of some Republicans, Independents and some Progressives. What a mix for the cause of justice! But Zionists including Progressive Jews will try to tear him down all the way there.
“Donald as this thread goes on I am beginning to conclude that you are disingenuous. I went back and read your link to American and it is very difficult to say that he was advocating nuking Israel.”
I initially regretted putting that comment 1 up there, but now, with so many people defending American’s comment, I think it was right.
My original post said this–
“A suggestion that Israel be nuked or might be nuked” which I then called insane.
Then people point out that American was only pointing out why Israel wouldn’t retaliate with their nukes if we attacked them. Of course he also says we might attack them someday. Obviously he thinks we stand ready to use our nukes on them if they use theirs. So yeah, this does sound like a suggestion that Israel be nuked or might be nuked. All the elements are there. Advocacy for war with Israel if our interests clash, which American thinks it is naive to rule out. And a willingness to turn them into a glassy parking lot if they even think of using theirs.
You know, I’m just going to take a wild guess and imagine that if one of the unpopular Zionists here had suggested that America and Iran might go to war and Iran wouldn’t dare use a nuclear weapon in response if they acquired one, because we could take out their entire country, people would have objected.
Why? Isn’t it naive to imagine that the US and Iran might have a falling out?
Aren’t there war games for such situations? Isn’t it possible? Sure it’s possible. So if one of the Mondoweiss Israel supporters repeats American’s exact argument in virtually the same words, just replacing “Israel” with “Iran” and “Jew” with “Muslim”, not a one of you would object.
You know, I’m just going to take a wild guess and imagine that if one of the unpopular Zionists here had suggested that America and Iran might go to war and Iran wouldn’t dare use a nuclear weapon in response if they acquired one, because we could take out their entire country, people would have objected.
Why? Isn’t it naive to imagine that the US and Iran might have a falling out?
Aren’t there war games for such situations? Isn’t it possible? Sure it’s possible. So if one of the Mondoweiss Israel supporters repeats American’s exact argument in virtually the same words, just replacing “Israel” with “Iran” and “Jew” with “Muslim”, not a one of you would object.
Donald, no disrespect intended, but you’ve put a tight little box around your thinking. I for one wouldn’t object to that statement at all, and I personally doubt that anyone else here would either. As far as I’m concerned its a given. It may not be “moral” or “just” (as if “just war” wasn’t an oxymoron), but I would certainly expect (but not condone) that if Iran, or any other country, including Israel, used nuclear weapons against the US, that the US would do the same back in spades. Personally, that is one reason why I don’t give a flying fig if Iran DOES obtain nuclear weapons. They are infinitely more sane than Israel is, without the victimhood neurosis, and would in fact be unlikely to use a nuclear weapon other than as a deterrent PRECISELY because they know the US would destroy their country if they did. Why you think I or anyone else here would disagree with someone pointing out the obvious is a bit of a perplexing question, but if you can understand that none of us would find it offensive if we replaced “Israel” with “Iran” in the scenario that you think is UNTHINKABLE , perhaps you’ll begin to understand what we are saying, rather than what you THINK we are implying.
With all due respects Donald, you made a stupid argument and taken that stupidity to a new level.
It stands to reason that the US has a policy of responding to a nuclear strike from any country with a nuclear strike, whether it be Israel, China or Russia. That doesn’t mean anyone is entertaining the idea of nuking Israel. Frankly, I am astounded that you would try to make a issue of such a basic premise.
Need I remind you that this was prompted by Slater’s advocacy of Just War theory to save lives. American was challenging Slater to apply the principal universally in oder to prove that his morality doesn’t make exceptions when it comes to Israel – Slater failed to demonstrate this with the inadequacy of his reasoning. In spite of all his word play, we know from his prior columns that Slater is willing to suspend his liberalism and humanity when it comes to Israel.
Yes we would have for a number of reasons:
1. Slater was advocting military intervention in the name of saving lives. While I regard the Just War theory as BS, at least it pretends to protect human life and human rights. Unless the unpopular Zionists demonstrated thaty lives wold be saved by going to war with Iran, it would be a case of attacking Iran just for the hell of it. It certainly would not not save human lives.
I would expect that you would be among those objecting to such a war.
2. Going to war with Iran would likely lead to a proplonged war that spreads throughout the region what would be catastrophic, whether nukes were involved or otherwise.
You are wrong Donald and you are wrong because you have boxed yourself into a corner to such an extent that you have overlooked a fundamental point. The only person giving even qualified support for war was Slater. In fact, this point began when Slater dissed Ron Paul as being simple minded because of his opposition to war. Every one of us who objected to his argument did so because we all universally reject war under any circumstances but self defense.
The scenarios that American and others rasied were entirely hypothetical, and were used to demomnstrate the biggest flaws in Slater’s argument, namely;
1. that Just War is the privelage of only the very powerful, and thus rendering it devoid of justice
2. that those with power reserve the exclsive right to decide whether a war is just or otherwise
3. that those with power can use the Just War argument to justify unjust acts of agression
4. that those with power enjoy the privelage of selectively applying the Just War doctrine when it suits them
phil, the speed in which mw met its fundraising goal suggests to me that mw is growing. probably you have more definitive data on this. do you think that tightening the censorship will accelerate growth on your site? my take is that it’ll do the opposite. i believe that, however heated, more people like the give and take than don’t?
Well,if you want to be irrelevant,stifle freedom,Salon did it,and it’s now a ghost town of discourse of mostly nodding heads of idiocy,trapped in their ethnicity.
Ever get the feeling you are being Goldberged, Phil?
If one approach doesn’t work, try another one. I think your weak point has been fingered: seeking acceptance by Liberal Zionists.
Thanks for that post Donald.
Please practice what you propose that others do. (You knew I was going to say that.)
I would add that calling someone “racist” is a slander and should be avoided.
it’s not a slander if true
Er, calling someone out on his or her racism is not slander if the evidence is in your face.
The problem is the lack of loud, public action against Israel– the lack of any boycott-
Israel campaign anywhere.
I promise you that even after the Penn BDS conference, there will still be no boycott-Israel campaign anywhere in the United States.
The root problem is a paralytic fear of the Zionists. If you want to tone down criticism of Zionism, you are only muting an already-muted political landscape.
I have never in my life seen any physical mistreatment against Jews, or any public penalization against Jews, in the United States. Or anywhere else on Earth. It happens, but it’s rare. It is already universally acknowledged to be wrong, don’t worry.
Yet every kind of mistreatment is visited upon Palestinians every minute of every day, on their own land — and no one on this Earth will stop it from happening. It is universally acknowledged to be unstoppable, and if you try to stop it, you are ejected to the political wilderness in the United States– if you are outside the U.S., you are either arrested or hit with Israeli missiles.
So I say Boycott Israel, delegitimize Israel, cut off every penny to Israel, and save your tender concern for those who need it most– 9 million Palestinians, 300 million Arabs, 1.6 billion Muslims, who are facing genocide.
So I say Boycott Israel, delegitimize Israel, cut off every penny to Israel, and save your tender concern for those who need it most– 9 million Palestinians, 300 million Arabs, 1.6 billion Muslims, who are facing genocide.
Hear, bloody, hear!
in my 4 score years & some lifetime here in america there’ve been 2 encounters with aggressive antisemites, both as a teenager. the first was at a football game when a man stood up in the bleachers, said he hated jews and told what he’d do if he came across one, the second was a similar encounter a few years later. there’s also been the occasional snide remark, stereotyping and such. a few dozen of these, i guess, but none for several years now. oh, by the way, with the above two threats to our (i wasn’t the only jew present) physical well-being, nobody said a word back to the great intimidator. we just let it pass. yes, we were scared. i think of those incidents whenever i hear someone say, “why didn’t the jews fight back against the nazis”.
I’ve lived in the US for nearly 70 years, and served in the US Army in a combat unit, and have lived in the poorest areas and lived amongst those very well-to-do, and I have never come across one instance where a Jew was threatened or even verbally abused because he or she was a Jew. I have experienced the contrary myself.
your pessimism is understandable but not valid. as for no one on earth stopping the zionist entity’s mistreatment of palestinians, right now that’s a fact, but to say never will, that’s beyond pessimism, it’s conceding defeat and i’m sure you didn’t mean that. otherwise you wouldn’t have said boycott & delegitimize israel. please don’t let yourself get* down, cause palestine will be free!
*down, other than temporarily, that is (for a few minutes only & best relieved by a cuss-word or two, if one is so inclined
Thanks, yours truly. I’m still hoping for some actual action coming out of the Penn BDS conference, not simply a private talk shop followed by more strategies of silence.
Not to mention all the everyday Americans who pay for Israel’s transgressions against the human world that is not Jewish. That’s most of the world.
yes!
Imagine if the Chinese American whom they hazed to death in Afghanistan was Jewish,and the corpses they pissed on were Jewish instead of Muslim,would those stories have been buried as those have been?This is our biggest enemy,hypocrisy,and it’s practiced every day,24 hours a day,365 days a year,year in and year out.
Because we see it,and we are angry,we are the problem?
We should be civil to uncivilized behavior?
discuss the history and culture of judaism without criticising the role that the u.s. government has played in the conquest of palestine, and without pointing out that israel-firsters of various religious/political persuasion are enabling the zionist entity in its crimes against humanity? as for generalizers about jews or any other group, generally other commenters pick up on such baloney and insist that the guilty one get specific. and, yes, the palestinians will decide what sort of solution they should go for. hopefully this site will help bring this about. as for scaring the timid away, more likely they’ll be intrigued by the opportunity to learn the real stories behind the zionist occupation of palestine.
Thank you for publishing this piece. I sometimes forward the article that a Mondoweiss article refers to rather than the Mondoweiss piece because I don’t want readers to be put off by the tone of the commentary following the piece. I’d prefer have a more elevated discussion. Some comments add new, relevant information, but you have to wade through a lot to get to them. Bottom line is that the tone of some of the commentary may be hurting our cause.
during the civil rights days there were some who criticized the the nonviolent freedom fighters – “why are they so angry, why do they break the law, why can’t they be patient, etc etc” and “don’t they know they’re hurting their cause?”
and if the freedom fighters had paid any attention to those who doubted them?
is there a difference between a freedom fighter and a commenter? we have truth on our side here. our side will triumph on FACTS. and this is a public square. When we invite freedom fighters up to speak, when we welcome them to speak, when we cheer them, that is one thing, when wounded brave people come up to speak, fabulous. Those people of action will be respected and often honored. But this is a two dimensional commenting space. And I dont see what calls for violence do to advance a conversation that has the truth on its side….
If you speaking about “our side” meaning advocates for a single-state, then you don’t have truth on your side.
If you mean those that regard that reform of Israel’s policies and practices are humane and necessary, then you have truth on your side, and MANY.
To Phil: Who is speaking of violence? Certainly not me!
All I want is for 5 people with cardboard “Boycott Israel” signs to march into their student government. I can’t even get that.
Advocacy for a single-state is not about truth or otherwise. It is a political position. The same applies to reform of Israel’s policies.
“Only thought which does violence to itself is hard enough to shatter myth.”
― Theodor W. Adorno
Philip
There is a time for talk and there is a time for a fight and I say it is better to talk a full year than to fight just an hour.
I was present during 1956 when the hungarians fought the russian, during 1968, when the chechs were suppressed in Prag, I was also in Buenos Aires when during 1976 the military putched. I could go on, but you may get the picture by now.
Israel is acting since 1948 like a fascist apartheid power, subjugates the palestinians, steals land, shoots unarmed civilians, bombs cities with forbidden material, (white phosphor and spent uran), send killing commandoes to foreign country, etc. Hey, they are just as good as the nazis were!
Do you think pussyfooting and talking will change their behavior?
You cannot eat the cake and keep it, you must decide what you want and do your best to achieve that goal.
As there could not be a Mafia without the sicilian people, there couldn´t be zionism without the jews. In Israel nothing will change until the american jews say: THAT IS ENOUGH, WE WILL NOT STAND IT ANYMORE!!!
Did you ever say that or just try to keep the discussion “civilized”?
Well said Theo.
Phil, we are asking you if Richard Witty’s self-referential feelings are still more important than Palestinian blood?
Parity, it would be very helpful if you would give us a few examples of the comments that you say are so detrimental to the cause. Can you give us, say a half dozen over the many years of the MW web site? Thanks.
this is the heart of it. thanks parity
and let me add:
I am surprised by the expectation that there should be little censorship. All my life all I’ve seen is censorship, much of it selfimposed. Most commenters here use fake names. That in itself is a form of selfcensorship: they do not want to experience in real life the consequences of creating a reputation on line. That luxury is not available to me or Annie– who, yes, disagrees with me here.
But all communities operate cnesoring rules. IT’s part of building community. I willingly accept some of this censorship because the larger goal seems to me to be so much bigger and more worthy.
My bottom line personally is realist, and pretty close to American’s. I come to this issue chiefly out of Iraq war and the sense that my country made a terrible mistake because of the Israel lobby among other causes. But I find that I curb a lot of my commentary on this site– say about Jewish identity, about the place Jews have landed at this moment in history, so empowered, so successful– out of the need to create community. And no I dont agree with Donald’s prescriptions on the sociological score. I will continue to talk about Jewish success. But I aim to be careful because I see my role as trying to build an American community against the special relationship, and that is a community that will draw chiefly from liberals and realists, in order to grow. For me, this is a Clean for Gene deal. Like the McCarthy faithful of 68, being willing to adopt a different tone in order to knock on doors…
But again, the site’s shadow that made me want to post this was PArity’s refrain. That may be an inescapable shadow. As a friend said recently, I’d rather the company of an Israel hater than of a neocon right now, in the U.S.
Gotta check the rice…
“My bottom line personally is realist, and pretty close to American’s”..Phil
I am glad to know that Phil, because I am convinced that realist
( who do have hearts despite rumors to the contrary) need to put some reality and caution on all this emotion and hubris and craziness going around right now.
i see this as your role too phil … I see my role as trying to build an American community against the special relationship, and that is a community that will draw chiefly from liberals and realists, in order to grow.
Yeah,and how did McCarthy do?
And I dislike my government as much as I dislike the Israeli government,as they are two peas in a neoconlib pod,a collection of overweening dweebs of idiocy.
This hate crap,is just that, crap.The real haters are those who murder at will,lie about it,and then murder more.We of the civilized refuse all such hate tactics,we want peace, justice, and security for all,unlike the true haters,couched in their trappings of civility,while blood seeps from their Prada boots.
From day one, Donald came across as someone who is deeply offended by anti-Jewish language, but one who treats anti-Palestinian/anti-Moslem/anti-Arab language with cold, dispassionate and aloof commentary.
As such, he is biased, whether he is aware of that or not. That pro-Zionist indoctrination at a tender age has left a long-lasting impression for he repeatedly treats Jews as compatriots and Moslems as foreign Others. It’s evident in his language, his choice of words and the tone of his writing.
Therefore, I don’t appreciate the preachy nature of his essay, as he attempts to regulate language and what can and cannot be discussed. Sure, he may have good intentions at heart, but he is basing his argument on assumptions that have not been statistically substantiated, especially, “I know a fair number of Christians who would be instantly disgusted at the least whiff of anti-semitism or even what they might think is anti-semitism but isn’t.”
But, perhaps Donald would prefer to speculate why Jews have been so successful in the US, as he has done on several occasions when he proffered that Jews have been successful because they value education. No bias there, right? One might think that other groups in the US do not value education.
Avi G, with all due respect (meant sincerely), I think you’re being quite unfair in your characterization of Donald’s positions. He’s been quite unsparing in his condemnation of Israel and has repeatedly quarreled, quite convincingly, with Richard Witty and company. If you’re going to criticize him for particular statements, I think you should look up his profile and find quotes you object to. In fact, spend a few minutes reviewing the general tone of his comments to see whether you feel it is worth it to seek out the very few you might find objectionable.
David Samel,
I urge you to read my comment again. When you write:
You clearly demonstrate that you either did not thoroughly read my post or decided to address an aspect of Donald’s writing with which you are familiar, perhaps for the mere purpose of defending him rather than for the purpose of making a statement of fact that addresses the points I mentioned.
Please read my post again.
Avi, you do accuse Donald of being indifferent to anti-Arab or Muslim language, but if you want to give him the chance to respond, you should point out specific examples.
david, i think donald’s list demonstrates a level of indifference. or didn’t you notice? there’s no parity of concern.
I’m sorry, but that’s where you are mistaken, David. I made it perfectly clear in my post above when I specifically wrote that Donald is biased (not indifferent).
On the one hand Donald’s writing becomes passionate when Judaism is involved, on the other hand, since he knows that he must logically and morally treat all peoples and religions the same, he voices criticism for comments that are bigoted or racist. The different tone of his comments when treating one group and another leads one to the inevitable conclusion that he is biased. And yes, it is a subtle bias, but it’s there. Why is he biased? I have several theories. But, that’s a moot point.
The point is that given this bias, the above essay is in line with that pattern of thinking that is neither neutral nor objective. Therefore, and bluntly put, I’m swinging between I-question-his-motives and His-argument-is clouded-by-his-own-biased-perceptions-of-which-he-is-unaware.
“david, i think donald’s list demonstrates a level of indifference. or didn’t you notice? there’s no parity of concern.”
I quite deliberately didn’t go for parity, because I spend 95 percent of my time here bashing anti-Arab racists and after this post that percentage would hardly change at all. If you are a regular here you will have seen me doing that, but somehow it doesn’t matter now. I also expected someone to make the argument you are making and did absolutely nothing except to add one line at the beginning (the bit about this message wasn’t directed at defenders of the Gaza War).
As for the nuking, I’m glad so many people didn’t spot it.
link
“I applaud your efforts even though I see hints of me in items 5 and 6, and I don’t feel I crossed the boundary in either instance”
I see hints of me there as well, actually. One can talk about nearly all these things in a non-racist way.
Annie – I responded to the one-sided nature of his list below. Briefly, Donald said it would be one-sided, and there’s good reason to let fools hyperventilate, even racistly, in defense of Israel. Besides, Avi is clearly talking about prior comments of Donald, not this list. Did you ever have a problem with Donald before this? (I honestly don’t know).
“The different tone of his comments when treating one group and another leads one to the inevitable conclusion that he is biased.”
The tone is definitely there and I can solve the mystery right away–it’s shame that I don’t do more when I see someone I strongly suspect is anti-semitic crapping up a site that is about anti-racism. I expect racism from the the other side and for the most part, around here anyway, we get it. It’s not supposed to happen on our side.
I expect that when I visit a blog on the I/P conflict I will encounter anti-Arab racism and anti-Muslim bigotry–it permeates everything in our society and oddly enough, that makes it rather freeing to come to a place like this where virtually all of us agree about this (with a few exceptions) and I can just denounce it in a calm sarcastic way. You wouldn’t have seen that if you’d seen me getting into an argument with a Christian friend when she saw Segev’s book “One Palestine Complete” on my shelf and said haughtily “Yes, they were killing Jews back then too.” I stuttered angrily and she challenged me to deny it. I couldn’t, because of course there were killings in the 20′s, but I couldn’t sit down and write out a long post explaining that Ahad Ha’am had discussed anti-Arab racism and violence among Zionists as far back as the early 1890′s, or that Palestinians had every right to be suspicious of a movement that had made a deal with the imperial power to establish a Jewish state on their land. I can’t argue calmly face to face. My tone turns brittle, or quivery, or very harsh. Highly inappropriate when you’ve invited friends over. Or else I back off and try to make a joke of it. Online there’s that calm tone you recognize most of the time.
Where’s the shame come in? Well, we’ve had Holocaust deniers here, just one of the gang, and they stuck around for quite a long time until they went too far and apparently got banned. (And yes, I have two people in mind, one whose name I remember and one whose name I’ve forgotten.) We’ve also had people with obvious issues regarding Jews, sometimes on an almost comical level. I find that embarrassing, shameful. As I’ve told Phil, I’ve sent links to Jewish friends to a post by Tony Karon at his old blog linking Israel to apartheid South Africa, but I’ve always felt a little embarrrassed and worried about what they might see if I sent them a link to Mondoweiss. Most of the comments are fine and I’ve learned a lot from some of the very people who are busy bashing me in this thread (and I expect more), but there are some comments that are cringe-inducing.
You link to American saying if nothing else works, attacking Israel may be in the best interests of the USA and the world. So, Donald, what would it take for you, as an American, and as a world humanist, to say Israel has gone too far, and nothing short of attacking it will do? You think that scenario is impossible? Have you been seriously watching what the USA has supported when it has been done by Israel? Where is the brake? Tell us.
>> Avi_G: The different tone of his comments when treating one group and another leads one to the inevitable conclusion that he is biased.”
>> Donald: The tone is definitely there and I can solve the mystery right away … I expect racism from the the other side and for the most part, around here anyway, we get it. It’s not supposed to happen on our side. … I expect that when I visit a blog on the I/P conflict I will encounter anti-Arab racism and anti-Muslim bigotry …
1. In the posts of his that I’ve read (not that I’ve read them all), I’ve found Donald to be a calm, rational and generally pretty considerate.
2. Unlike anti-Muslim/-Palestinian/-Arab comments, which strengthen the case against Israel and Zio-supremacism, anti-Semitic comments or discussions of violence against Israel weaken it, so why drive “well-intentioned liberals” away from supporting the Palestinian cause if it can be avoided? I don’t see the harm in suggesting that “anti-Zionists” (for lack of a better collective term) take the high road while the Zio-supremacists slog their way through the mud.
That’s a given. I think very few would disagree with that premise.
The point is that (a) Many on this website differentiate between Judaism and Zionism. (b) Moderators most likely reject comments that are both blatantly anti-Jewish and intend to disparage Jews solely for being Jews.
So given all that, is Donald’s essay superfluous? I mean, if his argument/intention was not to advocate for the curtailment of expression or free exchange of ideas, then why does it read like a hyper-sensitive Judeophile has written it?
And if his intention was to merely draw attention to the civility or lack thereof of some comments, then does that mean that the moderators are not doing their job?
In addition, some of the examples he mentioned, like the use of violence or war against Israel, are clearly out of context.
“You link to American saying if nothing else works, attacking Israel may be in the best interests of the USA and the world. So, Donald, what would it take for you, as an American, and as a world humanist, to say Israel has gone too far, and nothing short of attacking it will do? You think that scenario is impossible? Have you been seriously watching what the USA has supported when it has been done by Israel? Where is the brake? ”
Um, citizen, he talked about a nuclear submarine “taking out” Israel. What are you talking about? See, I was just thinking maybe I should have left that first point out. Now I’m wondering if I was right. Even if you don’t agree with the nuking, and somewhere on this thread you say you don’t, here you’ve got American talking casually about it and you’re asking ME to respond?
Donald needs to point out specific examples of what he is whining about himself, so we can see how they fit in the over-all tenor of MW over these many years now. Methinks, he is crying about a very few cases, yet smearing us all.
methinks youare verycorrect , Citizen.
donald, i have been away from the thread so i am going to review your comments in it. here is the thing about that particular comment of americans. this was, as far as i read it, he last suggestion:
i didn’t hear him advocate nuking israel. it is unfortunate he didn’t start a new paragraph there but directly after that blockquote he started writing about slater’s chutzpa about the impossibility of what america could and could not do militarily.
now i am just wondering what you think of israel’s samson option? it has it’s own wiki page link to en.wikipedia.org
it is the ‘Deterrence Doctrine’. then we have the AEI coming out and admitting Iran Threat Isn’t That It Will Launch Nuclear Attack.
link to mondoweiss.net
so what is it?
link to mondoweiss.net
Israel’s myth of invincibility. the deterrence power they project. so here we have a little country whose defense is precipitated on keeping everyone in fear and possessing hundreds of nukes, pressures the US to attack iran so it can keep myth of invincibility and on occasion their hasbrats even mention this samson option which threatens to blow up the planet. and you think american crosses the line by saying this? :
so tell me, why didn’t you suggest the zionist could never mention the samson option either? it is less acceptable for israel to have a policy that threatens the whole world than writing about what american could do. granted, he never suggested they do it.
don’t you see a double standard wrt how we need to be sensitive with the way we talk about israel, and we are not afforded this sensitivity, are we?
where’s the wiki page describing a global policy of nuking israel? it doesn’t exist! but since there is a wiki page for israel blowing up the rest of us maybe some fair play would be in order just to let them know what their chutzpa feels like from our end. they get a wiki page, permanently, and one obscure mention on this blog warrants it #1 on your list.
but you never even addressed the question i asked several times. why the one sidedness wrt being sensitive about the apartheid power? isn’t there anything you would suggest in parity? i guess that is what i don’t understand. it’s not the same as following the comment sections, you had a chance for a main post, why not mention some other people’s sensitivities?
“and american crosses the line by saying this:
“I am sure the Israeli government knows that the US could take out Israel with one Boomer precision ballistic missile submarine that is undetectable and would render the Israeli so called Sampson option and nukes irrelevant.’
I don’t see this as crossing any line. It’s a factual statement about US military capabilities in regard to Israel’s nuke option that some zionist think is a guarantee to Israel never being attacked. Big difference in saying this is what is possible and saying it is what the US should do. I have said a thousand times I am against all use of nukes by anyone. But that doesn’t mean I don’t see the slippery slope to the use of nukes by a insane or desperate nation.
As far as I am concerned everyone should know exactly what the gory possibles are and maybe then they would think twice about calling for wars and touting their nukes and any country’s, including the US’s, ridiculous claims of invincibility. No such thing as invincible.
>> … if his argument/intention was not to advocate for the curtailment of expression or free exchange of ideas, then why does it read like a hyper-sensitive Judeophile has written it?
It doesn’t read that way to me.
american, i should have added my question mark. i was challenging him. i have now edited it.
Did you ever have a problem with Donald before this? (I honestly don’t know).
david, i am having a problem with donald’s list not donald. and no, not that i can recall.
also, i have debated people on these threads before that i may agree with about a lot of other things. this is just something i have a bad history with wrt dkos. of false accusations of anti semitism and being accused of holocaust denial and a whole slew of stuff.
generally, i have an aversion to certain kinds of vulgarities but i am a more free speech person as opposed to shutting down speech. if i don’t like the direction of an argument sometimes i just leave it. but i am for having people work things out thru argument, i think it flushes out the issues and shows people for who tey are, i think it brings more clarity. so i don’t think taking topics off the table is helpful, which is different than taking forms of expression off the table. but topics in general, that is how we learn.
so i tend to build value in certain peoples opinions and then if there is a subject i don’t know much about i will weigh the information i am getting plus who i am getting it from.
another thing is i am personally somewhat obsessed/intrigued with the way people are brainwashed and corralled into accepting certain concepts or patterns of behavior. not coming from the jewish community, i am not necessarily in a frame of mind to accept a jewish frame of reference just because i am told that is how that community sees something. i can make up my own mind about certain things and i will. i have read the reut reports and i have read about the ‘tent’. the tent of setting up firewalls. this is about setting boundaries of discourse which are acceptable.
so i would be having this reaction no matter who wrote that list. and i am just speaking for myself of course, not as a staff person.
How about this, Citizen?–
” So, Donald, what would it take for you, as an American, and as a world humanist, to say Israel has gone too far, and nothing short of attacking it will do? You think that scenario is impossible? Have you been seriously watching what the USA has supported when it has been done by Israel? Where is the brake? ”
If that’s the sort of question I’m supposed to take seriously you’re making my point– you think we should have conversations about when the US should attack Israel. Is that the Mondoweiss consensus in the comment threads? There’s a lot of good material here, but also a lot of nonsense.
” you had a chance for a main post, why not mention some other people’s sensitivities?”
I had one chance to say something different from what is usually said. The front page articles are great–if I have any complaints sometimes it’s because I think Phil is too willing to be optimistic about some person in the MSM (like Chris Matthews). I don’t have anything to add there and most of what I say here is criticism of Israel and US support for Israel, pretty much in line with most of what others say.
“don’t you see a double standard wrt how we need to be sensitive with the way we talk about israel, and we are not afforded this sensitivity, are we?”
Sure, but that’s what the whole blog is about. If I were talking about the MSM I’d be saying pretty much what most people here say and I’ve even said it in this thread somewhere. My post was about the rather narrow question of how the comments section sounds.
I’ve said already I think talk of military intervention by the US against Israel is really stupid, and won’t repeat that. It’s up and down in the thread. I don’t think we need a wiki about how to blow up Israel, even if only to let them know how it feels. Seems like the wrong way to go. You know, this is a pretty good illustration of how good intentions can backfire. By pointing out one extremely stupid post that sounds like boys playing a computer game, I’ve now got people here rallying around the notion of talking about nuking Israel as a matter of free speech rights.
As for Israel, their Samson option is insane. A great way to enhance their already well-developed sense of paranoia is to talk about how we could blow them to hell if we had to, and how it’s not inconceivable.
I really should shut up about this–in the anger against me people are taking positions that they probably wouldn’t take normally.
donald, it wasn’t a question about when. i don’t think we should go to war. i don’t like war. that said , i hold israel to the same standards as i would hold any other country. let me ask you this hypothetically:
what would it take for you, as an American, and as a world humanist, to say Iran has gone too far, and nothing short of attacking it will do? You think that scenario is impossible? Where is the brake? ”
what would it take for you, as an American, and as a world humanist, to say china has gone too far, and nothing short of attacking it will do? You think that scenario is impossible? Where is the brake? ”
what would it take for you, as an American, and as a world humanist, to say russia has gone too far, and nothing short of attacking it will do? You think that scenario is impossible? Where is the brake? ”
what would it take for you, as an American, and as a world humanist, to say germany has gone too far, and nothing short of attacking it will do? You think that scenario is impossible? Where is the brake? ”
what would it take for you, as an American, and as a world humanist, to say korea has gone too far, and nothing short of attacking it will do? You think that scenario is impossible? Where is the brake? ”
what would it take for you, as an American, and as a world humanist, to say sudan has gone too far, and nothing short of attacking it will do? You think that scenario is impossible? Where is the brake? ”
do you think any of those questions should not be allowed here?
“do you think any of those questions should not be allowed here?”
I’d prefer to see people intelligent enough to avoid silly unrealistic questions that would be political poison if they became associated with the pro-Palestinian movement. I’m really doing harm if by speaking out against this I’ve gotten people so riled up they start defending silly and probably harmful speculation about intervention against Israel in the name of free speech.
But fine, I’m against military intervention unless a Rwanda scale genocide is occurring. That’s for anybody. So if Israel actually started doing that, then warn them to stop and then take action. Assuming we don’t think it would make things even worse, which it might since they have nukes. We don’t even consider intervening if the intervention might make things catastrophically worse–we didn’t go into Mao’s China during the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward. (I don’t know if we knew how bad things were, but we wouldn’t have anyway.) Anyway, I think conversations of this sort are not useful, to put it mildly, and I’m not going to participate in any more of these military intervention speculations.
me too. that’s why i usually stay out of those conversations. and i don’t like incitement, at all. and we’re at war on several fronts, unfortunately.
True enough, Annie, but my point is that Donald has enough of a track record on this site to get a little more slack. In general, I am in agreement with his request for less personal hostility (not less hostility to odious positions) but think he made few errors in his list. His history of comments is impressive enough that he should not have been treated as a troll or a newbie. Avi G., whom I respect, referred to a past of pro-Jewish bias that I have not seen in Donald. He’s always seemed fair to me.
“me too. that’s why i usually stay out of those conversations. ”
Good idea. (Note I said nothing about 9/11. That wasn’t an accident. It might be the smartest thing I did here. Sometimes even in conversations intervention is the wrong thing to do.)
“Methinks, he is crying about a very few cases, yet smearing us all.”…..citizen
It occurs to me maybe Donald is carrying on Slater’s fight with many here and his criticizm of the site in general.
True enough, Annie, but my point is that Donald has enough of a track record on this site to get a little more slack….he should not have been treated as a troll or a newbie. Avi G., whom I respect, referred…..
david, we’ve all been around the block with each other here long enough to be honest with eachother. he wrote a post i didn’t like, i was honest. i didn’t attack him personally i responded to his ideas truthfully like i do all arguments i disagree with. i did not once treat him as a newbie or a troll. i will not drag this post into other threads and hold it against him. can i speak my mind on the topic or will this forever be construed as a personal vendetta?
i did not ‘treat him’, i treated his argument. as for what avi said you will have to take that up with avi, but be forewarned avi speaks his mind and although i generally agree with him in most circumstances he chewed me out royally just weeks ago. so i am not understanding what avi has to do with my argument. my argument with donald’s list stands on it’s own. pandering it off as some reaction to a troll or a newbie seems like a distraction. like i said, we’ve all been around the block with each other, so let’s cut the formalities and just spit it out. for me, this is not personal, it is about ideas and concepts. fair play doesn’t really enter into it because everything i do seems fair, to me.
another thing, while i am at it. this place is like a home to me. it’s where i have rested my hat. therefore any conversation surrounding protocol or rules i will definitely be speaking my mind. i will protect what i perceive as my/our turf and lobby for what i think is best overall.
i am just one voice but i think it is in everyone’s best interest to understand the reaction here in the context of people defending their freedom of speech and their adopted home on the web. i think regardless of who had written this post the reaction would have been the same. people are responding to the list, and they have spoken honestly. that should be applauded. we all won’t get our way completely and perhaps it will transform in subtler ways, but there’s a call for parity here. that’s what stands out for me. so if we are going to be calling for more civility and respect that should be from all quarters. and in case you didn’t notice there is a glaring absence on this thread from a certain segment of our community.
I got that annie.
I was just carrying on some more about the head in the sand denials of Donald and Slater…that are so irresponsible they encourage zionist to be even more crazy.
I have popped off plenty of times on saying send Israel down a hole but not seriously.
But this is serious, intervention with Israel is a scenario that is possible if things getv out of hand. These calls are made by the US Military Command and submitted to the President, they are not ‘political decisions’ made by congress as Donald and Slater think so this doesn’t come under the realm of political impossibility.
I don’t care who the President is, if he is told by US military command that Israel is about to set the ME aflame and take the world economy with it…Israel will lose that toss up. No President is going to say to Americans or to the world at large that he let something like that happen because Israel is a Jewish State. That is where the rubber meets the road, and zionist not understanding and Israel not believing that is what is dangerous.
You should challenge your friends to read here, not avoid doing so, imho. They should cringe. It could and would be a teaching moment. There is so much history and factual current events here. It’s a great roundup of info on I/P.
And yes it’s Very Angry here. But that’s part of the learning process to newbs. It’s rightful and righteous anger. Your friends should ask, “Why is there so much anger at MW? You never hear about any of this on TV? The must be making it up! Those people must be unbalanced!” That hypothetical observation begs the door-opening and ultimately instructive question. The “What are they complaining about anyway?” question was how I got transitioned on this many years ago.
Why this is so important (this site, and potential exposure for your acquaintances) is illustrated by just about every MSM I/P discussion ever in the US. The scenario is:
I: “Here is a set of tangentially related facts/incidents. This is how Israel sees it and you have to accept that as a starting point. (Subtext or not so subtext: These are the ground rules for the discussion we are about to have.)”
Mod: “So ‘P’, how do you respond to the framework that ‘I’ just laid out?”
P (heavily accented and EASL commentator trying to figure out how to offer the unknown [to MSM viewers] actual, factual, counter-narrative without looking unresponsive, stupid, zealous, and/or angry, [ntm, and get invited back] or some combination of all four): “It’s hard to know where to begin, but let me talk about just one of the [tangential] issues that ‘I’ pointed out… (and never gets to re-frame the discussion on death, water, imprisonment, theft, et. al.)”
Mod: “That’s all the time we have. This is a very important issue.”
No MSM-watcher is ever shown where the anger comes from. Nor will they ever be. Kathleen (and others) points this out constantly here. They would be here. Again, factually, eloquently, passionately (yes angrily), and at length.
I think maybe (200 comments into this) that this is the flaw in your “tone it down” (yes, my words and probably a gross oversimplification) exhortation. “Toning it down” tends to validate the enforced structural reasonableness that I tried to show in the above hypothetical, that never gets to the real/core “Why are they angry?” issues. The argument you’re advancing, to me, tends to suggest that the MSM-led structure of the discussion is the natural state. I think it’s an artificial state, and best not to subscribe to it, come what may.
To me it’s better to gather in one or two intrepid souls in your circle, expose them to full-frontal Mondoweiss, explain/discuss the why’s and wherefore’s of what’s said afterword, and let them digest it from there.
Some will respond, as I and many here have. Some won’t. But core issues will be discussed by more people than would have been the case otherwise.
Shorter version: Overton was absolutely correct.
Well, I now see that I was on american’s post – and am now thrown into this brave new world of commenter lead censorship – WOW btw- what I meant by a ” explicit threat to use force” was to tell the Israeli’s we will shoot down their planes going over Iraq, or otherwise interrupt their attacking Iran, militarily if need be….. I think Zbigniew B (sp?) has advocated doing the same thing..but that would kill jews, so of course, it is by definition, out of bounds.
I gotta say, very, very, very, very….very disappointed with the “dark shadow” stuff, and the “elevated dialogue” condescension….
I disagree with David Samuel. I agree w/ Avi 100% on this except Donald is very critical of Zionism. Nonetheless I see the bias.
Avi, You are my man:). I fully agree with you.
“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values.
For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” ~John F. Kennedy
I read Donald’s piece early this morning before any comments had arrived but didn’t have the time to post my thoughts. My first reaction to it remains unchanged. What Donald proposes is to recreate the very same stultifying atmosphere through which I and others waded in dealing with this issue over the years with folks such as Donald in which protecting Jewish sensibilities took precedence over justice for Palestine.
And, frankly, when there are probably more racist attacks committed in a single day against African-Americans and Latinos in this country than against Jews in a single year, I don’t want to hear from someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about that antisemitism is a problem.
Jeffrey Blankfort:
Are you the Blankfort discussed on sourcewatch.com (below) and who wrote the essay “The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions” in 2003?
[From SourceWatch.com: Jeff Blankfort is a radio program producer with KZYX in Mendocino. He is a journalist and Jewish-American and has been a pro-Palestinian human rights activist since 1970.]
If so, I was wondering, do you have any plans to publish a memoir or other type of book that discusses in detail what your experience was like growing up in a “non-Zionist family” in the United States?
I would very much appreciate it if you considered arranging for Mondoweiss to recommend and link to your future online work on these topics, and/or link to your preferred merchant for purchase of any future books.
It would be great to see these issues discussed from this point of view (outside of Mondoweiss) more often.
Indeed, I am the same Jeffrey Blankfort. I was planning on writing a new book about the Lobby but it became impossible to do that while at the same time monitoring new and important information about it that was occurring on almost a daily basis. I am planning to put a book together of writings, published and pre-internet that will cover events since the mid-80s including the largely unknown and undicussed role that otherwise progressive groups, even those claiming to be “antizionist” played in providing protective cover both for Israel and the Lobby, some of which I wrote about in that article you referred to.
In hindsight, the above discussion of one aspect of Donald’s writing is the primary reason that his piece rubbed me the wrong way. There was just something off about some of his points and as usual, I looked to the comments for help.
Avi:
I didn’t get a chance to comment when I read this post of yours last night but I wanted to come back and read it again. Of all the posts on this page, many of which are truly excellent, I find that yours, above, is perfect, as is so often the case with your contributions here.
I think one of the main (stylistic) reasons I am drawn to your writing is that you succeed so often where I fail, and that is to say that you are civil and never cruel, even when your comments are searingly pointed. I enjoy Danaa’s posts for similar reasons.
Wow, this whole comment was just one big suck up, wasn’t it? Sincerely, Avi, thank you for all your insightful comments, especially on this topic.
Donald, thanks for taking the time to make a much-needed plea for civility. I would not have come up with precisely the same list, but I do find comment sections on many other websites to be complete wastes of time. Although MW comments have much of value, an occasional or first-time visitor to the site could easily find some off-putting nastiness and not return.
I applaud your efforts even though I see hints of me in items 5 and 6, and I don’t feel I crossed the boundary in either instance. Also, it is a bit of a tightrope for Phil/Adam & co. to walk, since the “Zionist” commenters often endorse the notion that Palestinians can be compelled to behave via military might (e.g., Gaza 2008-2009) — see your point 2 – and I find it understandable that other commenters might respond in kind about Israel.
Policing the comments section seems to me an awful task, and self-restraint — not from vigorous points of view but from general incivility — seems a much better option. Commenters ought to consider whether readers will be impressed with their arguments or be repulsed by their personal venom.
Re: “Commenters ought to consider whether readers will be impressed with their arguments or be repulsed by their personal venom.” This is good advice, and to the extent this is what Donald desired, it is well-taken. Too bad Donald did not just say it instead of suggesting personal venom is fairly rampant on MW.
isn’t the hope of every mw commenter that his/her words will reach the public and through the magic of language somehow influence the thinking of others vis-a-vis the palestinian struggle? and for this reason try not to put off mw viewers. the biggest deterrent in my opinion? keeping to the middle of the road.
@Citizen
Personal venom is fairly rampant on MW [especially when a posting appears which the commenting in-crowd disagrees with].
Just look at the comments to Liz Ratner’s last blog. Were those not overwhelmingly ad hominem attacks?
Bruce, these are family dinner fights. People should use the ;-) emoticon more here. Only those from large, and passionate, families know what I’m talking about. My only-child friends would blanch coming to ours.
@MRW
My uncle, 1 of nine, is presently going around telling people that I am prejudice against whites and Jews and that people tell him I hate Americans and Jews. So I am afraid comparing this to a “family dinner fight” is not very comforting at the moment.
Well, Bruce, welcome to the club. You’re one of us now. ;-)
Pleading for civility is one thing, David Samel. Defining, circumscribing, the containers into which it must fit is another, and unacceptable, IMO, if the facts can be laid bare.
Donald’s No 3 is contradicted by history and he is guessing at it without doing either the reading or his homework. (“At best this just seems wrong…At worst there’s an occasional suggestion that Jewish behavior actually provoked the Germans and led to the Holocaust.”) He hasn’t read THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT by Edwin Black. He hasn’t read an entire raft of books written by Jews about Zionist involvement–Jeffrey Blankfort listed some, and there are documents galore backing him up–that point to a dark side to that issue. This is not to paint Jews in toto as heinous instigators, don’t be stupid, but to suggest that Zionist Jewish behavior before WWII did not provoke Hitler’s responses and create horrific unintended consequences is an insanity, and just plain historically wrong. This presumes that Jewish Zionists were/are some universal group of goodness and can’t be criticized for their actions or intentions; this is no better than labeling critics of Israel as antisemites today.
Our ancestors did stuff. Deal with it.
@MRW
You didn’t read Black’s “Transfer Agreement” either by your own admission below.
Bruce,
Oh yes, I did. The original one. It’s been edited since. I pre-ordered it, and read it when it came out in early 1984.
@MRW
My apologies. I misread a comment from Leander.
Why I try not to write comments after midnight.
Yeah, Bruce, I still have to answer LeaNder. I wan’t making any point with her. I was just curious…because I wondered if the book was available in Germany. ‘Natch I didn’t write that, so it was misconstrued. My bad. Or, rather, my sloppiness.
The truth is supposed to free one,not imprison one.Good post.
I support a state for Jews,don’t hate Israel,and wish they would move into the modern world of the commonality of man,it’s reality born out by science.
Now if we could only get them to believe it.
Oh,my son in law believes it,and so do many other Jewish people,it’s those Zio wackos who don’t.
I can see from Slater’s blog comments you’er feeling guilty about
Slater quiting this site, but you should be reminded that he was the one losing his temper in the comments section, with charges of Antisemitism, etc. It’s possible he may be too old of a liberal Zionist to have any meaningful effect in changing the state of Israel and US Zionists. When Slater remarked last week that people on the site were critical of Finkelstein, he seemed to be laying down in this fight because his place is lost in current discussion.
btw: if your going to make up rules for one side, you should lay out rules for false charges of antisemtism, or blatant smearing of people who are critical of Israel are somehow haters of the state.
since israel is a racist terrorist entity how can justice and freedom loving people not hate it?
@yourstruly
Would you agree with this statement, “since the USA is a racist terrorist entity how can justice and freedom loving people not hate it?”
Not sure either statement moves the discourse along very far.
Bruce, I agree.
accepted, so let me change the statement to – since israel is a racist terrorist entity and the usa is a racist terrorist state, how can justice and freedom loving people not hate their behavior towards other nations whose only “crime” is that they seek freedom and independence?
I’d sign that petition. Is that even controversial?
yourtruly, i don’t hate. it’s not good for my health or the world or anything.
martin said:
” Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it. ”
there is nothing hatred will improve.
yes, you’re right, change hate to oppose
@Chu,
Do you believe “false charges of antisemitism” do not get adequate coverage on Mondoweiss? There already is a de facto rule as far as I can see: If a false charge is made out in public, it will likely be the subject of a posting. If you make a false charge or even anything less than an iron-tight case, you will be hammered in the comments section.
Bruce, that could be the de-facto rule as you suggest. All the charges of anti-Semitism, both here and on other sites, undermines the term.
Anti-Semitism can often be sidestepped by saying bigoted in many cases. It’s overused in these these discussions, which is like why those that make the charge are hammered after they make it.
Donald, I generally agree with your writings and I generally agree with your article at the top of this thread. :-)
Re. point #6: “Finally, we can be rather hostile to liberal Zionists even when they are in agreement about Israel’s crimes. I’m not sure that it matters if someone thinks there could have been an alternate history where Israel could have been formed without injustice to the Palestinians if they agree that what actually has happened was unjust.”
I believe that people who accept and justify past Israeli crimes and/or try to downplay the immorality and illegality of them should be called out for it. I’m not sure if this is what you’re suggesting we avoid doing. Could you please clarify?
Thanks!
“I believe that people who accept and justify past Israeli crimes and/or try to downplay the immorality and illegality of them should be called out for it. I’m not sure if this is what you’re suggesting we avoid doing. Could you please clarify?”
No, I didn’t mean that. I had in mind Jerome Slater, who tries to think of some way Israel might have come into existence as a Jewish state that didn’t involve ethnic cleansing or massacres. Well, whatever. He does agree that what actually did happen involved ethnic cleansing and massacres and was morally wrong.
>> No, I didn’t mean that. I had in mind Jerome Slater …
OK, thanks for the clarification. :-)
Yeah it helps.
I think a better idea is for everyone to say what they think, not what Donald thinks. Personally, I think the internet is way to moderated, censored, and controlled-and I don’t mean by the government. I’m talking about the way most of these blogs are run. Everything has to be water downed or over intellectualized-there is no drama, or spontaneity, or honest emotion-all because a few cloistered souls may be shocked.
i agree, there are thousands of pc blogs out there. thousands. i like the relative freedom of thought in our comment sections. it’s not perfect but i still like it. i remember when it was not moderated at all and we had these trolls coming in running roughshod over everything posting comments in succession one right after another only minutes and sometimes seconds apart the minute a new post would appear which resulted in troll dominance of the entire thread right from the get go. it’s those kinds of things that the moderation completely prevents now, more than the policing of volatile comments.
but in general i think we have a completely different standard of what is and is not allowable in terms of zio speak. the nakba denial is never far away whereas i can’t imagine anyone being able to casually toss out a comment saying the holocaust was beneficial and a necessity for europe’s survival and having that comment be allowed here. never ever ever, and yet a zionist can justify the nakba day in and day out. so where’s the parity? there isn’t a parity. our society has been conditioned to favor or accept a zionist narrative to the degree we all at least accept ziospeak as par for the course. and we get that here.
plus, we have zionists here posting right now, this morning de-jewing people. and not just other commenters but suggesting our contributing writers are not jewish and site owners too. whereas i don’t know how easy it would be to have a nonjew or anti zionist come here and claim there is no such thing as jews, whereas someone running for prez can argue palestinians do not exist. so there’s no way we can divorce ourselves from societies version of “acceptable speech” because we’ve absorbed it to a degree, all of us, on a psychological level.
and now we have this list that doesn’t even pretend to be balanced. every single point on it addresses israel or jews. not one thing protecting arabs or palestinians or palestine.
nothing.
Yep, Annie. I’d like to see Donald’s response to your comment.
“I’d like to see Donald’s response”
It’s here And scattered around other places. Perhaps Annie doesn’t remember any of my usual comments. That’s fine, but I spend much of my time critiquing RW’s position. She might avoid those subthreads, which would show good judgment on her part.
OK, Donald, I really didn’t see it when I followed your link, just that you said you spent a lot of time addressing Dick Witty’s comments. It’s one thing to call to task a rare call here in the comment sections for attacking Israel with US armed forces, albeit in an offered future scenario you did not address, and quite another to ascribe to the MW commenters generally such a thing.
donald, my comment was specific to this list. it wasn’t in relation to your past commenting history.
@ Annie,
I am glad to hear that you have cleaned up the zio speak and cleared out the trolls, but I am wondering what is the site’s stand on the extended discussions with respect to pre-WWII historical revisionism, in particular Jeffrey Blankfort’s comments on the “Ron Paul and the left” posting. Let’s say from Blankfort’s response to Slater up until your own comment on the John Stewart show. I doubt Blankfort and his supporters can find any serious historian of the era who would endorse his potted version of what he passes as history. Is this a subject that could also be discussed in a posting, and if not what are the reasons for the different standard?
hi bruce, i don’t think we’ve cleaned up all the trolls. perhaps you misunderstood my comment when i said we have a completely different standard of what is and is not allowable in terms of zio speak
i meant i think some of our zionists get away with things that would not be acceptable if said by non zionists.
i think i explained in my comment on slater’s thread i had not entered the thread until then nor read it. i also mentioned elsewhere on this thread i generally stay out of the ron paul threads, for the most part. i don’t read all the threads here. why don’t you ask someone already familiar with the thread. it isn’t a thread i want to revisit.
i don’t get to make any kinds of editorial decisions bruce. if you want to suggest a thread to phil or adam to open up to discussion you should do it, or direct any of those questions to one of them. this is entirely out of my area of expertise.
Bruce,
“I doubt Blankfort and his supporters can find any serious historian of the era who would endorse his potted version of what he passes as history.”
There are 36 pages of bibliographical references in 6-pt type at the back of THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT by Edwin Black that put a lie to what you’re accusing Jeffrey Blankfort of. The subtitle to the book is The Untold Story of the Secret Pact between The Third Reich and Jewish Palestine.
Your doubt is misplaced. Suggest you find a 1984 version of the book.
Bruce, I am one of the people who consistently defends Jeffrey Blanckfort’s right to point out any goings on in pre-WWI Germany, however they reflect on any group. As long as there are facts backing those points, I see no reason these cannot be brought up, discussed and even put on the table as part of a general debate on the wisdom and/or implications of whatever actions were taken. I call these history, and see no reason to shy away from that one, most significant period, because a holocaust happened (something that jeffrey did not exactly deny despite those who run around attaching denial magnets to every surface with traces of metal).
I say this while taking into account the special volatility of certain activities and/or topics. Still, factual information is certainly appropriate. And some of us are eager to learn things. For example I did not know that a majority of the German Jews were, in fact, saved – through any number of ways, usually by leaving while there was still time. Why we didn’t quite learn that fact in Israeli schools I do not know and will not venture to speculate. maybe it was just the incomplete education we were given across the board. As for opinions based on those facts, that’s where the debate is. After all, that some escaped in no way detracts from the magnitude of the disaster than has befallen the others who did not. And from what I read, Jeffrey has bent over backwards to point out that just because there were dealings between zionists and nazi authorities does not, in any way, absolve same nazis from responsibility for the Holocaust. That should be an obvious point and it’s annoying that people refuse to accept statements that were made quite earnestly.
Re the question of whether zionism, as an ideology, contributed to anti-semitism in Germany and elsewhere that, again, can and has been a matter for open debate in many circles, including in israeli history departments. For example, the claim was made that by pushing the idea that Jews were not the same as other German nationals, simply by virtue of having another place to go to (Israel), could have contributed to the perception that Jews were indeed different. How different, how strong the perception, and among which groups, are questions that can be asked quite legitimately, as part of trying to understand how things could go so wrong in Germany. For example, by contrast to other countries, where both anti-semitism and zionism existed.
I’ve said before that these kind of discussions may require placing more caveats than usual to allow context, and account for sensitivities, but other than that it should not be a whole lot different than discussing, say, the fall of Athens. Saying that there were internal factors – as well as external ones – contributing to the fall IS NOT being anti-Greek. It’s being historical.
If the above statements bother you, please let me know why and in what way. If, OTOH, you are OK with the gist of it, then I’d appreciate knowing what makes my comments different than, say, Jeffrey’s. This may help some of us figure out just where the lines are that divide history from hystrionics. Or it may just help me come to terms with a form of color blindness that prevents me from seeing the red in the lines.
@Annie
Thanks for the clarification. I now understand the division of labor.
Everyone understands almost immediately that the zios are not a reflection of the site. Nobody else links to the zios on MW and writes, “see what they are saying on MW.” Not true for the non-zios commenters. While I have no problem with holding the zios to standards, I am still not convinced it is a symmetric problem.
@MRW
The name of the historian which supports Blankfort? Edwin Black would hardly agree with Blankfort’s analyses and conclusions as expressed in the interchange on MW.
Anybody can pluck a set of facts together to form a narrative of choice. Lawyers do it everyday. Writing history requires dealing with counterfactuals and counter-interpretations. Where do we see this from Blankfort?
@Danaa
I don’t have any problem with the issues mentioned above being handled in history departments and in historical journals, blogs, etc. where one can assume certain levels of expertise and at least some awareness of and commitment to methodological rules. But when history is raised in a supposedly activist site such as MW, then all too often there is some other aim besides a search for historical accuracy of a fact being presented.
Like yourself, there are people reading MW who want to learn. History is just as much about the facts that are not included as the ones that are.
What I am about to say is not critiquing anything else that Blankfort has written. Blankfort forthrightly stated in MW that he is for “the complete dismantlement [of Israel] by the international community.” He further makes it clear that for the record he is “not only anti-Zionist”, but “anti-Israel since it is Zionism revealed in all its ugliness, in three dimensions and living color.” I have now read enough of Blankfort here to feel comfortable saying that a main component of his strategy is to discredit Zionism in all ways possible, including going all the way back to its formation in the late nineteen hundreds. Blankfort is free to choose his program as he sees fit. My complaint is that what he passes as history is propaganda. I only raise the issue because I believe it discredits the wider credibility of the MW site and reduces the effectiveness of MW’s advocacy.
So here is the part of Blankfort which has led me to comment:
Whether there would have been a Jewish holocaust without the existence of political Zionism which openly postulated that Jews were not like other human beings and that antisemitism was an understandable reaction on the part of gentiles who were forced to live with them, is a question that we can never answer…
If it’s a 70 year-old question that cannot be answered, why raise it on MW? Maybe Blankfort cannot answer this question, but most historians who are not of the persuasion that cannot be mentioned can answer it. To still suggest today that “political Zionism” or certain Zionist views might have been a necessary cause for the Nazis murderous assault on the Jews is quite amazing. Please show any historical studies making such a broad claim.
… but there is no question but that dangerous piece of nonsense was what the Zionists were peddling in pre-Hitler Germany in their efforts to “out” the largely assimilated German Jews who would have no truck with them. In other words, the Zionists were feeding whatever antisemitic sentiments their fellow Germans already harbored. No, I am not blaming the Zionists for the holocaust–they couldn’t have imagined it– but that they helped to poison the atmosphere which allowed it to happen is indisputable.
This no-question is a far lesser claim than the question with no answer, but I question how much historical weight it should be given. First, there were at least four of five competing parties in the Zionist movement. They did not unite around the above antisemitism trope. Second, since by Blankfort’s own admission, most German Jews were not even Zionists, why did their fellow Germans end up letting themselves be “fed” on the writings of these particular Zionists? Third, what does “feeding sentiments” even mean? Fourth, it should at least be mentioned how common this “nonsense” about race, ethnicity and eugenics was during the time in question. All kinds of people who were neither German nor Nazis talked along these lines.
So I ask, how significant was this Zionist “help” in poisoning the German atmosphere? After Hitler’s takeover, the German media was completely censored by the Nazis with severe punishment for those who disobeyed Nazi edicts. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the Nazis exploited any statements or ideas of the Zionists that matched their own ideology and enhanced their own designs?
Would the history of Nazi Germany been in any way different if the Zionists had not existed? I argue not.
Note:
The italics in my comment did not appear.
Therefore, the two quotes from Blankfort are not marked out.
hi bruce, i definitely think it is a systematic problem. we continually have suggestions here that people are not jews based on their political beliefs or their affiliations. it happens all the time. here is an example.
link to mondoweiss.net
and if you scroll you can read more:
this discussion also takes place in both of the jesse lieberfeld threads. it is a very common form of argument from the zionists we host here and it’s been repeated over and over. i reject the idea of not respecting a persons self identification. this is part of what i mean by having different standards. i don’t understand why this kind of talk isn’t anti semitic?
it goes on all the time. i am not advocating a change of policy to ban it but i don’t like it and it is a constant running theme that i had never heard until i was here. it made me aware perhaps it is a theme within the jewish community, a very taunting theme that is very hurtful. note how they are asked politely (over and over and over this is brought up).
so perhaps you either don’t encounter these arguments, or you don’t classify them as a form of anti semitism. but to say they are not systematic here would be inaccurate. and i think they are a form of incitement and they make threads uncomfortable. .
i hope that clarifies.
Bruce, oh yes he would.
Wanna know why? Edwin Black had a death contract out on him by the JDL for The Transfer Agreement as originally published. For two years. He was hiding with my friend’s brother at the time. I spoke to him (Black) on the phone at the time. I don’t care what you gleaned from reading whatever version of the book you read. Blankfort is stating Black’s position at the time (1984). Blankfort is dead on the money with what Black discovered. If Black should deny it now, he denies something he felt passionately about at the time. And I know that for a goddam, mothaphucking fact.
@Annie
I certainly understand that “who is a jew?” has once again become an issue.
For most of my life, I thought Hitler settled the question. But I realize some Jews and organizations want to reopen the definitions.
I keep asking my family whether the leadership has ex-communicated me. Don’t want to mention the J-identity if that is resented by the community-nation-people-religion, or whatever being Jewish means today.
Myself, I’ve been trying to keep the definition of anti-Semitism quite narrow, as my main concern has been all the false charges of it flying around these days. Israeli diehards have cheapened the charge to the point that more and more people are seeing it almost as a badge of honor to be called an anti-Semite or self-hating Jew. I hardly apply the word anymore, especially on MW, as it gets you accused of a sensitive nose and more comments than anybody would ever want to handle.
So personally I would not call arguments such as dimadoks anti-semitic. His take is more just another way to call certain Jews self-hating, except he is being polite and instead implying they are self-neutered or self-exiled.
To be honest, I find the Zionists hosted on MW neither interesting nor challenging. They are mostly either trollish or doltish. I don’t read the comments as much as I use to, so maybe I am missing some new blood. But let’s face it, the Zionist A and even B-teams avoid this site, and you are left with Witty. Need I say more?
I quite respect the Magnes Zionist, but I expect he would get quickly torn to shreds if he actively participated in the MW comments sections.
First, my appreciation to those who in my brief absence from this thread have responded to the several posts of Bruce who seems to have taken it upon himself to discredit me.
This Bruce, whose name I don’t recall seeing on Mondoweiss before this post, has written that he has “now read enough of Blankfort here to feel comfortable saying that a main component of his strategy is to discredit Zionism in all ways possible, including going all the way back to its formation in the late nineteen hundreds.”
Bruce, one thing you should have realized by now and that you don’t tells me where you are coming from and what agenda you are pursuing: there is nothing that I can write, say, or do, that can discredit Zionism more than those who espouse it have done themselves.
You question my comment:
“Whether there would have been a Jewish holocaust without the existence of political Zionism which openly postulated that Jews were not like other human beings and that antisemitism was an understandable reaction on the part of gentiles who were forced to live with them, is a question that we can never answer…
“If it’s a 70 year-old question that cannot be answered, why raise it on MW? “
Since I did not make up what the Zionists openly postulated, which you do not deny, is it not a reasonable subject for inquiry?
You continue:
“Maybe Blankfort cannot answer this question, but most historians who are not of the persuasion that cannot be mentioned can answer it. To still suggest today that “political Zionism” or certain Zionist views might have been a necessary cause for the Nazis murderous assault on the Jews is quite amazing. Please show any historical studies making such a broad claim.”
First of all Bruce, I have never postulated that the Zionist views were or might have been a “necessary cause for the Nazis murderous assault,” you are making that up. What I am saying is what is only logical, that those views were quite likely a contributing factor, as, for example, “The Birth of a Nation,” DW Griffith’s film glamorizing the Ku Klux Klan, was to the forming of racist stereotypes of African-Americans in this country. The movie did not invent anti-black racism but it certainly contributed to it.
Those “most historians” to whom you refer without naming them, know better than to touch the subject or to even lightly suggest that the Zionists may have, unwittingly, helped the Nazi cause through their own form of what, in the mouths or writings of others, would be considered “anti-Semitic propaganda.” One only needs to look at what happened to Prof. Finkelstein for writing a book describing the “Holocaust Industry.” How many other professors do you think are ready to touch that subject?
You then challenge my statement that “the Zionists were feeding whatever anti-Semitic sentiments their fellow Germans already harbored. No, I am not blaming the Zionists for the holocaust–they couldn’t have imagined it– but that they helped to poison the atmosphere which allowed it to happen is indisputable,” by writing that “there were at least four of five competing parties in the Zionist movement. They did not unite around the above antisemitism trope.”
That was the basic Zionist stance first advanced by Herzl, then echoed by Weizmann and the leading spokespersons for Zionism at the time which is why Hitler allowed the Zionist organizations to function and their publications to publish when every other Jewish institution and publication had been shut down. Did the Zionists object to that or were they only too happy to accept the privileges that their version of anti-Semitism afforded them? If you have statements by prominent Zionists of the time contradicting me, please provide us with references.
Then you ask, “since by Blankfort’s own admission, most German Jews were not even Zionists, why did their fellow Germans end up letting themselves be ‘fed’ on the writings of these particular Zionists?”
Even though the majority of Germany’s Jews were assimilated they still largely socialized among themselves as is true, I suspect, of major segments of Jewish communities in the US, Europe, South Africa and Canada today. In addition, they were, as a group, far wealthier than were the non-Jewish Germans and at a time when many of the latter were struggling to economically survive, those economic differences also contributed to anti-Jewish attitudes. The Zionists’ anti-Semitic propaganda didn’t start the fire but I would argue that they fed it.
Time out for some anecdotal evidence. When Hitler came to power, one Jewish family owned 22 blocks of downtown Berlin. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the unification of the two Germanys, families of those whose homes had been taken over by the GDR demanded that they be returned and photographs of those “homes” occasionally appeared in the pages of the NY Times and the International Herald Tribune. They were massive things, with dozens of rooms, looking more like apartment houses or hotels and in most instances, as I recall, the GDR, had turned them into schools and hospitals. Such ostentation in the midst of their poverty obviously would not have gone down well with their gentile neighbors.
Back to your comment: You ask what does “feeding sentiments” even mean? If that isn’t clear to you it certainly is to those reading these comments who don’t share your tribal encapsulation and for whom my response is intended.
You write that “After Hitler’s takeover, the German media was completely censored by the Nazis with severe punishment for those who disobeyed Nazi edicts. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the Nazis exploited any statements or ideas of the Zionists that matched their own ideology and enhanced their own designs?”
Indeed, Bruce, that’s just what I was trying to say but do not the Zionists have some responsibility for putting those ideas out there in the first place? It should be recalled that the Nazi program at that time was not extermination but “population transfer,” something that within a little more than a decade, the Zionists, with their own version of blut und boden, would become proficient at themselves.
Finally, you ask, “Would the history of Nazi Germany been in any way different if the Zionists had not existed? I argue not.” I don’t know and neither do you but that does not make our examination of their behavior at the time any less appropriate.
@Jeffrey Blankfort
Excuse me Jeffrey, you stated there is a question: “Whether there would have been a Jewish holocaust without the existence of political Zionism which openly postulated that Jews were not like other human beings and that antisemitism was an understandable reaction on the part of gentiles who were forced to live with them?”
A question has an answer. Either there would have been a Jewish holocaust without the existence of political Zionism which openly postulated that Jews were not like other human beings and that antisemitism was an understandable reaction on the part of gentiles who were forced to live with them, or there would not have been a Jewish holocaust without the existence of political Zionism which openly postulated that Jews were not like other human beings …. The first part of the question certainly implies that the existence of political Zionism … was a necessary condition for the Jewish holocaust. The second part of the question implies it was not a necessary condition.
You don’t state the first part of the question is not true, you only assert that we cannot answer the question, so the first part of the question might be true, just as I stated you suggested. If this not what you meant, why mention the question at all?
Why not just assert the second part of your statement, “… there is no question but that dangerous piece of nonsense was what the Zionists were peddling in pre-Hitler Germany in their efforts to “out” the largely assimilated German Jews who would have no truck with them. In other words, the Zionists were feeding whatever antisemitic sentiments their fellow Germans already harbored. No, I am not blaming the Zionists for the holocaust–they couldn’t have imagined it– but that they helped to poison the atmosphere which allowed it to happen is indisputable.”?
So if I understand you correctly, you are only claiming that the Zionist “views were quite likely a contributing factor” to the Holocaust, which is encapsulated in the second half of your statement. Since the meaning of the first half of your statement is confusing at best or not what you meant, we should be able to agree to just drop it. But please note I didn’t make anything up.
I will try to find time to address the rest of your reply tomorrow.
@Jeffrey Blankfort
As for the second part of your original statement, towards the end of your comment you write “… that’s just what I was trying to say” in response to my statement, “After Hitler’s takeover, the German media was completely censored by the Nazis with severe punishment for those who disobeyed Nazi edicts. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the Nazis exploited any statements or ideas of the Zionists that matched their own ideology and enhanced their own designs?” So, if I accept your interpretation of your statement and your assertion that our two statements are saying the same thing, then the disagreement is considerably narrowed.
You then ask me, “.., but do not the Zionists have some responsibility for putting those ideas out there in the first place?” Yes, they do. But if you are going to judge them as you do, then you need to put their decisions and actions within a proper historical context. Edwin Black makes an honest effort at that. You don’t even try.
You now state, “The Zionists’ anti-Semitic propaganda didn’t start the fire but I would argue that they fed it.” Well, how much? Of this Nazi firestorm, how much combustion was the result of the Zionists’ anti-Semitic propaganda? How does it compare in influence to the anti-Semitic proclamations of Luther for example? Or the blame Nazis assigned to the Jews for losing the War, even though German Jews were well represented in that conflict? You can’t even explain why such a small group of the German Jews were able to have some a disproportionate influence on the attitudes of the German people.
You raise economic differences as a reason for the anti-Semitism. Well how far wealthier were the German Jews? Last time I checked, Bosch, Krupp, Thysen, Siemens, Porsche, none of them were Jewish. How much of German industry was owned by Jews? The Germans gave all these rich titans of industry a pass because the Zionists convinced them the Jews were the problem, is that what you are claiming?
If you want to join a historical site such as the Institute for Historical Review – they seem to like you there – to discuss these issues I have no objection. But to bring them up for discussion on MW as if you are some kind of expert on the subject, when you are not, I do have a problem with that.
One last question: What is my tribal encapsulation?
@MRW
Had a 45-minute phone conversation with Edwin Black this morning.
He vociferously denies your claim that he was in hiding for two years due to a JDL contract on him. No hiding, no JDL contract. During the time you mention, Black was syndicated in Israel. Hardly a place you would be writing for if you were hiding from the JDL. Black states he has always remained a public person since publication of The Transfer Agreement.
Moreover, he denies your claim that there are substantial differences between the 1984 version of The Transfer Agreement and other editions. In fact, it can’t be true since all the pages of later editions except those so marked are photographic reproductions of the 1984 edition. Even the typos are the same.
Mr. Black insists you reveal your name, and the name of the person at whose house you claim he was hiding for those two years.
If in fact, Mr. Black is telling the truth, and I have no reason to doubt him, you either owe this site and Mr. Black an apology or you need to back up your claims. If you can’t substantiate them, then you should not have made them public in the first place.
Needless to say, Mr. Black does not agree with Blankfort’s analyses and conclusions. He is at the moment recovering from major surgery, but he is willing to give Mondoweiss an extensive interview when he is 100%. However, he is very annoyed at the site for letting you spread such nonsense about him.
On a personal note, I am quite pissed about the wasted time you caused me for taking you seriously. I actually went to some efforts to find a 1984 version of the book.
Wouldn’t it be earthshaking if the Zionist media said,yes,there was a Nakba,and it was terrible and unjust?
My seismometer,a cup of coffee,is placid.
“Any suggestion that some sort of Jewish writing or behavior created the Nazis.”
Are you saying that the tensions between German Jews and the Nazi party cannot be discussed in the comments section? Would one be allowed to post something from Willhelm II when discussing events leading up to WWII for discussion purposes? Or would that be verboten?
we could get team shalom from daily kos to moderate our threads, i bet that would clear things up.
“we could get team shalom from daily kos to moderate our threads,”
Oh yeah, ….we could be Dkos Junior.
@Annie
It might be sufficient to have some commenters that knew what they were talking about. If David Irving entered the boards, would that be okay?
Bruce, [January 17, 2012 at 7:20 pm] none of us here ignore content that might be inappropriate. We are perfectly capable of writing caveats to content. Just as your uncle is ready to write you off for whatever, according to his worldview, we don’t do that here. We give people their fair shake. That is the power of this board.
That said, David Irving wrote several books about the most fascinating history of Churchill and Hitler. You diminish yourself not to read the books/information just because Deborah Lipstadt won an anti-semitism charge against him, in what? 2000?
Maybe I am unique. I was accused in civil court, once, of something I didn’t do. What I was accused of was so outrageous I thought the jury would see it, would see through it. I was wrong. I learned a punishing lesson: the power of the mob to circumscribe an issue, the power of appealing to the lower common denominator, which was in my case their lower intelligence…something I could do nothing about.
You indicated earlier that you are much younger than me. If true, then I urge you: read everything you shouldn’t, form judgments long after you are expected to, and fill your head with facts without insisting on conclusions. You will become a wiser person than I, and many on this board.
And we await your wisdom as a result.
@MRW
Now your bad. I’ve never indicated I was young. In fact, I am older than you.
Recently, I came across your personal history that you presented some postings back. Fortunately, I didn’t have to make a 180 degree about-face like yourself. In 11th grade I had a teacher that introduced us to Paul Goodman’s “Growing Up Absurd” and “Compulsory Miseducation” as he headed out the door to another profession, so I learned early to have a healthy skepticism for the ways of education and the value of independent study. I also ended up hanging out at some top universities for about 12 years all together, so I believe I had paid my dues in the reading and research department and know the limits of elite institutions. I also have spent more time abroad than in the United States.
No offense, but I can think of a few better ways to spend my time than looking for a “fair shake” from the comment boards at MW. I’ve received a few too many of those already. I will be going back on hiatus after this set.
I will take my chances not studying further the collected works of David Irving, and try to keep sharpening my knowledge without the benefit of the power of your board.
Bruce, points taken and duly noted. :-)
jewish behavior didn’t create the nazis, but jewish zionists enabled them*
google “transfer agreement”
@yourstruly
Jewish zionists enabled them, but in the end was their analysis wrong? Tragically, the situation of the German Jews did turn out to be a lost cause. Neither the Western powers nor any other state intervened to save the German Jews or provide them refuge in any numbers.
Would the boycott of Germany succeeded had the Zionists supported it wholeheartedly? Would the boycott have ended Nazi rule? A number of people on this site claim that the call for the boycott enabled the Nazis.
I would suggest reading “The Transfer Agreement.” Believe me it is not a book on the Zionist Top 10 Reading List.
Neither the Western powers nor any other state intervened to save the German Jews or provide them refuge in any numbers.
Talk about an ahistorical statement. Its estimated that around 500,000 German and Austrian Jews were able to find refuge from Germany in other countries prior to WWII. Only 40,000, less than one tenth of the number, received refuge in what was then Palestine.
Your misstatement above illustrates perfectly why this topic is an important one and SHOULD be discussed. One of the Zionist myths that has not been sufficiently exposed is that only the Zionists tried to save European Jews and, by extension, only Israel provides the possibility of some possible future rescue. Not only did the Zionists not go out of their way to save Jews unless those Jews were considered “good human material” and useful to the pre-state, instituting a screening process for prospective Jewish “pioneers” to Palestine, but in fact, the majority of German Jews managed to leave Nazi Germany prior to WWII to go to other non-Jewish countries that took them in.
If you are looking for a cite for the number of German Jews successfully fleeing Nazi Germany, I would refer you to Tom Segev’s “The Seventh Million” or Yosef Grodzinsky’s “In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The Struggle Between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of WWII” . If you need a direct quote, I can provide it for you later when I have access to those two books.
@Tree
According to Segev, “At the beginning of 1933 there were about half a million Jews in Germany, some 1 percent of the total population; another 200,000 lived in Austria. About a third of the jews of these two countries were murdered; the rest managed to get out in time.”
There is nothing contradicting “getting out in time” and “Neither the Western powers nor any other state intervened to save the German Jews or provide them refuge in any numbers.” Do you have documentation demonstrating state intervention or sufficient refugee programs to solve the problem?
Walter Benjamin fled Germany for France, where he lived for many years. He “safely crossed the French-Spanish border and arrived at the coastal town of Portbou, in Catalonia. The Franco government had cancelled all transit visas and ordered the Spanish police to return such persons to France, including the Jewish refugee group Benjamin had joined. Expecting repatriation to Nazi hands, Walter Benjamin killed himself with an overdose of morphine tablets on the night of 25 September 1940.” You might count Benjamin among the rescued Jews from Germany. I do not.
If you consider it necessary to debunk certain “Zionist myths,” I do not object. But in the process you should not create your own. You write, “One of the Zionist myths that has not been sufficiently exposed is that only the Zionists tried to save European Jews …” Who makes this claim? Israel and the main Jewish organizations recognize that non-Jews and non-Zionists made heroic efforts to save Jews during the Nazi era. Have you never heard of “Righteous Gentiles” and the honors they receive? Nobody has heard of Raoul Wallenberg?
You also wrote that by extension Zionists claim, “only Israel provides the possibility of some possible future rescue.” If that is your concern, then argue against that assertion. It does get discussed. More than a few times in Ha’aretz, for example.
I entered this discussion due to certain comments specifically made about the Transfer Agreement. In earlier comment threads, several referred to Edwin Black’s book on the subject. After having read the book, in my view its conclusions have been misrepresented on MW. The Zionist leadership adopted a harsh strategy based on what they considered a realistic, nuanced assessment of the implications of the Nazi’s ascension to power. That leadership certainly didn’t believe that Palestine was going to solve the European Jewish refugee problem. If you are going to describe the ugly aspects of that policy, then you should also present a fair synopsis of the reasoning behind it and the historical context in which it was made.
Bruce, I think you make good points here. OTOH, the very concept of “Righteous Gentile” suggests they were the exception to the rule. Thus the program itself reinforces that generally, one can always count on Gentiles to not help the Jews when they are being hammered. It is the ultimate defense of the nuclear and super-armed state of Israel, and simultaneously, a giant diversion to what that state actually does to anyone not Jewish within its power, something horrible going on for many decades. The test of virtue is power; most europeans caught up in the reality of Europe during the Nazi power years, acted like anybody now living would have; and the many actions of non-Jews to not harm, or help Jews in any small way they could without causing harm to themselves or their family has never really been documented–it just leaks out very slowly over time. Perhaps we should have a new program to honor the “Righteous Jews” who actually do all they can to stop what the safe haven-insurance policy state of Israel has been doing since many of her on this web site have been alive? (And with American enablement, yet! A pure dissing of why Americans died in WW2 & showing no respect for the Jews who died in WW2).
I nominate Phil & Adam as Righteous Jews, and look forward to the new memorial of the Nakba soon to be built on US key monument grounds with Dick and Jane’s tax dollars.
@Citizen
I certainly believe that most of us are just human and that’s how I try to approach history and political questions and other people.
That said, I don’t believe that the Zionists up until the establishment of Israel have been given that break on MW. In particular, I find the stuff about the Nazi period obnoxious. Just being frank.
Initially, I don’t think the on-the-ground story of the Jews and the non-Jews during the Nazi era were discussed very much due to fact that the picture was very mixed and people did not want to raise all the issues. Even the Jews found the era embarrassing and were slow to want it portrayed. Remember, up until then a significant number of Germans still believed the Jews had been responsible for what happened to them.
I was living in Norway when the Holocaust TV series first appeared in Europe. The show was cathartic and changed popular attitudes. Throughout Europe it led to an outpouring of media coverage, a good deal about the negative aspects of the period. An example: although Norway did manage to rescue half of its small Jewish population at the beginning of the war, former Jewish residents of Norway who were non-citizens were not allowed to return to Norway after the war from their exile or from the concentration camps.
Let’s be honest, there was heroic efforts but there also collaboration and opportunism. Somebody ended up living in or taking over the property of all those missing Jews. Fortunately, Europe did learn something from WWII – maybe not enough – and its people behave differently from back then. At least, so far.
I don’t share your view that “the many actions of non-Jews to not harm, or help Jews in any small way they could without causing harm to themselves or their family has never really been documented.” Over the years I see this material all the time, but maybe I am looking for it. True, there is no grand opus or collected works, but it might be useful if someone put together an inventory. I might add that leaving the Israeli government aside, I have always found Jewish survivors to be extremely grateful in interviews to anyone that helped in their rescue. I am amazed that one still sees articles in the Jewish or local press about victim and rescuer finally being re-united.
Whatever the reason is that Americans died in WW2, it was not to save the Jews of Europe. The American record of the period is not one of which to be proud. The predecessors of Ron Paul were strongly opposed to doing anything on behalf of the Jews, reducing Roosevelt’s room to maneuver considerably.
As to future honorifics, I am afraid we will have to wait for the next catastrophe.
@Bruce, Jerome Slater wrote that the Holocaust made the case for the creation of a Jewish state and a haven for the victims of antisemitism not only irrefutable but urgent. And by the end of WWII, the die was cast: it was far too late to consider alternatives other than Palestine.
link to jeromeslater.com
In fact, the UNSCOP majority report flatly rejected that idea. It recommended an international commission be established with representatives of the UN and the Jews and Arabs of Palestine to regulate immigration into the borders of the proposed Jewish state during the first three years of the transition period to safeguard shared natural resources and the rights of the existing inhabitants. It concluded that the European refugees were an international problem and that Palestine could not be considered the answer:
link to unispal.un.org
You have belittled the efforts of the western powers who were in many cases occupied or waging a war against the Axis powers. You say they didn’t intervene or rescue sufficient numbers of Jewish refugees, but haven’t mentioned the role the Zionists played in exacerbating the situation.
*The Executive Committee of the Jewish Agency for Palestine did not participate in the Allied Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1931. Black wrote that German exports were down by 10 percent due to the boycott. The Zionists decided to enter into the Ha’avara Agreement with the Nazis instead. They saw Haavara as an example of Herzl’s envisioned “Jewish Company” and Transfer scheme. State commissions and arbiters in Israel subsequently concluded that the Zionist-owned Anglo-Palestine Trust Company in Tel Aviv had prevented the heirs of “potential emigrants” who had become Holocaust victims from collecting hundreds of millions in assets from the special bank accounts setup for that purpose. They also noted that the banks involved had charged fees of up to one third for handling transactions under the Agreement.
*According to Morris Ernst, the Zionists lobbied President Roosevelt in opposition to efforts to raise the immigration quotas here in the US to allow in more refugees. See Morris L. Ernst, So Far so Good, Harper, 1948, pages 176-77
*Ben Hecht wrote in his book Perfidy about how Judge Halevi had allowed the Gruenvald libel trial to be turned into a political trial on the behavior of the Labor Party during the War. He noted that Moshe Shertok had arranged for the arrest of Joel Brand. Judge Halevi concluded that Dr. Rudolph Kastner, a high MAPAI party official, “had sold his soul to the devil” and collaborated with the Nazis.
*When Ben Gurion’s political career as Prime Minister came to an end in 1963, he gave a speech in the Knesset excoriating and naming members of the political right and the Herut party, like Abba Ahimeir, who had praised Hitler for saving Germany or proposed alliances with the Axis powers. See Yechiam Weitz, Taking Leave of the ‘Founding Father’ Ben-Gurion’s Resignation as Prime Minister in 1963, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 131-152,
*Lenni Brenner edited 51 Documents outlining Zionist collaboration with the Nazis. So yes Donald, it’s fairly indisputable that Zionists contributed to the events that eventually led to the Holocaust. I’m amazed that’s controversial, since even Ben Gurion made accusations of that nature quite publicly in the Knesset.
*The Jewish Agency’s Executive met on June 26, 1938 to discuss the Evian Conference goal of raising Allied attention to the need for efforts and funding in order to resettle endangered Jews in other countries. Boas Evron wrote that: “It was summed up in the meeting that the Zionist thing to do ‘is belittle the Conference as far as possible and to cause it to decide nothing… We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for aid to Jewish refugees, and these collections could interfere with our collection effort.” Ben Gurion said “No rationalization can turn the conference from a harmful to a useful one. What can and should be done is to limit the damage as far as possible.” — See Boas Evron, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”, Indiana University Press, 1995, page 260
*Here is a quote from a letter written by Georg Landauer, the managing director of the Jewish Agency Central Bureau for the Settlement of German Jews, to Rabbi Stephen Wise, the Co-Chair of the American Zionist Emergency Council, dated February 13, 1938: I am writing this letter at the request of Dr. Weizmann because we are extremely concerned lest the problem be presented in a way which would prejudice the activity for Eretz Israel. Even if the conference does not propose immediately after its opening other countries but Eretz Israel as venues for Jewish emigration, it will certainly arouse a public response that could put the importance of Eretz Israel in the shade. . . . We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for the aid of Jewish refugees, and these collection efforts would interfere with our collection efforts. S. Beit Zvi, Post-Uganda Zionism and the Holocaust, Tel Aviv: Bronfmann, 1977, page 178 – cited in Boas Evron, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”, Indiana University Press, 1995, page 260
*There was also the statement by Menachem Ussishkin in the meeting of the Zionist Executive on June 26, 1938 regarding the report of Mr. Greenbaum: “He is also concerned at the Evian Conference. . . . Mr. Greenbaum is right in stating that there is a danger that the Jewish people also will take Eretz Israel off its agenda, and this should be viewed by us as a terrible danger. He hoped to hear in Evian that Eretz Israel remains the main venue for Jewish emigration. All other emigration countries do not interest him. . . . The greatest danger remains that attempts will be made to find other territories for Jewish emigration.” — also cited in Boas Evron, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”, Indiana University Press, 1995, page 260
So in many cases the Zionist leadership discouraged the efforts to boycott or intervene to rescue Jewish refugees by sending them to countries other than Palestine. Weizmann expressed no interest in bringing most of the post war refugees to Palestine. He consider them poor human material and said their lives were behind them:
Bruce, you asked: “Would the boycott of Germany succeeded had the Zionists supported it wholeheartedly?”
Edwin Black believed 1000% in 1984 that it would have. I don’t care what anyone says now, that is what Black believed in 1984.
Bruce:
“Israel and the main Jewish organizations recognize that non-Jews and non-Zionists made heroic efforts to save Jews during the Nazi era.”
But not the Jewish and Zionist organizations. My Jewish sister-in-law’s mother would tell you what she encountered during the war: complete disinterest, they left her to die.
There is nothing contradicting “getting out in time” and “Neither the Western powers nor any other state intervened to save the German Jews or provide them refuge in any numbers.”
Perhaps not, especially with the word “intervened” used, but there is certainly a contradiction between your statement, “Tragically, the situation of the German Jews did turn out to be a lost cause,” and the fact that half a million German Jews, over two thirds of total number, managed to find refuge elsewhere. And you show a lack of understanding of the Zionist “analysis” when you asked “Jewish zionists enabled them, but in the end was their analysis wrong? ”
As Hostage, Blankfort, I and others have tried to point out repeatedly here, the Zionist “analysis” was that Jewish diaspora culture was defective, parasitic and alien to Europe and only a Jewish population transfer to “their own country” would solve the “Jewish question”. The “analysis” even has a name, shlalit ha’galut, the negation of the Diaspora. Are you seriously endorsing a Zionist analysis that blamed Diaspora Jews for being:
???
link to en.wikipedia.org
As to Walter Benjamin, since he was able to leave Nazi Germany for France “where he lived for several years” according to your own quotation, I’d certainly count him among those German Jews who were rescued from that country prior to WWII. Unfortunately, with the defeat of France, his rescue was short-lived, but I find it rather telling that you omitted this relevant prior sentence from your Wiki quotation:
In August, he obtained a travel visa to the US that Max Horkheimer had negotiated for him. In eluding the Gestapo, Benjamin planned to travel to the US from neutral Portugal, which he expected to reach via fascist Spain, then ostensibly a neutral country.
link to en.wikipedia.org
The story of Benjamin is tragic, as were millions of other stories of WWII, but clearly Benjamin was rescued once and, had he found his way to Portugal, would have been rescued once again, this time in the middle of the War that engulfed the European continent.
If you consider it necessary to debunk certain “Zionist myths,” I do not object. But in the process you should not create your own. You write, “One of the Zionist myths that has not been sufficiently exposed is that only the Zionists tried to save European Jews …” Who makes this claim? Israel and the main Jewish organizations recognize that non-Jews and non-Zionists made heroic efforts to save Jews during the Nazi era. Have you never heard of “Righteous Gentiles” and the honors they receive? Nobody has heard of Raoul Wallenberg?
I have talked with many Jews, some of whom are Israelis, who mistakenly believe exactly what I claimed. I am not making this up. I have also read Israeli authors who talk about this very subject, and of course there’s our hophmi, who I’m sure will acknowledge Wallenberg and a few others, but insist that Zionists did more for Jewish refugees than any other group, and that more would have been saved had Israel come into being earlier. ( I think Slater has made this argument as well, or something like it.) And as Danaa has pointed out above, she never knew until recently that the majority of German Jews were able to escape pre-WWII Nazi Germany, despite the fact that she got a good liberal Zionist education in Israel.
@hostage
I would agree with Slater that the problem of the refugees was urgent, but I would not agree with him that it was irrefutable that Palestine was the answer. Personally, and up until now I have not expressed my views, I am sympathetic to the UNSCOP majority report and regret that Truman did not listen to his advisors who promoted it. A long time ago I wrote on Mondoweiss that I/P was an unresolved problem created by the UN and that the UN should fix it.
Yes, I criticize the (lack of) effort by the western powers to prevent the Nazi persecution of the Jews. There was 6-7 years before the war with the Axis powers when much stronger actions could have been taken.
I have some notes on your bullet points. I may respond to them later if I have more time, but have already spend considerable time on this.
It seems the issue will come up again I am sure.
Are you saying that the tensions between German Jews and the Nazi party cannot be discussed in the comments section?
Chu, who produced the tension? Surely not German or European Jews. This doesn’t sound like you know much about the “Third Reich”, The Third Empire.
1) Rome
2) The Holy Roman Empire of German Nations / Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nationen.
3) The Third Empire / Das Dritte Reich.
It has been discussed here from a purely from a Nazi’s paranoid apocalyptic scenario perspective (the Judeo-Bolshevik threat), occasionally with quite a bit of sympathy for the Nazis, at least that’s what it felt to me as a German. Although thankfully the main protagonist in this context has gone for a long time now.
I really hate it when people use the Nazis to indirectly suggest, they may have had the same problem with Jewish influence as the US has now. And yes this did happen.
They hadn’t, they needed a central scapegoat to blame. Had they achieved their aims you could have watched easily how many other “Untermenschen”/subhumans their pseudo-scientific research created for later treatment.
As they perceived themselves as a Master Race, they needed inferiors, deciding on their right to live.
Germany between world wars had a 1% German Jewish population, and they were very disproportionately represented in all the most influential careers, same as now in the USA (although American Jews are 2%). Do you deny this fact, LeaNder? Just asking. What are you trying to say?
LeaNder,
“As they perceived themselves as a Master Race, they needed inferiors, deciding on their right to live.”
No different than the anti-Muslim hatred feeding American wars and American exceptionalism right now.
You ever read The Transfer Agreement?
you ever read The Transfer Agreement
MRW, yes, I read extensively about Zionism and the Nazis, not Edwin Black but several books by Francis R. Nicosia, e.g. The third Reich and the Palestine question and Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany among others. I do know both the Transfer Agreement, if you allude to the specific document and it’s context.
@LeaNder
I can’t see how Black’s historical work supports MRW’s conclusion, which he stated above, “but to suggest that Zionist Jewish behavior before WWII did not provoke Hitler’s responses and create horrific unintended consequences is an insanity, and just plain historically wrong.” I just read 30 or more pages of Nicosia, and although I see disparities with Black, I don’t see how the differences support MRW either.
In all these discussions of the period, none of these people believe it is important to mention the incredible violence and repression that was part of Nazi rule from the start. The NSDAP was proud to be totalitarian. There is no use telling them that “it did happen” without making clear what happened. They seem not to know or care.
LeaNder, don’t worry, we here on MW will give you extra consideration that you were born and brought up in the petri dish of Post Nazi Germany, with all your conditioning not to think too much, nor pursue research too much, to actually get a grasp of what life and its influences were during the years after WW2. We won’t call you ignorant as to just how much the red scare was rational in those days. We will go along with your simple theory of scapegoatism. After all, we wouldn’t want to repeat the past in some new form, right? Churchill the influential drunk, use to rag on about how the German character was “either at your throat or at your feet.” Wonder what he’d say about your considered opinions these days?
Donald “Any hint that because anti-semitism isn’t the problem it once was, it isn’t a serious problem. This is wrong. ”
Actually, this is nonsense. Anti-semitism should not be elevated to a level beyond any other anti-ethnic speech. Anyone who holds anti-semitism to be more important or significant than, say, anti-islam” (which is a very serious problem, indeed) or anti-Arab (ditto) or anti-Chinese (problematic insome parts of the country), is choosing to look at a world of their choosing. It implies that Jewish people have more right to victimhood than any other group, that in the face of every evidence showing them to be perhaps the single most powerful group in the US, if one measures power by the ability to exert influence.
Any attempt to corral comments into bull-pens fenced by “allowed” parameters, set by the smellers of scents, should be fought tooth and nail because we all know that charges of anti-semitism are thrown about exactly to achieve the fenced-in effect, something we see in the cowering media, which dares not speak the name “Israel”, except in whispers. In fact, that is precisely why most such accusations are made – to allow power to go unchallenged and its corrupting effects un-examined.
I’d go further and maintain that the big problem we have on comment blogs is with people who keep getting funny whiffs of some supposed ‘anti-semitism”, whiffs that are not perceived by any of us, including members of that maligned semites.. For some time now I maintained that hurling that charge around is what should be a banning offense, or at least result in a serious warning. Jerome Slater did that every which way, and that is one of the reasons he was treated with less than the deference he believed himself to be entitled to. His extremely bad manners were something to behold, and no amount of hiding behind some would-be fear of anti-semitism is an excuse for that.
Donald, you say you are not jewish. How would you know what anti-semitism is or isn’t then? how do you perceive them whiffs and smells that are all but imperceptible for the rest of us, jewish and semi-jewish included? Perhaps it was just smoke blowing in the winds? I claim you know not that of which you speak when you purport to “see” anti-semitism in NY. Exactly where or how when most of the political power structure is the city is Jewish? what makes it any different than resentment of, say, malaysians of the Chinese upper class ?
Or, is what you are trying to do is to ensure that no challenge is brought against the extremely powerful, the extremely wealthy, and the extremely arrogant? after all, if we can’t question the 1% because so many of them are, in fact, Jewish (yes, it is a disproportionate percentage – check it out for yourself), what can we do? cower among the 99% (which, to be sure, includes plenty of Jews)?
Besides, I love the discourse on MW even though there are some, so-called “liberals”, who need to reach for their smelling salts at the mere whiff of a light breeze, which to them portends ill-wind.
I say, it is time to Occupy anti-semitism!
Danaa,
You offer moral clarity that is crucial to these topics. Thanks.
you said it better than me danaa, but that was the point i was trying to make.
every single point on it addresses israel or jews. not one thing protecting arabs or palestinians or palestine.
Amen Danaa!
Where does Donald and anyone else for that matter, live that they see all this anti semitism?
It ain’t out there.
What they see is a political war of words–in which the Jewish collective (read zionist) OR ‘un-collective’ or even Jewish collective period is treated as any other political ‘group’ and sometimes the collective is critiqued or theorized about in a cultural or historical sense—usually when people, mostly those Jewish themselves, get into Judaism vr zionism or discussions of Jewish psyche due to past victim hood, the holocaust or Judaism.
I think as a Southerner I will write an essay demanding that no one here refer to Southerners in the collective as f****** racist, talk about our ancestry/upbringing as elite bigots, which happens frequently here and many other places. ..except I am not so stupid as to take it personally, deny some aspects of it, take is as threat, or think it anything more than the general generalizing, theorizing that gets applied to a lot of things.
“Actually, this is nonsense. Anti-semitism should not be elevated to a level beyond any other anti-ethnic speech. Anyone who holds anti-semitism to be more important or significant than, say, anti-islam” (which is a very serious problem, indeed) or anti-Arab (ditto) or anti-Chinese (problematic insome parts of the country), is choosing to look at a world of their choosing. It implies that Jewish people have more right to victimhood than any other group, ”
I agree completely. Every word. Except that you seem to think you’re rebutting something in my post.
I suppose it all makes sense if we assume that my post here represents everything I think about racism and bigotry and the I/P conflict.
“How would you know what anti-semitism is or isn’t then? ”
Well, this is getting a little odd. The majority of us here aren’t Palestinian or Muslim, but we manage to see anti-Arab racism or anti-Muslim bigotry. In answer to your question, though, the link I made was to reports of actual violence against a rabbi and various other apparent hate crimes against Jewish targets. The cases aren’t solved, but it looks like a rash of anti-semitic crimes. I’m not saying that anti-semitism is the most serious form of hatred in America today (if by serious we mean the one that does the most harm). Clearly it isn’t. But why should we not still say it is serious enough if people get hurt because of it?
“Or, is what you are trying to do is to ensure that no challenge is brought against the extremely powerful, the extremely wealthy, and the extremely arrogant?”
There you go. My previous responses above were sincere, but this part just merits a slight rolling of the eyes.
“But why should we not still say it is serious enough if people get hurt because of it?”
Nobody suggested that. The issue is that you singled out one form of bigotry and labeled it serious, while neglecting to even mentioning any of the other forms of bigotry which far more people get hurt because of on a far more regular basis. On a side, your attempt to link to this article was thwarted by mangled code.
“The issue is that you singled out one form of bigotry while neglecting to even mentioning any of the other forms of bigotry which far more people get hurt because of on a far more regular basis. ”
Exactly the argument the Zionists make when they attack this blog for spending all its time concentrating on Israel, when so many more people are being killed or dying because of some sort of oppression all the time in other places.
@kylebisme
I believe Donald raised the form of bigotry that he believes is a problem on Mondoweiss and that should be addressed.
When I speak before a group of Americans about anti-Arab bigotry, do I need to preface my remarks first with the importance of fighting anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism?
You all act as if MW does not have a definite POV and is some kind of open forum where all participate.
“Exactly the argument the Zionists make ”
Nonsense, their argument is that Israelis treatment of Palestinians isn’t really a problem, while I’ve no interest in excusing any form of bigotry.
“I believe Donald raised the form of bigotry that he believes is a problem on Mondoweiss and that should be addressed.”
He did that in his point 4, while I was adressing point 5.
I, Eric Cantor, say, we really gotta watch out for all the anti-Semites lurking behind every bush in America. Why, I’m scared going to my bathroom! My, just look at how the US Congress dissed Bibi when he spoke before them not long ago! And just look at how many neo-nazis are pursing German-American Bund interests in our government! No wonder Witty is full of angst about the future survival of world Jewry!
I want know what your obsession with anti semitism is Donald like I asked you the other day and you didn’t answer.
Why are you obsessed with this?
I can understand why older Jews who may have experienced anti semitism in the past might still be affected by those experiences….but you are not Jewish and have not had that experience and go beyond everyone’s normal condemnation of it so what is it?
You seem to want anti semitism to be considered rampant and some kind of present day threat to Jews. Why?
You are always trying to steer us to the topic of anti semitism…even when there has been none in sight or rarely in sight.
Donald: “There you go. My previous responses above were sincere, but this part just merits a slight rolling of the eyes.”.
Well, I did not mean to make the accusation singular to you. I realize that’s not what you, personally are trying to do. I was just trying to make statement a bit more succint than is my custom.
I should have made it clearer, that, in trying to afflict us with a bad case of civility (ouch!), you may be giving a hand, possibly inadvertantly, to those who’d rather shut up the critique of extreme privilege altogether.
So there you go: clearer perhaps but no longer succint (sp?).
You can stop the eye rolls now – must be enervating.
Danaa, I love you.
Let me say this loud and clear and I hope, Phil Weiss responds as well as commentators like annie/hostage/avi/shmuel/mooser/american/citizen/mrw/chaos/shingo/sumud/etc.etc. (too many) and the other people who make MW great:
Will we ever institute similar rules for racism directed towards Arabs? Or dehumanizing comments made about Palestinian identity, nationalism, suffering?
Richard Witty is the culprit of the latter – on a DAILY basis. With 11k comments he has been allowed free reign to say one idiotic, racist, hypocritical, thing after another.
And what about hophmi and the Mufti meme? One he denied by the way. Then i QUOTED HIM SAYING IT – and in typical form, he vanished. What about eee, saying Palestinian society was murderous? How about when he MOCKED the phrase ‘sumud’ in the context of painting all Palestinians as murderers.
Do these people not see the crimes in their own society (and in the case of Israel-firsters, who enjoy true democracy [relatively lately] in the US, like Dick Witty and hophmi)?
How often does a settler commit a crime and get sentenced to jail for a long time without being pardoned or let out sooner than later?
How often does the Israeli government steal Palestinian land justifying it w/ red tape bullshit?
Hophmi. Richard Witty. eee (although he does not count since he is cut of the same cloth as the Jewish fundamentalist settlers). ALL of these people NEVER criticize Israel and never condemn the settlement project. They never once say a single negative thing about Israel in spite of the obvious disparity of atrocity committed and on-going crimes/political dishonesty.
But never mind all that.
WHEN – are you guys going to apply these same standards to Muslim/Arabs and Palestinians?
You won’t. I have been here since before 2008, when this blog really took off. My name was LDLD before. Some may remember.
Phil has never (at least publically in the comment section along-side us) condemned anti-Arab/Muslim/Palestinian comments.
So what we are contributing to is a dishonest ‘painting’ of a comments section at Mondoweiss.
Sometimes Phil censors posts that seem unseemly. I don’t blame him, since this is a polarizing issue and often we’re posting from the ceiling. THAT BEING SAID: the only OFFICIAL condemnations I have seen here in the 5+ years of following Phil Weiss’s journalism (which I respect, alongside other Jewish liberals like Blumenthal ) is that which is issued w/ respect to antisemitism.
And antisemtism dominates our discussions so often.
The thread will be about something awful Israel did or something ridiculous the Lobby did or said or whatever – BUT STILL we all end up falling for the same tactics of the Zionist MW posters here. They change the subject and we’re eventually talking about antisemitism.
Or all of you who actually take the time to talk to Richard Witty. I’ve made several posts acknowledging this point but also admitting my own fault in it but why not ignore him? Once and for all. After all these years, and the years to follow. It feels like we’re not growing (intellectually).
Maybe you all are, but I see the same B.S. pattern of discussion.
Thread: Israel does something awful/Israeli politician says/proposes something racist/The Lobby-related shenanigans/etc.
Comments: Dick Witty threadjacks; everyone and their mom falls for it
The end. Rinse, repeat.
I think unless you’re involved in Palestinian solidarity – as an activist or maybe just as a donor. Or maybe as someone who takes what he or she knows and tries to impart it to his/her friends and family – you are only posting on MW to VENT.
To vent at what you see is a black and white, closed and shut case, of good vs. evil.
That is not helping the Palestinians because if you parse yourself, you haven’t done anything really. Defeating a Zionist troll like eee/hophmi/Dick Witty accomplishes nothing.
Israel can spare the money and effort to send out more trolls. Are we some mega-PAC or super-funded organization doing the same? No, we’re ordinary people who are shocked and appalled by what is going on w/ OUR TAX DOLLARS.
I see no further purpose or utility in engaging these clowns. I dunno….
Cliff,
There is a role for the repetition in the Mondoweiss style. I happened to join in March 2010, and the repeated style of MW is what convinces you over time. I was a liberal Zionist, from my family, the other side was never explained to me. I investigated the Palestinian situation together with the growth of the Internet, starting in 2000. I learned some shocking things, but they didn’t have staying power. My family easily turned it back with the hasbara arguments that they had learned, and I didn’t know any better. The MW style of repetition, with continual debunking of hasbara arguments, led to a lot of education and movement on the issue.
Here’s the deal: There are people joining this argument late, like now, and in the future. There is an ongoing need to keep explaining the situation so that it doesnt get rolled back by the prevailing winds.
Yes, Robert–all of you who comment on MW must realize, especially if your are regular commenters, that many people alight here lie birds on the wing, and may never have hear what you have said before, time and time again on MW. Witty, and the other more conscious hasbara parrots know what Hitler-Bernays-Goebbels epitomize, the big lie, repeated endlessly. We need to attack it eveytime, daily, even if we did so just yesterday. The birds keep coming to sit on the MW wire.
if what’s put out here on mw is a waste, how come there are so many hasbara here? are they worried about what’s on mw?
Yes, they are. They are worried that any American gets a stiff dose of facts regarding the US-Israel relationship. MW should be a reality show on mass cable TV. Cheaters is a good model.
Hey,speaking of that relationship,today I read where Canada is accusing an unnamed country of spying,and the first thing I ,thought of was,Israel is up to it’s old tricks,then I read further that it was possibly Russia.
Watch the media run with it in direct opposition to the hiding of Israeli spying ,but it is a bad sign for Israel when spying and Israel are linked in the American consciousness, neh?
And friends don’t spy on friends,BTW,and all the French,Canadian,German and British(and all the others) spies are very lonely in our prisons.Not!Because they are our friends.Reality bites.
“That is not helping the Palestinians because if you parse yourself, you haven’t done anything really.”…..Cliff
That’s right.
To help the Palestines means addressing the core of the problem, US-Isr and what’s behind our policy—not that our doing so here can have that much weight—but I notice if we cut to close to the bone by saying for instance the Jews in general must take some responsibility as I once did and got sent down the rabbit hole..that is considered too close to the bone for some even though there is nothing anti semitic about it, it’s political and if it was said about any other group like Christian whackos or the Shadow Financial Elites groups it would be acceptable.
It’s a double standard that keeps up the double standard…which means the double standard gives unfair political advantage to some because there are some truths you can’t speak without writing 12 pages of disclaimers and clarifications about exactly who you are talking about and how/what you really mean before you say it.
It gets to be too much damn trouble to have to preface everything you say and every opinion you have with some kind of genuflection to anti semitism before you say it.
If Phil thinks anyone on here including myself actually have hate in our hearts for Jews or want to see them or anyone harmed , as in harmed in some important way, let him just kick us off…cause if he or any others really think that then we are wasting our time here.
American, I second your motion.
I third your opinion American.
[Cliff said, inter alia: "WHEN – are you guys going to apply these same standards to Muslim/Arabs and Palestinians? ... Phil has never (at least publically in the comment section along-side us) condemned anti-Arab/Muslim/Palestinian comments."]
Cliff’s analysis is consistent with my experience at MW as a Palestinian-Arab-Israeli-American. I also second the several and various learned comments of American, Citizen, annie, Danaa, MRW and many others here.
I understand that it is absolutely necessary to draw and keep readers to MW and I understand that certain preconceptions and sensitivities will always play into that and make it difficult.
I just wanted to say that I was offered no assistance–zero–when I was deluged with false charges of anti-Semitism by hophmi and others here, even after I and others emailed Phil and asked for him to step in and provide some guidance. I even had some of my posts that were direct responses to my attackers censored, even though my posts were entirely appropriate and not in violation of the MW posting rules.
When this occurred, I explained it all to Phil (that is, the MW posting policy) since he and his staff seemed entirely unaware of the MW rules. I believe I may have posted excerpts of this in the open comments as well, but I don’t remember for sure.
My consolation prize came a short time later in the form of an offer to write about “Palestinian Identity”–or some other subject of my choosing–as if that could somehow be a substitute for a MW representative stepping in to correct the ongoing libelous charges of these virulent Zionist commenters.
Richard Witty has 11,000 posts including probably 3,000 that have in some way obfuscated, dismissed, minimized and even completely denied Palestinian rights**, identity, suffering and obvious position as the oppressed and brutalized party in the IP conflict. His posts are frequently off topic and classic cases of “thread jackings” and therefore it would be entirely appropriate and sensible to, first, censor his comments repeatedly, and, if that doesn’t work, ban him for over-posting, among other rule violations. Even someone as open as Glenn Greenwald occasionally bans people after giving them multiple specific warnings. Witty wouldn’t last 10 days at Greenwald’s spot.
Also, I have to say, one would think that after using the word “dialogue” something like 9,000 times he would have learned to spell it. Witty’s complete inability to spell “dialogue,” even in the face of hundreds (if not thousands) of times that he has been corrected, by James North and others, is similar to his complete inability to honestly reflect on his mythical brand of “Liberal Zionism.” It’s a blind spot that he will never discover and correct, mostly because he refuses to look. The possibility of there being a life altering revelation or epiphany down that road is something he can never, ever risk; therefore, Witty holds his nose and continues to cheer the dispossession, degradation, displacement and murder of an entire people and culture because it’s his “team” that is the perpetrator. Witty is what you could call a “Fan” (as in a “Fanatic”).
In closing, I just want to say to Phil, Donald, Witty (and others who agree with Donald’s post) that while you are here calmly and sensibly discussing these issues and smacking down every “whiff” of real anti-Semitism (~5%) and pretend anti-Semitism (~95%), Palestinians (and all the other victims of Israel, the Eternal Homeland of the Jewish People,) will continue being attacked and savaged in every way imaginable, including on these MW boards, by the same people with whom you are being oh-so-sweet and civil. Keep up the great work.
**To Witty, Palestinian rights are a wonderful and even necessary thing, so long as there is: (1) No land under said Palestinians’ feet that is coveted by any segment of the Jewish international community or Israeli government; (2) No natural resources under said Palestinians’ feet that is coveted by any segment of the Jewish international community or Israeli government; or (3) Any non-specific objections (to Palestinian equality and personhood) by any segment of the Jewish international community or Israeli government.
Richard Witty has 11,000 posts including probably 3,000 that have in some way obfuscated, dismissed, minimized and even completely denied Palestinian rights**, identity, suffering and obvious position as the oppressed and brutalized party in the IP conflict. His posts are frequently off topic and classic cases of “thread jackings” and therefore it would be entirely appropriate and sensible to, first, censor his comments repeatedly, and, if that doesn’t work, ban him for over-posting, among other rule violations.
I agree with Haytham. I would add that Witty is responsible for a good deal of the incivility here – not only in his role as the Human Punching Bag (thanks, N49), but in the tone of his own comments. In his peace-love sort of way, he is one of the most offensive, uncivil commenters on this blog. Reduce his posts considerably or even ban him, and half the problem will have been solved – not because his views have no place here (Phil thinks he represents a significant part of the Jewish community), but because he is a rude, passive-aggressive, threadjacking, tiresome troll.
I am the “Jew” on this site.
I am the “new Jew” on this site as well. I will not lie to myself, or publicly about my views to conform to what you think is accurate, if I do not regard a “fact” or an interpreted “conclusion” to be less than true.
I will not abuse, nor will I name-call for an end, nor will I lie, nor will I back down.
If you don’t like the arguments, the weighing of sensitivities, then articulate a different one (a better argument), hopefully humbly, knowing that you don’t know all things.
And, please take the intellectual responsibility to propose courses of actions that include consent of all the primary parties, rather than fantasy/ideology based imposition on the parties.
If you successfully persuade of a positive proposal, any good ones, the choices for Jewish Israelis, or for Palestinians, will be to find paths.
You want to call yourselves not anti-semitic, then make room for reasoned, non-offensively stated argument, without encouraging any name-calling.
The idea that a blog with any mission hoping for a wide audience, would hold the “community” of anti-Zionists as more important, is self-destructive.
To Phil and Adam, you are not as much a public enemy as you think, or this blog would be hacked. I’m sure that there have been minor hacking attempts, but it is up and running. But, you do drift towards the nutty in your editorial framing.
The other thing that you should know is that the blog is very widely read, and that it is a truth that very prominent and intelligent potential commenters that sincerely wish to grapple with the substantive issues associated with some of the conflicts (ideas and on the ground) are shooed away.
I correspond (some at length, most pretty trivially) with many of the prominent liberal Zionist journalists that are written about here. Literally, ALL have said that they value that the site conveys an alternative perspective, but that very very often the comments are beyond beyond, and that less often, but still often, the editorial comments are beyond beyond.
These are “thick-skinned” seasoned journalists who are called self-hating FAR more than almost all commenters here.
An example, I am trying to invite some prominent liberal Zionist (pretty far to the left) speakers to my area and have spoken with faculty at colleges, many rabbis and shul leadership. They, with a couple exceptions, know of the site and most have read at least some article referenced here. These are not journalists, have no skin in the anti-Zionist game. Some were curious about an anti-Zionist site. Some were curious of what they had read about a couple of editorial gaffs that were publicly contested in other publications. Some were very liberal rabbis privately participating on some selection process on choice of wines say to buy for their shuls even.
You need some objective basis to understand HOW alienating this site often is, and how engaging this site is potentially.
Better still, simply implement am “Ignore this person” button so that we can all use it just once and never have to tolerate his threadjacking. at teh same time, he can’t complain about being censored.
We’ve all wasted a greatdeal of energy tryingto engage him, so it’s not as though he hasn’t been given many chances to get his act together.
Reduce his posts considerably or even ban him, and half the problem will have been solved – not because his views have no place here (Phil thinks he represents a significant part of the Jewish community), but because he is a rude, passive-aggressive, threadjacking, tiresome troll.
I agree with Shmuel.
Why would we want a hasbarite who backs Israel to the hilt banned?He makes us all look like philosophers in comparison,and shows us the borg like mindset of Zionisms adherents,and their human qualities of frailty and insecurity.
Only Nazis, Commies,and Zionists hate free speech.
Shmuel: This bear repeating:
“Reduce his posts considerably or even ban him, and half the problem will have been solved – not because his views have no place here (Phil thinks he represents a significant part of the Jewish community), but because he is a rude, passive-aggressive, threadjacking, tiresome troll.”
Agreed and then some. there is this grating effect that Witty brings out of people – new and old to the site. Something about his incoherence that masks a false civility – passive-aggressive must be it. Sometimes it really is about personalities…
Less Witty = More civility
Let’s test if this can make an axiom.
dahoit:
I didn’t say I want him banned. I said he could fairly be banned. It would not be an injustice to ban him. A blog with a rational posting policy that actually follows it would have banned Witty before he got to his 500th post.
No Witty, you are not the “Jew” on this site. You are the “Phew!” on this site. Your abstract peacenik ooze differs not from the horrid, intentionally misleading and diverting fragrance sprayed into the American air daily by our whole Establishment bipartisan media, government when it comes to anything touching on Israel and the US regimes’ “special relationship” with that foreign country. This blog is samisdat, you are not.
Thank you, Shmuel, you write what many of us feel.
I’m not quite up to date with Witty’s posts but from past experience culling his posts can be counterintuitive at times. For example I’m generally annoyed when he thanks people. Go figure. Btw, thanks for not inciting to violence against Witty.
Excellent point Cliff.
I was left wondering if this is what Donald had in mind when he wroe thsi suggestion. Does the moderation cut both ways or is it only intended to be a one directional filter? Eiehr way, I see it being just as damaging. If the likes of eee and Jonah aren’t able to vent their spleen, then they probably won’t participate here either. And I beleve we need themto participate as much as anyone else.
Cliff says:
January 17, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Cliff, I think there won’t be censoring of anti Arab comments…because the racism of those commenters here is mainly their “Attitude”, more so than language…and it’s in near everything they say.
Their belief that they are superior to all others is the actual racism.
But they’ve either learned not to call Arabs animals and etc.. or think it isn’t necessary because their superiority is the scale all questions are weighed on.
You’d have to censor all the zinoist off this site if you recongized their attitude is their racism.
Their belief that they are superior to all others is the actual racism.
that reminds me, eee just told us on another thread it was ‘high time’ we learn bds was being used by the israeli right to score pts against the israeli left. as if, as if we should stop boycotting israel, as if the freedom of palestinians was less significant than propping up the israeli left. wonders never cease.
This site becomes as meaningless and ineffectual as the rest if Donald’s censorship is implemented.
Discussions will lose their passion, as people will be frustrated with the moderation of their sincere view-points. It’s difficult to write/speak of something you are passionate about in cold, statistical factuality. If I must censor the emotion out of my position and simply spout out statistical facts, dates, etc. I lose my desire to engage here in this subject.
I doubt I am alone. Comments will decline (both in influential quality and in quantity). Support will wane. Donations will plummet.
Donald’s “vision” is not an asset to Mondoweiss or the movement, but rather an end to something awe inspiring.
passionless discourse? for what, putting viewers to sleep?
Exactly.
Here! Here! Seconded.
I think a great value of Mondoweiss is its openness to anti Zionist thought and actions by people of the Jewish faith and shows US that there are good and honest voices there.
To censor would just undermine that faith by Americans that Jews want truth and justice like all of US,and would further our divide.
Beware of false choices.
@ Donald,
Thanks for raising the issue of the comments on Mondoweiss. Besides mentioning that not only liberals can be driven away from the site, I support your view completely. The plethora of “unhelpful comments” was the reason I stopped contributing to Mondoweiss.
Only last week one of the commenters – unchallenged until I finally replied after a long absence – suggested that the Jews provoked the German working class into supporting the Nazis. And further what resulted should be a lesson for the present.
I value Mondoweiss for the information and analysis it conveniently provides in its postings, vital material that is mostly absent from large swaths of the media. Hoping that we ultimately can have some agency on events in the Middle East, I want to see Mondoweiss’ influence increase. Mondoweiss should be a place to which others can get comfortable with a different perspective than that they currently hold. It should be a reference site to which other sites will readily link. For all the reasons that you mention I believe that the “unhelpful comments” detract from these aims.
In my opinion Phil does an incredible job in presenting varied views and analyses. He has taken considerable heat for doing so. Personally I found him helpful as an editor and empathetic to a fault toward his writers. To this day Mondoweiss reflects the interests of Phil. Hence, as you noted we have reporting of the Middle East mixed with discussions of Jewish identity and the sociology of Jews, particularly American Jews. These are all topics that ought to be discussed, but with care and with limits to speculation.
The comments are dominated by a group of active readers who identify themselves as a community and consider their contributions as essential to the site. While different views do get expressed, it does not take long to notice the skew in judgements and temperaments. Sometimes the exchanges in the comments are very informative, but all too often they turn into brutal put downs and ad hominem attacks. The current comment interchanges easily open the site to attack and scare away potential contributors and readers.
In my opinion, the ambience of the site’s posting area is not in sync with the atmospherics in the comments. One recent example, it is obvious that Phil respects Liz Ratner. Yet, her last posting and Ratner personally were trashed by the alpha-tribe of the comments section.
This is a difficult question. The so-called Mondoweiss community deserves to be heard and should even have their own space to carry on their discussions. Due to my own hopes for the site I wish they would take their community off-site, where they could say whatever they want to each other on whatever topic. They could discuss Mondoweiss postings to whatever community standards they adopt. For whatever reasons, they want to organize around Mondoweiss and call it their own. This drives away other people.
Ultimately, Mondoweiss is both the postings, the comments, the contributors and the readers. It is what it is. The comment problem has been festering for a long time. While I welcome your plea, I doubt it will change anything. Only Phil and Adam can determine whether they want the site to be different.
I performed a search of your comment history but found no mention of the word “invented”.
Would it be safe to conclude that you had no objection to Gingrich’s remarks about Palestinians being an invented people? After all, his remarks were the subject of many articles here on Mondoweiss.
So where does that leave you with respect to righteous indignation? I’m all ears.
@Avi-G,
Your comment is a perfect example of what is wrong with too many of the comments on MW.
You searched through my articles and comments and they led you to conclude that I don’t have anything to say about anti-Palestinian attitudes/racism? No, you searched on the word “invented” in my comments to reach some predisposed theory about me.
As I wrote, my comment was the only one on Mondoweiss in a long time. I doubt it matters why I wrote that comment, but part of the reason was I just finished reading Edwin Black’s, “The Transfer Agreement”.
Gingrich’s remarks about the “invented people” occurred after all of my comments less 2, so of course you wouldn’t have found “invented” doing a search of my comments.
I assume that not one of the articles on MW agreed with Gingrich’s absurd statement that the Palestinians are an “invented people”. I did not see one that is for sure. So why would I feel compelled to comment my objection to Gingrich? That territory was well covered on MW. My comment would not have added anything.
So where does that leave me with respect to righteous indignation? Right where I was before my last comment.
What a waste of time.
No, Bruce, your comments are good examples of a simplistic view of the multiple causation of anti-Semitism throughout history right up to now. Why don’t you read some Marx, just for starters? Then you can get into some Freud. Both born Jews of course.
@Citizen
I don’t need you to introduce me to the writings of Marx or Freud.
Exactly what is my simplistic view of the multiple causation of anti-Semitism that you have discerned from my comments?
And are you promoting Marx’s and Freud’s explanations for anti-Semitism?
Much as I like the comments, and am capable of absorbing without offense the borderline ones, they aren’t especially important to the site. The other blog I spend a lot of time with is Andrew Sullivan’s. He has no comments at all, though he occasionally quotes interesting and on point comments from readers. Phil Adam and co, could do that, and mondoweiss would still be an critically important, perhaps even history making, blog.
i don’t agree scott (for reasons robert articulates for cliff’s awesome rant) although i agree it would still be an important site.
another point i’d like to address wrt andrew sullivan and this blog. we are part of a growing global movement and although i don’t know the statistics i would wager to guess the largest focus group (certainly most valuable imho) with the most potential for growth is young people.
our discourse here pushes the envelope. my instinct is to always push the envelope surrounding the way we address the topic. therefore kids who come here who might have doubts can see the more far reaching responses and the way the debate is made. and the commenter archives here are really important, without a doubt. the information (historical and otherwise) in the archives is invaluable.
some people are more comment oriented. personally i am most comfortable as a commenter. i like threads. most people who read the blog probably don’t visit the threads but they are very important and the best proof of that is the efforts to control the discourse. (i am not specifically talking about this thread) google reut ‘red lines’, they want to own the boundaries of the discussion. hmm
@Annie
I’m not claiming that my experience is representative, but while I find that young people do have their awareness of the Palestinians widened by forwarded articles from Mondoweiss, they have almost no tolerance for the frank ethnic remarks all too common in the MW comment section. It is a clear turn off to the way they have been socialized. My sample of youth find the comments here icky. Be curious to know the age profile of MW commenters.
Such as?
Bruce, you obviously don’t know the same kids I do. The ones I know are not egg shells. I know them through my son, mostly.
bruce, it is my understanding the site is growing. colleges across the country having swelling ranks of kids joining the movement. this site is very popular with those kids which is why phil was invited to speak at the bds conference at penn coming up, and i have been invited to speak at a university next month, my first speaking engagement. so i simply find your comment remarkable. if they don’t like the comments it doesn’t seem to be effecting the sites popularity on campuses.
another thing bruce, yesterday i was reading a study on jewish teens someone linked to in jesse’s thread (i think)
link to bjpa.org
not having the time to find it but i noticed one of the things, in fact one of the only things these teens all had most in common with eachother. they don’t like arguments about who is a jew or comments challenging their concepts of their own jewishness.. so i wish if donald were going to be sensitive towards jewish sensibilities he could have addressed some of the rudest type comments on this site that is a regular feature of our uber zios.
another interesting feature was the priority in life which they regarded their own identity as a jew (it was the largest spread between child and parent) kids, 51% parent 86%. i think something like 7th out of 10 priorities. that is a big spread in one generation.
Comments are what has made websites the vitally important and democratic thing they are. The quasi-priesthood (I think I took that term from Phil) of journalists and academics who once sang all the hymns now have to let the laity get close to the sanctuary.
@Citizen
As I said, I didn’t claim the ones I talk to are representative. I would love to see some data and surveys.
But the kids I know are not egg shells either, but they are definitely over the ethnic wars. Class wars are another issue.
@Annie,
Well, you and Phil have the data, so I will have to accept what you say. Are there any actual demographic statistics on the readership of the site?
I don’t see any signs that those kids are participating in the comments section. Some of the younger commenters who were quite good seem to have dropped out.
Any young people out there?
Maybe you and Phil can ask some of those students when you see them what they like and dislike about the site.
@Annie
I wasn’t necessarily thinking of Jewish students. Will take a look at your link.
But I agree with the observation that “they don’t like arguments about who is a jew or comments challenging their concepts of their own jewishness.”
I have no problem with the site dealing with uber zios. But there are so few zios left now on MW, I’m not sure what more you want Donald to do. Besides Witty, a case all his own, the rest are only here to tweak everyone else. Donald was addressing another issue. I believe the comments to his posting will add clarity to what MW is really about.
Bruce,
‘My sample of youth find the comments here icky.’
Which presumes you’ve been told the truth about history. I have three post-graduate degrees under my belt from the best ivy league schools. I was educated at a prep school where you had to register at birth; family name/history mattered; the majority of my class did not get under 792 in their SATs. I speak three languages; the two other than English poorly now from lack of practice. Except for my sister marrying the funniest and most delightful redneck on planet earth–jezuzz, he’s funny–my family sniffs if they deem your education subpar (as they sniffed at the BIL) and you can’t quote the classics. My mother preferred her Romans in Latin, which I played hookey from. Bedtime reading when I was four and five? The Golden Bough.
Got It? Educated above the American average.
So here’s the point: every damn bit of that vaunted education I got was wrong. I have spent every waking moment since 1999 finding out that I was lied to and that what they teach you in school, including university, is substandard, couched in historical terms that benefit the victor, and was circumscribed by an agenda. A hyperbolic statement, to be sure, but I feel cheated. I also feel stupid because I believed everything that my thoughtful acclaimed professors shoveled into me.
So if some of us get cantankerous around here, it’s because we’re fighting off the shackles of it. Call it an effect of aging, because I don’t presume to know anything anymore.
Well, you and Phil have the data, so I will have to accept what you say. Are there any actual demographic statistics on the readership of the site?
i have all the same data as everyone else. adam posted it on new years day. plus i try to follow the pulse of things. i suggest reading this:
link to mondoweiss.net
also beinart’s article ‘the failure of the american jewish community’, also reut, stand with us, the amount of money being invested in american colleges by the right wing. this isn’t happening just as a precaution, it is happening because zionism has become a controversial topic. and it’s reputation is tanking for good reason.
to refute the idea the growth in mondoweiss is not at least partly as a result of the kids one would have to assume they are not into blogs or there are other i/p blogs more popular. also, kids write me sometimes, they say we’re the best blog. us an EI. maybe the kids do not read the comments, i don’t know but i get positive feedback when i go out in the community, especially the activist community. people like mondoweiss, that’s my experience.
the name of the survey is “Engaging Jewish Teens: A Study of New York Teens, Parents and Practitioners” the whole link is full of surveys. they explzin most of these kids are from the ‘elite’, their definition meaning kids already very engaged in jewish activities with families who are engaged. i didn’t read the whole thing, it is long. and they do comparisons with a broader cross section of teens. unsurprisingly the teens basically have the same concerns as most teens.
there are so few zios left now on MW, I’m not sure what more you want Donald to do.
the same thing he has been doing, engaging. i would have no problem with more zionists here, especially a better quality of zionists, ones that do not use so many talking pts. but i think we’ve (americans) come from a culture that has pampered and protected everything around zionism while at the same time there’s a pr war going on against muslims and arabs, well documented too. it’s a tough world out there and it gets rough and tumble but that doesn’t mean we should be the ones changing to make it more zio friendly at the expense of others or our principles.
if you don’t like a thread, disengage, find a thread you do like. or try to engage people you don’t see eye to eye with. i’ve had several disagreements with people i am ideologically aligned with here but it doesn’t mean i hold a grudge against them. in my view, the train has left the station, so it doesn’t make much sense to try to change the site rules if you want to engage, better to change thru interaction and dialogue.
and just like in life people have good and bad days.
they are definitely over the ethnic wars. Class wars are another issue.
zionism is not an ethnic war. zionism is a political construct in support of ethnic nationalism. most americans, by nature are not ethnic nationalists, which is normal because we are not an ethnic nationalist country. therefore it is an aberration of our natural political state to support the idea of ethnic nationalism. then there is a degree of live and let live thrown into the mix. and that might work if zionism was a live and let live form of ethnic nationalism, but it isn’t.
the majority of pro israel zionists i come in contact thru the blog continually try to reinforce the idea people who do not support zionism, don’t support it because it is jewish nationalism, and all the think tanks push this idea. it is much more logical to assume people don’t like it because it oppresses other people. more on my thought on zionism here
link to mondoweiss.net
not on my front burner. don’t change us, change the policies. if you support zionism make it so others will like it too. basically, we are not the problem. but the train has left the station and zionsim is not on the human rights train.
“zionism is not an ethnic war. zionism is a political construct in support of ethnic nationalism”. Sorry, what’s the difference? Is ethnicity ‘constructed’? Maybe not.
“pro israel zionists i come in contact thru the blog continually try to reinforce the idea people who do not support zionism, don’t support it because it is jewish nationalism”… Some oppose Zionism because its against Palestinians, some because it is opposed to the ethic interests of the majority of Americans. They should unite. One shouldn’t use political correctness to divide these two groups.
@Annie
I wasn’t able to find any MW readership data released by Adam on New Year’s Day in the archives nor on any day near the 1st. Is there a link?
@Annie
I should have been more specific. By “ethnic wars”, I meant broader ethnic politics in an American context. America may not be an ethnic nationalist country, but ethnicity has very much been an important part of American politics. It is still true today, but my friends and I see a significant change in their kids and their friends. America’s multi-ethnic society has resulted in a rather strange nationalism, but that is another story.
While it may be true that “it is an aberration of our [the USA] natural political state to support the idea of ethnic nationalism,” the United States is a settler/immigrant state and Israel so far has been fairly successful in portraying itself similarly. If Israel can be reframed as an ethnic nationalist state, that would be a game changer. Meanwhile, Israel has also done well in gaining support in Australia and Canada, two other settler/immigrant nations. None of the four have yet to come to terms with what they did to their native populations. Their tolerance level for such introspection is limited.
You keep telling me that the train has left the station. That sounds as if I can sit back and watch you get to your destination. Good luck!
This article by Donald Johnson says he knows “Christians who would be instantly disgusted at the least whiff of anti-semitism or even what they might think is anti-semitism but isn’t”. Right. Even Christians. Secular liberals are even worse. That’s why we’ve been so ineffective in opposing Jewish apartheid, where the campaign against white apartheid was so effective. The solution is the opposite of what he recommends – LESS sensitivity, LESS white guilt, and no political correctness. Aggressive defiance of every trick in the lefty-Zionist book. Complete lack of concern about ‘holocaust denial’, ‘white privilege’ and the rest.
Israel and the US are arguing about when to attack Iran, and Donald is concerned about intemperate language against Israel on a blog. This disproportion is symptomatic of philo-semitism, the most important racial prejudice still alive.
MRW, I agree with your assessment of American education. Imagine how those of us who went to public schools, community junior colleges, and non-ivy universities and grad schools feel about the crap we worked are way through college to acquire? And add in the disgust those of us who actually served in the US military feel?
actually it was at the end of the year bruce. here it is
link to mondoweiss.net
Really, Bruce? What do the kids you know say to you about the Islamophobia and Arabophobia prevailing in the USA today? Do they say it does not exist? What does “over it” mean?
@Citizen
Most think its very uncool or outrageous.
“Over it” means they don’t suffer from Islamophobia or Arabophobia. Not so sure that extends to the Arab states themselves. Like Saudi Arabia is not considered a kewl place to go visit.
Even a few of the few committed Zionists I know are active in Jewish-Islamic inter-religious groups. Go figure!
Probably like shit, Citizen–January 19, 2012 at 9:40 am–but guess what? You probably got better than the BS others, like me, were asked to believe. I’m not that impressed by Ivy League grads. I’m lathered with them.
The only ones who impress me are the US military Masters degrees, or PhDs. They are drop-bolt sharp. (And the schools they go to are miles above the Ivy Leagues; read the Forbes Magazine rankings.) I’m talking a cut above everybody, just mo-fo smart. But the poor shmucks have someone like Thomas Barnett come along–what an insufferable prig, who denigrates their learning by claiming he can learn strategic planning on the fly…and the asshole (TB) is listened to.
Thanks Bruce. I actually like the comment section and as I said somewhere in here have learned a lot from the posts of some of the people currently informing me that I’m an idiot. But it’s got problems. Truthfully, most political blogs have comment sections which would be guaranteed to turn off a casual visitor from the outside and if you try to break into the group with some criticism they’ll rip you to pieces. Happens here, happens at most places with some rare exceptions. I do some of this myself.
But I think the place would have more influence if people exercised some self-restraint. Or maybe not. Possibly sensible people know better than to waste time looking at the comments and just read the articles, but if they do that they are missing out on some really good stuff too.
@Donald,
If MW is to be an in-group blog, reinforcing the group’s messaging and cohesion, then I have no problem with it acting as do most political blogs targeted at the already convinced or converted. Just give me my talking points is how most readers come to those sites.
However, MW still has the slogan “The War of Ideas in the Middle East” – and although I have never been happy with the metaphor – it implies reasoned argument and a broad discussion on ideas, not ad hominem attacks of people’s motives and identities.
Taking on a well-funded, well-organized, elite-backed mainstream ideology requires not only backbone, but also finesse and political skills. Outreach is essential. With this in mind, my own belief is that MW would accomplish more if comments were nixed. As this thread shows, the current commenters are quite happy with the situation as is.
I’m not sure that Adam and Phil have data on the readership, but my sense is that the breadth of the reader demographic has peaked. That is what the comment flow indicates.
You are an empathetic, sensitive guy, so your level of tolerance is probably higher than most. Personally, I think time would be better spend working with one of the direct action groups concerned with I/P or stopping upcoming wars in the Middle East.
I don’t know any other blog that has the range of opinion of commenters on the given subject that MW has, do you? Nor one that has the range of articles posted on MW on its prescribed subject.
Bruce,
You have many ad-hominem attacks aimed at Richard Witty.
I know it’s difficult to resist with Witty, but you are preaching that
others should refrain from something you have done.
“You have many ad-hominem attacks aimed at Richard Witty.”
Did you mean Bruce? That makes more sense aimed at me. And I’m of mixed feelings on that. Richard actually makes some of the same points I’m preaching here, but then, as I’ve said for years, he ruins it by imposing double standards on human rights. He’s sort of a useful foil, since I think many self-described supporters of the two state solution do that.
On the other hand, I and others probably go too far.
“Personally, I think time would be better spend working with one of the direct action groups concerned with I/P or stopping upcoming wars in the Middle East.”
Agreed.
@Chu
I’m not sure to which comments you are referring. Early on I probably did make some ad-hominem attacks on Witty, but then I stopped. What was the point? I admit I often don’t understand his logical reasoning sufficiently to offer cogent rebuttals.
When I wrote articles, I always tried to reason with my commenters. Often it was worthwhile, but always exhausting and very time requiring (up to 2-3 days).
I flamed out when I decided that certain commenters dominated the comment sections and then engaged them contentiously for a week on Zionist History during the Thirties. I was labelled one of those who search for odors plus other things, which is pretty funny if you knew my actual situation. But I knew what would be the end result, so I accept responsibility for what happened.
As I say, every community deserves their site to hang out and every individual can decide whether they want to be part of that community.
I think that Mondoweiss is a unique resource, especially in the United States, for it’s articles and comments. The Supreme Court, in the case The New York Times vs. Sullivan (1964), regarding libel law, wrote that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open”. The same spirit exists at Mondoweiss.
There is enormous, just enormous value in this new world of blogs, where the reader is treated as an adult to be your own editor. Mondoweiss is not gospel truth, every word true, but the overall thrust of all the articles points readers, particularly Americans, in a direction that never would have been heard without it. It’s mostly true, with occasional errors or exaggerations.
Donald has done me a service by making me think. Not that I agree with his call for censorship or for civility. I don’t. Civility is nice, but it’s not the top priority for a choking, starving victim of Zionism. (“Excuse me, soldier, but would you kindly take your boot off my child’s neck? He appears to be cyanotic.”)
No, he’s made me think, why is it so impossible to publicly act against Israel, like with boycotts, when Israel is so obviously massacring Arabs proudly and easily? Is it because the U.S. has always loved and respected Jews? Ha! That’s a good one.
Nor have anti-Semites ever been challenged by any kind of Jewish civil rights movement. (Note: Israel is not a civil rights movement. It is a Nazi state, whose racism and firepower are always out in the open.)
So the rabid racists and anti-Semites kept all their economic, political, and financial power. They only adjusted their public language. Now they hate Muslims, and no one seriously contradicts them. Zionists are fully allied with them.
The bedrock foundation of U.S. history has always been this:
1. Identify the sacred whites, who must be defended and enriched with all the firepower of the state,
2. Identify the “unworthy” Blacks, who must be robbed, punished, and lynched for their sins. That includes Indians and Mexicans. How do you think the U.S. consumed Texas and California like a juicy steak?
So Israel and its victims have been fitted into the bedrock DNA of All-Americanism, like this:
1. Israel and its supporters have been welcomed into full membership in the sacred white race, and have been enriched beyond their wildest dreams. No matter how many millions of Muslims they kill, they cannot, by definition, ever be called “terrorists”. In fact, if you ever demand any action against Israel, you will get called the worst names imaginable, as if you are the criminal.
2. Arabs, and now Muslims, suddenly have no rights which any white man is bound to respect. They are now being bombed and assassinated worldwide, starved and impoverished. Leading Republicans can keep declaring them to be “invented people”, nonexistent people, and the Democrats can keep shooting them dead, all over the world. No matter how innocent Muslims are, they are perpetually called “terrorists”, and perpetually paralyzed when they should be demanding justice. I can’t begin to express how terrified Arabs are to be in the same room with anyone who publicly condemns Israel.
That is because now White = Israel, and Black = Arab, and lynching is once again the national pastime.
Yeah, pretty amazing since Jews are not really what most people think of in USA or Europe when they think of former Europeans, or European Americans, and this despite Hollywood’s tremendous power of deception. Is it all due to Kirk Douglas’s dimpled chin, the rag-picker’s son, who said in his celebrity-wealthy dotage that he never trusted any Gentile American?
On Donalds second paragraph on conventional war, I suspect most Mondoweiss commentators are not Pacifists, a conventional war, sorry many conventional wars will be fought involving Israel and its neighbours, this is unfortunate but inevitable, no sane person wants this, unfortunately war is but diplomacy by other means, and because of the intransigent positions taken by Israel one could be forgiven for thinking its war they want, they are always ready for it and in the case of Iran positively craving for it
On anti-semitism.
It takes a Jew, a self-identified Jew, to note where anti-semitism is occurring. The best that a progressive, a true progressive that is seeking to remove ism’s and schism’s from their prejudice, would do would be to respectfully listen, to learn.
Anti-semitism includes the prejudice and/or hatred or dismissal of Jews associating as Jews.
There are MANY demeaning comments made about practicing Jews, orthodox Jews, haredi Jews, as if you are not intelligent enough to know the differences.
There are MANY demeaning comments made about Zionists, all stripes, whether they condemn and boycott my comments or praise them (not too many, they are scared away).
There are FEW demeaning comments made about Arabs. I personally don’t remember making a one. I’ve heard some, but nowhere near the range of demeaning commentary about Jews and Zionists.
On Phil’s iterations of “our side”, you’d have clarify what you describe as constituting “our side” in contrast to “them” (as if that would constitute a moral basis to oppose discrimmination as a theme – “us” vs “them”).
I don’t know what I would do if I were Phil and Adam relative to this site based on the commentary following Donald’s post.
Shut it down maybe for the moral example to Israel of what they should do when faced with “compelling” dissatisfaction.
Currently, this site serves likud more than it serves dissent, very sad to say. And, like it is too inconvenient for liberal Zionists like myself to merely criticize likud as a smokescreen for our impotence to realize a settlement freeze, it is too inconvenient for the editors to merely blame the commenters, as the content of original posting OFTEN is leading, directly stimulating to some of the ugly commentary that follows.
Phil used to be a thinker, not a propagandist. When he is interviewed his thoughtfulness, his consideration comes through (with lapses).
To propagandize condemnation without clarity of position, is to “feed the devil”.
Do not feed the troll.
LOL! God bless you Ael!
“It takes a Jew, a self-identified Jew, to note where anti-semitism is occurring. The best that a progressive, a true progressive that is seeking to remove ism’s and schism’s from their prejudice, would do would be to respectfully listen, to learn.
Anti-semitism includes the prejudice and/or hatred or dismissal of Jews associating as Jews.
There are MANY demeaning comments made about practicing Jews, orthodox Jews, haredi Jews, as if you are not intelligent enough to know the differences.”…witty
It does not take a Jew to identify anti semitism.
Everyone knows it when they see it.
What is needed is for some people not to look for anti semitism in everything or try to make anti semitism what it is not to satisfy their own preferences or definitions.
No one cares if Jews associate as Jews any more than they care if Catholics associate as Catholics….EXCEPT people who are some kind of religious bigots or fanatics ,of which the Christian zios who want to convert or french fry the Jews at the Second Coming are a good example.
Who do you think on here knows enough about the difference between orthodox Jews, haredi Jews, and etc…I sure don’t, maybe some Jewish members do, to make demeaning comments except about some practice regarding treatment of womens rights.
And I have NEVER seen anyone demean Judaism or Jews for practicing their religion so think you are way exaggerating on that.
My ratings of US network entertainment shows: Overtly pro-Jewish. My rating of surf channel cartoons: Family Guy: subtly pro-jewish. American Dad: overtly pro-Jewish.
There is no TV program that is pro-average American except, by somewhat moderate derision, The Simpsons and by immense funny derision, Family Guy.
Hey Dicky Witty, if “it takes a Jew, a self-identified Jew, to note where anti-semitism is occurring,” then it takes a Palestinian to note where anti-Palestinianism is occurring, yes? And it take an Arab to note when anti-Arabism is occurring, right? And, it takes a non-Jew to note when anti-Gentilism is occurring, right? I, a Gentile, note that you, Dicky Witty, are anti-Gentile, and you are proud of it. So you agree that the fact mostly Jews are official media and government pundits, political consultants regarding the I-P situation and regarding the Arab world generally, that they are all worthless in that job? Good, I agree. Now what can we do about it?
The point is that someone that is not sensitive to the barbs, is not sensitive to the barbs.
It is presumptuous of a white man to say, “I’ve never offended” to a black man.
The question has to be asked. The answer has to be taken with open ears.
Thats if you want to remove racism from your palette. If you want to harbor it for selected groups, Jews, then ignore the sensitivity of Jews, and of Zionists.
Given what’s going on in Palestine every day, Witty, offending the sensibilities of the IAF Waffen Troops and their foreign supporters (i.e. you) is the least of our concerns.
You and the rest of the so-called Liberal Zionists have made yourself irrelevant through your endless vacillation and water carrying for Netanyahu’s storm troopers and slow ethnic cleansing.
Guy, you have zero credibility. The only person on this site who cares about your opinion at this point is Phil Weiss. You sir, are his private court jester, with bloody pom-pom’s and all on head and wrists.
Alec,
Review your thinking. And, definitely please review your use of name-calling as if it is intelligent.
Your commentary “IAF Waffen Troops” is an embarrassment for this site.
You are a staff of the site. You represent this site publicly.
>> It is presumptuous of a white man to say, “I’ve never offended” to a black man.
It is also presumptuous of an immoral Zio-supremacist to say “I’ve never offended” Lillian Rosengarten after he suggests that this morally-sound Jewish woman has a “confusion of identity”.
Or to claim “I’ve never offended a Palestinian” when he says:
>> I cannot consistently say that “ethnic cleansing is never necessary”.
>> 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.
>> I feel that the nakba [sic] was a necessary wrong …
>> The nakba [sic] that occurred in 1948 was accompanied by the independence, the liberation, of the Jewish community. So, I primarily celebrate …
My guess is that he’s not sensitive to the barbs (so he’s not sensitive to the barbs).
Witty, your idea of “collective punishment” is not being able to reach your banking web site on a Wednesday.
To a black man in the US, “collective punishment” is not having any bank that will lend money at anything lower than twice the going interest rate because he’s black and the only place he can live is a neighborhood with other blacks.
You’re white. You have NO IDEA what racism really is.
Hi Richard,
I am a commenter and an occasional contributor here. I am not an editor.
Frankly I think the Israeli troops killing and beating Palestinians in checkpoints is the real embarrassment to Israel and AIPAC.
I would say to you too, but I’ve long given up hope on you finding even a morsel of conscience for those who are not born to the tribe.
Witty, your comment responsive to mine–makes no sense at all. What are you trying to say? You sure did not admit that your logic is faulty, as my earlier comment suggests directly.
I usually agree with ‘Chaos4700′, but I think this comment is an example of how out of touch the left tends to be. Minorities would be underrepresented among successful mortgage applicants, if it were not the case that lenders are obliged to prove they do not practice de facto racial discrimination, which they would if they were allowed to follow pure capitalist logic. Well-intentioned anti-racist lawsuits helped contribute to ‘junk loans’ and the economic crisis.
Despite Chaos4700′s use of the time-honored argument “you’re white”, white racism is not a problem in the West today. Apart from Israel, the Western countries are possibly the least racist societies which have ever existed.
Here’s a very interesting example of how AIPAC uses traditional anti-racism – ‘The Israel Lobby Finds a New Face: Black College Students’:
link to councilforthenationalinterest.org
To oppose Zionism successfully, you have to reject old-style anti-racism.
Re first suggestion: I think the suggestion Israel should be nuked by USA has appeared only once on the many years of MW, and that, very recently. I agree this is not helpful to newby onlookers. I do also say that everyday US MSM suggests Iran should be nuked, and so do GOP candidates for POTUS, so let’s have some perspective, even on this one time suggestion on MW. Still, I agree with Donald on this.
Second suggestion, I agree with Donald, but I do not rule out what USA may one day be forced to do with conventional weapons if Israel goes too far astray. Even Ron Paul says he stands for defense of USA.
As to Donald’s suggestion # 3, unless he has an addiction to the belief that anti-semitism sprang full grown from the head of Zeus, he might try digesting Lindemann’s book Esau’s Tears. And, hey get really loose and also read 200 Years Together too by a famous Russian author, if you can find it in English.
It takes a Jew to recognize antisemitism? Let me ask, could it perhaps simply take a human to recognize racism?
This site serving Likud? How so? By reinforcing the resolve of hasbarists? For every Likudnik whose hatred of the goyim is reinforced by this site, two fence-sitters have had their eyes pried open by reading through the articles and comments here. Internet shares of Mondoweiss articles on my Facebook have led to handfuls of converts.
“could it simply take a human to recognize racism?”
bingo!
come on citizen, aren’t you forgetting the catholic church promulgated antisemitism and luther’s pronouncements? racists say that blacks deserve their hatred. for what? being born with more melanin that whites? and even if a group, say, remains relatively isolated, does this justify pogroms or lynchings? if it does, hadn’t the amish best watch-out?
yourstruly, huh? What are you talking about? I don’t think you got my point at all. Please reread my comment you responded to–thanks. The Amish relationship with the rest of America is not the same as the relationship of Jews to gentiles in history. Big difference in what the two groups do for a living, when compared to the larger population.
“anti-semitism sprang full grown from the head of Zeus, he might try digesting Lindemann’s book Esau’s Tears”
Maybe someday. But you know, bigotry and ethnic tensions are fairly common, but the Holocaust rises way above the usual level of such things. I don’t think any real or imagined wrong that Germans had regarding Jews actually explains why a supposedly civilized nation would decide to murder 5-6 million Jews, and a roughly equal number of other people. It’s as if there was some office gossip about one particular person, who might or might not be a jerk, and then one day I decide to kill him and his family. Whatever the facts behind the gossip, the reasons for my extreme reaction are probably inside me.
i agree with you on this. blaming the scapegoat is like double jeopardy.
Yeah, well Donald, and yourstruly, I cannot force you to read or comprehend Lindemann’s 545 page book. I will just say that author is a Jew himself , and he went to great trouble to give us a scholarly, well documented, look at the history of anti-semitism. Scapecoating is a really shallow causative handle you both latch onto. You should also read Arndt, who coined the term “the banality of evil.” Or if you have, combine it with Lindemann’s book.
@Citizen
You are claiming Arendt as a soul sister? You better hope she doesn’t rise up from the grave. She didn’t suffer misappropriation gracefully.
Perish the thought, Bruce–I did not realize Arendt was your soul sister.
Her soul and mine might be third cousins, perhaps, if I was lucky. Arendt certainly did raise the question of the origins of anti-Semitism without presupposing that Jewish people had made no significant mistakes. There was quite a good review by Avineri in Haaretz in 2010 when ‘Totalitarianism’ was published in Hebrew.
I think that the question of the mistakes of the victims of totalitarianism is a legitimate one, one that does have to be faced, but it does have to be handled with care, since it can of course be exploited malevolently.
@Citizen
I admire Arendt and her work. She has been an influence.
If only, I could have risen to 10% of her abilities.
“I am not a child, I think for myself. No man can think for me.”
Chief Joseph of teh Nez Perce.
One of the reasons that makes the Mondoweiss a great website IS Freedom of posting very different opinions.
As long as the opinions are presented in somewhat respectful, non- vulgar way, as long as they do not agitate/campaign for violence or aggression, then I don’t see a problem with having here the most various statements.
WE LIVE in truly dangerous times. This is NOT a joke.
The situation in the world is like never before. I observe it for a while , from many angels. I do not go into details , I just try to get a wide picture.
I see what’s going on in Europe , Poland, Russia, Hungary ,so called enartainment industry (pop music, movies etc), in the catholic Church, big Pharma etc.
There are many very disturbing signs that show that we are under major attack.
Either we start mobilising ourselves as humanity trying to spread as much true info and undilluted opinions as posssible, or we start imposing “voluntarly” censorship on
the only independent sources of news that we still have.
So basically Donald is proposing that we put chains/zippers on our mouths before somebody else, somebody Bigger ( a Bogeymen?) is going to do it???
I think Donald is trying to release a Bogeyman out of the bag.
his call is analagous to all the other calls for censoring the internet. civility becomes an invitation to censor. f— civility!
As to Donald’s suggestion # 5, you should talk to the Arab American community about this notion you have Jew-Hatred is as it was in Germany in Hitler Era, or just a tad less. Also, Donald should read very closely the law Obama just signed into existence, which law makes it easy to detain forever any Arab American citizen who cares one cent about his family or extended family abroad. I don’t think Donald is on the list for those unaccountable people who determine who should be jailed forever as aid & abettors of those who appear, vanish, or reappear on the US government’s terrorist list.
‘
“As to Donald’s suggestion # 5, you should talk to the Arab American community about this notion you have Jew-Hatred is as it was in Germany in Hitler Era, or just a tad less. ”
I didn’t say that or think it. I made a rather banal point that anti-semitism among ordinary people can still cause violence. It just has to be a small number. As for the rest of your post, I agree with it. Glenn Greenwald is my favorite blogger. He’s so dispassionate and dull and never challenges the powerful, and could not care less about the civil rights of Muslims, so one can see why I would lean his way.
Donald ,
I want you to produce the comment that said we should nuke Israel.
Maybe I missed it.
Where is it?
If you, Donald, “could not care less about the civil rights of Muslims” than why should we care about yours?
Citizen, you’ve done this before. I suspect you’re smart enough to know I was being sarcastic.
>> Glenn Greenwald is my favorite blogger. He’s so dispassionate and dull and never challenges the powerful, and could not care less about the civil rights of Muslims, so one can see why I would lean his way.
The last part of the second sentence is a bit disturbing. Why is the fact that G.G. “could not care less about the civil rights of Muslims” a good thing? Could you please clarify? Thanks.
Oh, good grief. It was sarcasm. The whole freaking thing was sarcasm. Come on, eljay, I thought citizen was pulling my leg.
Glenn Greenwald, “dull” and “never challenges the powerful” and “could not care less about the civil rights of Muslims”?
Possibly you don’t know who Glenn Greenwald is, in which case I need to be more careful in my sarcasm attempts. GG is the passionate, fascinating blogger who is always challenging the powerful in the US and cares deeply about the civil rights of Muslims–he’s been writing about exactly that topic for years and if anything, in recent weeks, even more so.
>> Oh, good grief. It was sarcasm. The whole freaking thing was sarcasm. Come on, eljay, I thought citizen was pulling my leg.
>> Possibly you don’t know who Glenn Greenwald is, in which case I need to be more careful in my sarcasm attempts.
I’ve heard the name and I’ve likely read articles by him, but a smiley-face emoticon would definitely have helped an unsophisticated person like me get the joke. ;-)
Donald, I agree, some people are slow, but I’m surprised at who they were.
I got your drift even though knowing nothing of the Greenwald blog (sounds interesting), so, like you, did a bit of a double-take when I read Citizen’s comment.
Perhaps they were tripped up because you’ve (and they’ve) been serious all the way through this thread, and that threw them off their usual astuteness.
By the way, in your intro you mentioned Christians. As an evangelical Christian, I say too bad. They have the closed-mindedness of being “right” because what they believe on Israel they are certain is from God, so as you say, they need persuasion, or some dramatic happening that will open their eyes.
Nothing wrong with Truth, intemperate or otherwise.
As to Donald’s suggestion # 6, why does not Donald state at the outset that Palestinians were, are innocent of what happened to the Jews in Europe? You can not have lasting peace, as MLK suggested, without ultimate justice, fairness. The Nakba must be taken into consideration in any lasting peaceful solution. Or does Donald disagree with me this? Hard to tell from what he says. And he says nothing about the fact that what the European gentiles did to the native Americans happened before both WW1 and WW2, the latter being caused mainly by the WW1 peace solution (over Wilson’s stupid head). 1945 commenced the Nuremberg Trials, with new ex-post facto laws for the world to live by (at a cost of, what 50 million lives?), and Israel acts and talks as if there was no Nuremberg Trials preceeding its own existence in 1948. Indeed, Israel acts and talks like the UN had nothing to do with the validity of its own legal existence.
“As to Donald’s suggestion # 6, why does not Donald state at the outset that Palestinians were, are innocent of what happened to the Jews in Europe?”
Agreed. They were.
Some of the negative comments have noted that Donald’s list is one-sided, and directed at protecting Jewish sensibilities but not Arab/Muslim ones. I think this misses the point. First of all, Donald said he was talking to fellow critics of Israel and not supporters of the Gaza attack because they are too far gone. Even more fundamentally, this site is clearly dedicated to chronicling Israel’s misdeeds against Palestinians and supporting the latter’s struggle for freedom and equality. Racist tirades against Palestinians are not only vigorously assaulted by many commenters, they expose the desperation and compromise of principle that is necessary to defend Israel. In that sense, such offensive remarks are perversely valuable and serve the purpose of the website. I wouldn’t censor a jackass like eee – let him publicly make a racist fool of himself.
Second, as I see it, Donald is not asking for actual censorship, but making suggestions for self-restraint. I think he would have been better served to focus on a more civil tone and make fewer substantive points, and certainly his list is debatable. But no one is bound by that list, and people can pick and choose. I do think that sentiments that cross the line of anti-Semitism (obviously a subjective line
Finally, there is a huge difference between softening one’s positions or even stating them less than vigorously, and being gratuitously nasty in tone. Take Shmuel, who is appropriately well-respected by just about everybody. His arguments are never soft, yet he also avoids crossing the nastiness line, in my opinion making him much more effective.
“Donald is not asking for actual censorship, but making suggestions for self-restraint. I think he would have been better served to focus on a more civil tone and make fewer substantive points, and certainly his list is debatable. ”
I agree with all of what you said in your comment, but it would have been silly to cut and paste the whole thing. So I settled for this part. You’re probably right–possibly I would have reached more people if I’d just emphasized the need for more civility (up to a point, as I’m not actually a poster child for all civility all the time) and not gone into so many various issues. Probably I’d cut the nuclear one for starters, since it appears so few people even saw that idiocy.
Donald is a good example of even-keeled commentator, and I listen to
what he says. I think the problem the article has is there is a lot of
innuendo aimed at the commentators, and the site has provided a perch
for him to make his grievances known, and it seems clear the site endorses his views. Whether or not Donald knew he was going to be the foil is unknown.
But, I’m not sure about the list he proposes, because I think that when people
breeze through the comments they are taken by the interesting comments
that provide references and established evidence, mixed with a real stories of first hand experience in Israel, or American politics. There’s lots of good debate, and I think that tactics like ad-hominem show that that person is losing the debate at hand. Some of these long threads that can go on for days is where this site is the most interesting, and many other sites can’t compete.
” there is a lot of innuendo aimed at the commentators”
It’s hard to say what you think is wrong without trampling on toes. Number 2, though is meant to be understanding while blunt. People are (correctly) outraged by Israel’s actions and they hope that something can be done. They start thinking about military action. Well, ironically this is what we lefties usually don’t like about the mainstream. Something bad is going on, so start thinking of military action. I won’t repeat what I said earlier, but this would be a disaster. Nonviolent coercion (since persuasion doesn’t seem to be working too well) is the way to go and I think most here agree. But someone seeing the talk of war (which got pretty flagrant after the flotilla killings) might think “these guys are warmongers”.
Comment 1 is just– What’s the point? Some don’t think I should have singled out one comment, which is a fair point, unless others start reading it and defending it. But that inadvertently demonstrates the tribalism of this blog or any place where like-minded people congregate. If you’re on the right side you can say anything.
Comment 3, especially part b, referring to the guy who was apparently banned–Well, here I really held back. Maybe some people here just don’t pick up on the obvious.
Comment 4–I meant to convey mixed feelings about those broader discussions.
Comment 5 — Seems self-evident to me when I typed it and still does. One can think anti-semitism is much less of a problem than it used to be, but it still exists and why not acknowledge it and condemn it?
Comment 6–The civility with liberal Zionists issue. I’m on both sides on that. It depends on what they say. But any sort of peace is going to involve them. The important point is that we might chase away visitors who conceivably could be won over with gentler treatment. Which is a suggestion that applies to me as much as anyone.
This site is not striving for absolute balance, Donald. It’s a resource for people who can carry the word out to more “balanced” venues.
There are enough pro-Israeli sites bought and paid for out there. Mondoweiss doesn’t need to become one.
We don’t donate our time and money to Mondoweiss to see it turn into Mother Goose nursery rhymes for Israeli settler children.
I agree with the spirit of Donald’s post, although not the letter. Things can get unnecessarily hostile and personal around here, and that turns a lot of people off.
Regarding objectionable content, on the whole, I think Phil and Adam have managed to strike a pretty decent balance between allowing free exchange and preventing abuse of the comment section. There is no comparison to the pre-mod days. The system is not perfect, and moderation may need a few tweaks here and there, but self-censorship is not the answer.
Speaking of hostility, I don’t think Donald deserves the kind of personal heat he’s getting on this thread.
“I don’t think Donald deserves the kind of personal heat ”
Thanks, it was dreaded and more or less what I expected. Probably as I just said to David Samel I should have written it differently.
for me your follow-up comments clear most of the goop that got spilled on the dining room table
“Speaking of hostility, I don’t think Donald deserves the kind of personal heat he’s getting on this thread.”
Me neither, although you may think I contributed to it in one comment I made. But I was making it on the content (#3), which has been hotly debated here in the past and is still an historical issue that needs to be examined dispassionately. (It’s just history.)
Donald has been a thoughtful and earnest commenter here for ages. I can’t think of one regular person here who hasn’t made a comment that raised shackles at one time or another, even you Shmuel. ;-) And there is a collective sense of fairness here that always wins out in the end.
The nice thing about this board, unlike DKos and other blogs, is that you (rhetorical, not S) can slink back and be accepted into the fold after licking your wounds. I don’t see regular commenters holding grudges; maybe I’m dumb and blind, but I don’t see it: we’re just too damn grateful to have this place.
And for the record, Slater’s posts gets hundreds of reactions. That’s good for all of us. It’s like eating Sichuan and cleaning out the pipes.
The only comments that I find creepy are those involving any kind of victim-blaming on the issue of the Holocaust or the period leading up to it — there’s a desire in politics to discredit the entirety of an opponent’s position and any grounds for legitimacy that it might have, and since Zionists have so wedded themselves to the Holocaust as one of the main sources of Israel’s legitimacy (alongside the biblical claptrap), there seems to be a temptation among some to, if not outright deny the Holocaust, at least minimize it or claim that Jews somehow had it coming. And that’s pretty bad, not to mention ignorant. But thankfully those comments are few and far between.
When it comes to playing nice with liberal Zionists, I think that misses the point that as long as they think that Zionism — the actual Zionism that developed in the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, not an ideal, abstract Jewish nationalism — was a legitimate form of nationalism and not the colonial ideology that it actually was from its inception, they will reject the democratic, binational solution and continue to believe in the mirage of the two-state solution while indulging in racist discourse (e.g., “demographic threats”) that wouldn’t be acceptable in any other context.
An given example would be commentator Homphi, as he has repeatedly said that
1/3 of my People have died as a result of the Holocaust.
This translates to “We in the diaspora and Israel, must do whatever it takes to restore these missing tribe members.”
I don’t necessarily disagree with your second paragraph. It depends on the liberal Zionist though. Some end up as apologists for most of the actions Israel takes, while others (I’m always citing Slater, but there are others) are completely honest about the history and in fact may be very effective critics of Israel as it actually exists.
Donald,
All due respect, your post made nauseous. I don’t have time to say much, but the idea of having some sort of natural laws for the site instead of letting ideas rise or fall thru debate is the contrary to what makes MW so special. Its a god awful idea.
I’m not sure what natural laws for the site would be. Don’t trample on people’s feelings unnecessarily is one of the basic idea of my post, along with “criticize Zionism and Israeli crimes as forcefully as you want, but show sensitivity to legitimate concerns about anti-semitism.” Kind of banal, but I think it should be said.
So, Donald, we should just shut up when you say, “… hint that because anti-semitism isn’t the problem it once was, it isn’t a serious problem. This is wrong.” My answer to that is take a look at the Muslim/Arabophobia this USA reeks of right now. Arab Americans only wish you were as sensitive to their real problem with bias in this country, both en masse and in our government spokesman and political leaders running now for POTUS. You’re like some hippy dude pointing at a mild one inch rash on somebody’s arm and going modestly beserk in a quiet tone about that, while the guy you don’t see is having an induced stroke right in front of you.
A call for civility is great.
“Don’t trample on people’s feelings unnecessarily”
but when you cross over into…’lets accept these premises’…well I’ve got no time for that. I have complicated feeling about these things, I want to discuss them, understand them and get nearer to the truth. You can’t do that when you create rules about what can and can’t questioned.
Up above you say something about, Mondo scrapping comments altogether. Really? I don’t even know what to say to that.
mea culpa Donald. I believe Bruce said the thing about nixing comments. good night.
Donald, the solution is to require links, not sensitivity. IMnot-soHO.
The concensus so far among the commenters seem to be:
What a silly rant this guy just made. Totally onesided as well as loaded with weird acusations of people intensly hoping for Israel to be nuked – something neither I nor anyone here so far has seen.
It would be tempting, however, in light of such a flawed article to basically have no discussion. I would actually critique one thing, and that’s a pattern by some to veer off into places which are not relevant.
To avoid falling into the trap that others have made and make no qualifications about that last statement; let me give an example:
A week ago or so, there was a long, ardous discussion about 9/11. I think (Jeremy?) Blankfort was one of the participants and there were more.
As it happens, I think all discussions are to be open. I personally do not think that 9/11 was a conspiracy of some sort(even if I agree certain circumstances were weird) but when comment after comment was being devoted to this, and then mentioning give Israelis apparently ‘dancing’ I just felt uncomfortable, yes, as a Jew.
These sort of discussions could probably be cut short. Phil has extraordinarily strong liberal instincts on discussions, but as this site grows if there’s a bunch of 9/11 truthers in the comments’ section then of course that will negatively impact the site.
Phil has every right to be concerned about this, as this site is marching towards mainstream. I think he has carved out a niche for himself and his fellow writers, writing about Zionism and how it relates to American society, Jewish history in America and Jewish culture, and then weaving that into the discussion of the Middle East. One part of why this website is so successful, I think, is because these links are real. I’ve often said that Israel’s fate is more or less decided by American Jewry, and since the Israel lobby is so powerful, now beating the drums of war on Iran, this discussion is crucial to have.
Yes, there are more fact0rs wanting to go to war with Iran, but I think one of the primary, if not the primary factor, is the Israel lobby.
And part of the reason why they’d been able to roam free is because of the opinions expressed by Donald above. His nuke-Israel-now smear disqualifies him, among other issues. His thinly veiled attempt to silence the sociological discussion of the link between the culture of Jews in contemporary America and the Israel lobby as somekind of dangerous ‘generalisations’ smacks of the all-too-common anti-Semitism card deployed by the lobbies cronies.
So, in sum, I think his article is exceptionally weak. Having said that, there are areas to improve on, like discussing ‘who really was behind 9/11′. I don’t think that’s relevant on a site like this, even as a liberal I wouldn’t want to outlaw the discussion alltogether, I just don’t think it belongs here and it would drag down the site.
So, yeah, that’s how I feel.
It’s ironic, but I thought I remembered criticizing you for criticizing Phil for being insufficiently sensitive about anti-semitism in Europe. But maybe that was someone else.
Yeah, well I don’t agree Krauss and Donald, that the five dancing Israelis and the quickie dispatch of them to safe haven Israel, along with their peers rounded up, should be a verboten subject here, or anywhere. I do agree with Krauss that Donald served us all a sickly milktoast version of shutting down discussion by tossing at all us commenters the anti-semitism card.
krauss, after 10 years i guess i am sort of not that interested in reading the 9/11 stuff. it goes on and on and is time consuming. but i just scroll past it.
i get kind of bored reading the ron paul threads to, so i scroll past most of them also.
i also find it unnecessary to justify that decision by my opinion of either 9/11 or ron paul. furthermore neither of those topics suck the life out of all the other comment threads. dkos has banned 9/11 and i would imagine they are not too fond of pro ron paul posts and comments either. out here in the real world there are people everyone knows who a) don’t believe the official 9/11 story b) support ron paul.
so why, on a blog about the middle east shouldn’t there be a place for people who want to engage in discussion on both these topics? are they going to bust out of the screen and contaminate our readers any more than the millions of people in our society who value these topic are going to burst out and ruin the block we live on. no, or course not. if you don’t like a topic why not just leave the thread.
but when comment after comment was being devoted to this, and then mentioning give Israelis apparently ‘dancing’ I just felt uncomfortable, yes, as a Jew.
These sort of discussions could probably be cut short
i suppose you have already read the critics who call this site stormfront. and why would you feel uncomfortable as a jew because of the dancing israelis? do you also feel uncomfortable because israel bombed the USS liberty? it would be one thing if this blog was a 24/7 – 9/11 blog but this represents about .05 of all the conversations here or less. and there might be lots of comments on a thread when the topic comes up but most commenters don’t engage in them. i will engage in them when new information comes to light. but i just find it futile to continue discussing it. but why ban it? to be like dkos? to fit someone elses idea of what kind of people read this blog?
i hope we don’t become cookie cutter.
i think phil and adam are doing a great job. i think the blog is single handedly more responsible for changing the american discourse surrounding palestine/israel than any other. that’s why i am here.
there are areas to improve on, like discussing ‘who really was behind 9/11′. I don’t think that’s relevant on a site like this…
I believe one of the founding premises of this site is that determining how the hell the US ended up mired in mid-eastern wars is a germane path of inquiry. And 9/11 doesn’t factor?
Donald and others don’t like discussion of 9/11 because this kind of talk is highly antisocial. All I will say to that is that not five years ago talk of the Israel lobby was just as anti-social. -N49.
I agree, N49. And verboten.
Keith,
Watch Pt 3. of Adam Curtis’ The Power of Nightmares called “The Shadow in the Caves” then come back and say that. ;-)
I second what annie has said.
I think the MAIN legitimate criticism in this article is that the *tone* can be out of hand in the commenting section, at times. Passion, especially when we strenuously disagree, is great. However, we should hold back thick condescension, and “out-of-hand” dismissals when possible. The facts speak for themselves, and we get our point across better, with more class, if we avoid the ad hominem attacks and food fights.
I think this is something we can consciously work on as commenters, and an occasional rejected comment can also get the message across when someone is blowing hot air and exhibits an undue lack of respect.
////
Now for my confessional, and how I feel about two very important issues people raised-
1) 9/11 [krauss]
2) “Any suggestion that some sort of Jewish writing or behavior created the Nazis”/anti-Semitism [donald]
1) 9/11: During the last year I took almost 1 year off from my nanotechnology startup company. Much of my trip was spent living in Tel Aviv with Jewish-Israeli family, and in the West Bank. I have an advanced engineering degree and am rational as can be. I had time to look at evidence I had not seen before, while working part-time for ICAHD during my time in I/P. I am now 99.x% convinced 9/11 was an inside job, despite the fact that I disregarded all 9/11 ‘truthers’ for years. Coming to my ‘fringe’ conclusion about 9/11 was shocking, but I can’t unlearn what I know. However, I realize the tipping point in the USA will assumedly never be met, and the whole idea of 9/11 truth *can* be somewhat futile (and counterproductive; oddly the full truth itself can be counterproductive, especially when it evokes such extreme reactions, emotions, and disbelief… we all acknowledge this when we soft-peddle our language on Israel to Jewish family or others when trying to get them to see the true reality of it all).
Like Chomsky likes to stress, let’s focus on the policy reaction itself…. which is what I did from 2001-2010. Now I mainly focus on the policies, but the elephant in the room is the deeper darker aspects of the US power structure, which I think needs to be pointed out every so often, if I consider myself honest.
Informed 9/11 discussion is effectively banned from the MSM, and apparently dkos and most all forums average americans will enter under normal circumstances. For a second let’s assume that it was a false-flag, and the evidence is fairly convincing, if comprehensively analyzed by a scientifically/historically/politically literate and open-minded individual. If every airing of it was snuffed out, the official myth would stand, without a hope of people even inspecting the evidence. But I do see the middle ground, and like all at MW, I want this website to be the best it can be, and have the most impact in its variable goals.
Therefore-
a) I think 9/11 should be brought up only *occasionally*, but on the occasions that it is, civil discussion should be allowed. I would hate for the site to be derailed and drowned in 9/11 conspiracy theories, and I assume Phil would never *allow* such a tragedy to occur. However, if we accept the belief that 9/11 was an inside job is a viable position (many here do not), we cannot ignore that this has major implications for fully informed analysis of Middle East policies. Therefore, the occasional 9/11 breach should not be shunned or banned. We all have learned things from the comments section, and an overly narrow restriction on comments would bar some of the most interesting things people touch upon.
b) Personally, I think there can be a crime of omission when people talk about possible Israeli involvement in 9/11. I think there is ample evidence parts of the Israeli state played a role, but the more pressing evidence is that parts of the USG played the main role (meaning any Israeli role was consented to, and USG involvement was the prerequisite for any possible Israeli involvement). I am sensitive to selective 9/11 information, especially when it can be construed as antisemitic, but largely because part of the story is paramount to a lie. Here is me noting this concern to Jeffrey Blankfort-
link to mondoweiss.net
c) Now that I went there, for those who want what I consider the most telling angle (of many), look into WTC7 and the anomalies with WTC1/2. Also, analysis of the dust, the debris, and the witness testimony plays a supporting role in the compelling evidence of controlled demolition. WTC7 combined with a reading of the fraudulent NIST report on WTC7 is what first sent my head spinning (and same goes for some engineering friends with more competence in the area).
link to vimeo.com
2) Anti-Semitism: I think the moderators can take care of Anti-Semitism, and they do, likely banning people who never got a single comment posted. Perhaps someone might make too generalized a comment, and the sensitive among us will call them out for it. But I find it absurd when intellectual and well-reasoned comments are attacked for ‘seeming’ anti-Semitic or ‘being’ anti-Semitic.
I find the baseless charges of anti-Semitism more troublesome than the borderline (or innocuous) comments they attack. Actual anti-Semitism, of course, should be deleted, and attacked if it got through moderation.
Regarding “any suggestion that some sort of Jewish writing or behavior created the Nazis”, I think he is referring to ~2 threads, where Jeffrey Blankfort was talking about historical facts, and pointing out nuanced logical analysis based on those facts. I jumped in myself-
link to mondoweiss.net
Nobody was blaming the Jews or Zionists for the Nazis. However, it was noted that there may have been some, indeterminate, influence and synergy. I think the fact that we went down this deep historical and sociological rabbit hole (~2 times?!) is not only good, but relevant to the United States TODAY.
Major columns in MW note that right wing Jewish neocons were very influential in the drive towards the Iraq war, if not critical. AIPAC and people with Israel on the mind (and Israel itself, as a nation, the “Jewish” nation) may prove key in driving us towards a war with Iran.
I am not an alarmist here, and have little fear of palpable anti-Semitism developing in the USA, but in the medium term I do not consider it impossible. AIPAC and Israel portend to “speak for the Jews”, in some monolithic sense, which in itself I find a framing that supports anti-Semitic paradigms of thought. MW, liberal zionists, and all the Jewish critics of Israel make it clear that Jewry is not monolithic, but only in the last decade has this achieved mainstream exposure (this is great and will likely blunt anti-Semitism from ever going mainstream in the US).
But let’s take a worst case scenario where the US economy crumbles after a war on Iran, and the dollar collapses as countries find a new reserve currency. The US goes into a major depression and right wing demagogues take the helm. Americans might ask why the US collapsed so precipitously over a few decades, and if they got over hating ‘Muslims’ they might turn on ‘Jews’, when looking for a scapegoat. A major issue would be with disproportionate Jewish wealth and political influence, but that in itself does not inspire ‘rationalized’ hatred. They would likely focus specifically on right wing Zionists, AIPAC, aid to Israel, Israeli actions, and the neocons.
Now what would I say about this sick development if I witnessed this in 10-20 years? I would denounce it and point out the absurdity of generalized hatred (like we all do now, re Mulsims/Arabs; sadly Jews are often fanning the generalized hatred phenomenon, so their protests may fall on deaf ears if the bigotry is turned round). But I would not ignore the fact that fringe Jewish power players and Israel played a role in the slide towards American anti-Semitism. I would not even ignore the fact that collective Jewish ignorance/bias of the situation in Israel/Palestine was also a key factor. Perhaps we could have stopped it, but due to tribalism, or ignorance, or being fed false narratives, we (Jews as a collective) failed to do so. This does not excuse the anti-Semitism or blame the Jews, but it puts it in context. It means we had a role to play, though the explosion of anti-Semitism itself is never justifiable. A group is always innocent, as it contains individuals, but that does not mean that different collective actions might have altered the course of history.
I think this is one of the things that drives conscious Jews to to criticize Israel and US policy in the ME.
a) Some want justice for everyone, especially Palestinians
b) Some do not want the Jewish collective to be supporting immoral and unjust realities
c) Some also want to speak up, show the diversity in Jewish thought, and CHANGE the current reality, as they feel deep down this may end as a calamity for Israelis and possibly Jews in other countries
Another example is the FACT that Israeli actions cause spikes in anti-Semitism in Europe and other places. Of course I do not think Israel’s actions excuse such bigoted insanity, but I am not blind to the correlation. Nor do I think Israeli actions are the major/only cause of anti-Semitism, which would be idiotic.
This is similar to the historical analysis in which the actions of *some Jews and Jewish movements* could feed into an anti-Semitic backlash. This does not excuse the reprehensible anti-Semitism, but it gives it context, and gives us sober analysis which might help people devise ways to blunt such a racist turn in a society, perhaps averting disastrous extremism. If we can’t talk about it, and think Jews collectively, and especially fringe Jewish movements, are entirely passive actors with ZERO role to play, we are not being honest with ourselves.
anony, that was an awesome comment. the whole thing worth reading. there’s one thing you wrote i disagree with:
I realize the tipping point in the USA will assumedly never be met
i think we’ve already reached a tipping pt wrt a rejection of the official story. that is why we are prevented from talking about it as a group in group space because we are supposed to think we are not normal. but i think it is over 50%, and poll numbers from a few years ago reflect this. shh
I agree with everything anonymouscomments says. I kept suggesting some people here should read Esau’s Tears to get some historical context additional to the current context. The book is 545 pages. You can’t get it used, cheap. Anything I’ve said in short form here getting to the essence of the information contained in that book, has been commented upon only by a few people, and all those comments were dismissive of my comments. One person said, if memory serves, something to effect they wouldn’t be reading the book anytime soon, so thanks, no thanks.
My agreement with anonymouscomments includes what he (she?) has to say about 9/11. There is no way the official explanation is true–way too many problems with it.
Annie (or should that be lc) you bring up some of the things that really frustrate me. You mention the events of 911. I agree there remain many unanswered questions. One of the biggest is how close was Israeli intelligence in their investigation of those who carried it out. Those guys dancing in NJ as the towers fell, were detained but then returned to Israel were certainly part of the story. Unfortunately, that aspect of the story was never pursued, especially among the left.
Instead, this discussion was overwhelmed with the 911 truthers. The people who denied that the aircraft and resulting fires resulted in the collapse of the Towers — no these fools insisted on controlled demolitions inside the Towers. Which then lead to the explanation that it was the Bush administration itself that set off these controlled demolitions. Ever since then it has been nearly impossible to have a rational discussion about 911 — any attempt results in these fools descending on the comments arguing that Bush and Cheney were the master conspirators. In any case I understand your frustration in trying to deal with this issue.
I keep on coming back to 911 truther fantasies because I really understand the thermodynamics, physics and engineering issues that these fools insist on pushing. Unf0rtunately, there are few Americans who really understand some of the basic science that is involved here.
ToivoS,
Why does it frustrate you so much? Does it cause that much cognitive dissonance and discomfort that *competent* and *scientifically literate* people could conclude the opposite of what you conclude? Does the occasional airing of their evidence and sound theories shake you up that much?
Please read my statement above, as there is some relevant advice for you. I do NOT take issue with your position, as I was there myself, but your flimsy dismissals, incorrect assumptions about my position, and sheer disrespectful condescension, are really unwarranted. “these fools” “911 truther fantasies” “I really understand the thermodynamics, physics and engineering issues that these fools insist on pushing” blah blah blah… get over yourself.
Get this ToivoS. VERY competent and scientifically literate people agree with the well supported theory that there was controlled demolition. At the same time, competent people can review the evidence and dismiss the theory, but quite often this is due to a strong bias against the possibility of such an operation being ‘possible’. Our minds are tricky things, but at the same time, people know about our common cognitive failings, which is why a “big lie” is so unshakable and generally takes with the vast majority of the public. The “impossibility” of it all causes people to *suspend* their objectivity as their bias is so strong they alter the way they interpret pieces of evidence.
I have an MS in biomedical engineering, work in nanotechnology, and have worked with relavant characterization techniques to make me very competent in some areas of 9/11 forensic evidence research. I also am generally competent in the field of engineering, and I received full college tuition as I was the top scorer on a nationally administered engineering exam. I haver a few patents and publications to my name. My father also studied physics at MIT, so he is also quite competent, and he does not disagree with me. [And do tell me what you educational and professional experience is, then maybe I can tailor some facts to your level]
But let me point to other more notable public figures who are more skilled in the relevant areas (scientific and political), than you or me.
link to ae911truth.org
link to pilotsfor911truth.org
link to militaryofficersfor911truth.org
link to patriotsquestion911.com
robert fisk admits questions, and i very much respect him-
link to independent.co.uk
alan hart (see half way down for 9/11 discussion)-
link to alanhart.net
Movies if anyone wants, but take each with a grain of salt and only accept what you can confirm-
link to vimeo.com
link to video.google.com
link to video.google.com
link to video.google.com
So in conclusion ToivoS, I accept your position as valid and do not think you are foolish (I was there for almost a decade). But I do strongly disagree with your conclusion. However, your insistence that the theory of controlled demolition is “foolish” and only supported by incompetent people, is demonstrably false. I am fully open to discussion, but your ad hominem attacks, especially on what I consider (at this point) to be a quite comprehensive and well supported position, are not appreciated.
////
FYI for more info, this is from an email exchange with my uncle, who is a colonel in the USAF. He has no problem discussing the theory, but perhaps due to institutional bias, he does not think the burden of evidence has been met for him. That is his position, but other high ranking military officials are openly questioning the official story and some feel it was an inside job (this means key players in the administration and select people in the USG power structure).
Email snip:
link to youtube.com
Note that the top lists at ~20 degrees as it falls, likely due to the uneven damage from the plane. The top remains intact however, even after the initial “jolt” that would be felt upon collapse initiation. It is also falling away from the building below. However, as it seems controlled demolition was utilized, with charges progressing up and down from the points of impact, you can note that the top subsequently disintegrates, while the destruction of the lower part of the building continues *symmetrically* and completely.
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
I have met with a scientist who has inspected the dust, and there are many clear signs that molten steel was present, and even small chips that appear to be explosive nanothermite [100% conclusive? not 100%, but that is the nature of science, and any forensic characterization paper has issues or things that could be repeated... but the composition of the dust is fairly inexplicable].
link to benthamscience.com
It is likely the demolition involved standard explosives, due to the witness and video testimony of such events-
link to youtube.com
and also atypical incendiaries and explosives, like thermite and nanothermite [which has a variable level of explosive force, depending on the iron/aluminum grain size; this is most likely the source of the odd white smoke trails you see from the outer column steel pieces which were ejected sideways].
The evidence for the use of thermite/thermate/nonothermite is quite diverse, and makes the use of such incendiaries in the controlled demolition fairly certain.
What appears to be molten metal (molten metal being the most probable explanation, and the USG story not allowing for molten metal to even EXIST):
link to youtube.com
Melted, deformed and eutectic steel was found, and molten steel was witnessed in the cleanup:
link to youtube.com
FYI, NIST, and specifically those who worked on the cover-up story, actually had EXPERIENCE with explosive nanothermite…. naturally the NIST report had to be run by an insider, and had to be compartmentalized and assembled in a manner in which the honest people contributing were snow-balled. The major conclusions were drawn and assembled by people intentionally ignoring evidence and putting a square peg in a round hole with hand-waving BS, unreleased models/inputs, ignoring evidence, not testing alternative hypotheses (dismissing them a priori with insufficient evidence to do such; and evidence to the contrary) and incorrect assumptions.
link to world911truth.org
I agree anon — I am an engineer myself and find the theory that wtc7 came down by fire alone utterly preposterous. I can’t put too fine a point on this – anyone who can’t see this is suffering from serious cognitive dissonance. I do not see how a person educated in basic science could view things differently. Ignorant objections to a rational discussion of the topic — a hugely important topic given what has followed 9/11 — amounts to an anti-science and more generally an anti-intellectual environment. -N49.
The handling of the dancing 5 Israelis and the other Israelis that turned up in that particular investigation, and how quickly they were shipped off to Israel, is a big concern for thinkers inter alia re 9/11. The whole thing reminds me of the debate about the USS Liberty. It’s not so easy to attack something like the 9/11 buildings, nor a ship like the USS Liberty was–and get away with it with nothing conclusive. It takes two to tango.
I posted this yesterday, but it’s quite apropos for this thread:
link to youtube.com
It might offend people.
Good one:)
Great contribution, Avi_G. The old map might offend people even though it is accurate for its time. Exquisitely painful to ponder that short scene from West Wing.
Loved it, Avi G.
That was a brilliant clip, Avi. Every high school student should watch it and Adam Curtis’ documentary I recommended to Keith above.
I had no idea how “progressive” this West Wing program was. That is the problem with not watching popular TV. I was even old enough to have my own TV when this first appeared.
I can only shake my head after watching that clip, three times. It must have stimulated some editorial comment at the time or …. Thanks for posting it, Avi!
It looks like while the SOAP’s proposition is going, ( at least for now) to the wastebasket the Donald of Mondoweiss is trying to sneak in his own ideas of red-taping of ,so called, Free Speech.
Again, I will quote this terrific quote:
” The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be either good or evil.”
by Hannah Arendt.
Genuine anti semitism ie targeting Jews solely because they are Jews is unreasonable and shouldn’t be aired on the site. The murder of Amos Oz’ uncle Dovid in Vilna in 1942 was antisemitic. Calling Bibi a clown isn’t.
Pointing out the lies of hasbaradim is good sport and is aimed at helping Israel to recover while it still can, before messianism consumes it fatally and the religion life threateningly.
I would like to know more about what happened in the period from 1890-1930 and how the antisemitism of the later years gained traction.
Israel is a developing car crash and the Ziobots will get more vicious as the situation continues to deteriorate.
The “court Jew” situation of the lobby will get more airtime as the story goes further and further away from Israel.
It is all quite basic and any Jewish grandmother can explain it- treat people right and things work out. Israel has never been run on these principles.
“I would like to know more about what happened in the period from 1890-1930 and how the antisemitism of the later years gained traction.”
Sesfoid, read Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears. It will go a long way.
Citizen
Do you think it had much to do with the economic crisis that started in the 1870s and ultimately lead to world War 1?
Seafoid, read the book I recommended as it covers additional history than what you want, but it all adds up because the past is always present and helps predict the future, old wine in new bottles. Chapter 2 covers 1700 to 1872; Chapter 3, Germans & Jews 1870 t0 1890s; Chapter 4, Anti-Semitic Ideology & Movement in Germany 1879-1890s; Chapter 6 Austro-Hungary, Chap 7 France… Chapter 9 Romania & Russia 1890-1914, Chapter 12, WW1, Chapter 13 Jews & Russian Revolution up to 1934; Chapter 14, the Fascist Era Between The Wars, etc.
Donald,
I agree that intemperate comments are better avoided. I think it’s also generally a good idea trying to be sensitive. However, I doubt it’s a good idea to prescribe it. And I even doubt more, that your examples are well-chosen. Just two examples.
First example:
“2 A suggestion that Israel be made to behave via a conventional war.”
I think it’s fairly reasonable to argue that Israel “made to behave” could be the result of Israel starting a conventional war – and losing it. Just imagine Israel starts a military operation – let’s say against Lebanon or Gaza – and the attacked ones get big help from somewhere, the IDF becomes competely routed, and the war is faught in the streets of Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem instead of Gaza or Beirut. The perspective wouldn’t be the worst – and the perspective could even help to make Israel not stating another war or massacre.
When talking about war, the ultimate weapons are nukes. I disliked them for my whole life and I still do, but when I hear Major-General Amir Eshel speaking I may find a positive side in a nuclear threat against Israel.
See Reuters today: Nuclear Iran may curb Israeli border wars -general
link to reuters.com
A nuclear threat may contain Israel not to start as easy as today military operations against Gaza or Lebanon. So, a nuclear threat against Israel can obviously help in a way avoiding wars. I don’t think, it’s a good idea for Iran to have nukes. It wou be much better if the US would threaten Israel to come to hep to any country which is attacked by Israel. Of course, any such threat against the nucear superpower Israel, if credible, has to be backed by nukes.
I don’t think that’s the way it would be best or good, but I hope you get the point, that your examples for intemperate comment are so narrow that they can exclude honest and peace loving thoughts.
Second example:
“5 Any hint that because anti-semitism isn’t the problem it once was, it isn’t a serious problem. This is wrong.”
See the movie “Defamation”?
link to youtube.com
Of course the movie is not “sensitive” to the feelings of all people. Abe Foxman seemed to have been outraged after he’d seen the movie.
And I think it’s fair to argue that “Defamation” is just doing that what you want banned: “hinting that because anti-semitism isn’t the problem it once was, it isn’t a serious problem.” But I guess you won’t like to ban comments that link to that movie.
The movie is very persuading. So my point is, it’s the way an argument is presented that matters – generally in discussions and here in the comments. Forbidding arguments because some people may find it not sensitive seems to me a bad way.
So far my examples. The better way then argument censorship seems to me trying to make controversial arguments in a temperate way, so as to minimize the effect that people feel hurt by an argument they don’t like to hear and maximize the chance that people think about the argument.
The resulting rule is quite easy, I think, argue all you want, but try to be nice to others while arguing. Make the points to persuade others but try them to preset in a not offending way.
Yeah, I shouldn’t sound like I favor suppressing all discussion of various scenarios. The rewrite of this thing would be complicated. It’s easier just to listen to the criticism, some fair and some way off (IMO).
“The resulting rule is quite easy, I think, argue all you want, but try to be nice to others while arguing. Make the points to persuade others but try them to preset in a not offending way.”
That sounds good, and for the most part it is, but there are people who can make racist-tending arguments in nice polite ways.
“there are people who can make racist-tending arguments in nice polite ways.”
I think we live in a world where racist/ethnic/religious/sectarian prejudices are deeply anchored and almost omnipresent. So I find it not surprising that racist-tending arguments come up at Mondo Weiss, too.
However, if racist-tending and other similar unconvincing arguments come up in a honest and polite way, they are a chance for discussion and persuasion. And I think that’s one of the things Mondo Weiss is all about: fighting prejudices by discussion and persuasion.
From my point of view excluding racist-tending arguments per se from discussion might mean to lose opportunity for discussion, reflexion and persuasion. Of course, that is only true, when the argument is brought up in a honest and polite way, and for example not just a trolling attempt to make discussion impossible.
PS: By the way, the Reuters message I linked to above I find a bombshell. It’s almost like the chief IDF strategic war planner is saying: “Consequence of Iranian nukes would be that Israel is prevented from starting unneccessary wars.” Maybe it’s worth a Mondo Weiss article?
I watched The Guard last night. Twice. There’s a great line in there where the Don Cheadle character, who plays an uptight FBI agent in Galway Ireland to catch international drug dealers (two or three of which are Irish), responds to the Irish police sergeant (Brendan Gleeson). Gleeson says, “I thought only black lads were drugs dealers.” As the room withers, Cheadle accuses him of being a racist. Gleeson says, “I’m Irish; racism is part of my culture.”
But the interesting thing is as the movie later shows, Gleeson is commenting on those around him, he’s not.
It’s a great movie, BTW. Cheadle is Exec producer, too.
How about (a little facetiously):
7. (though perhaps subsumed under 4.) No identification of Jews with Zionists or Israelis.
8. If someone introduces as fact a statement which is debunked with uncontrovertible evidence (or at least evidence they do not question in the discussion), that person is not allowed to repeat it in another discussion.
9. No generalizations about any ethno-religious group – including Jews, Muslims, Palestinians, Arabs or even Scots.
10. No use of the terms “terrorist” or “terrorism”.
11. No-one shall conflate fact with opinion.
12. No-one shall base claims on religion – and no quotes from any religious work.
“Any generalization about Jews ….. or about any ethnic group …” Such as talking about Jewish intellect, Jewish talent … oh, that is ok. Just any generalization that is unflattering is the problem, eh? And what is culture? When you talk about Italian culture, Greek culture, English, etc., is that generalising?
Stick in a sock in it Donald!
Sock stuck in, but I can still type. Anyway, none of your generalizations were negative. There’s a rule that most people follow, consistent or not, that it’s okay to talk about cultures in a positive way, but when you go negative it encourages hatred and bigotry.
Donald
there are certain aspects of Diaspora culture that are dark. Labelling anyone who supports the Palestinians “left wing antisemites” is one .
link to guardian.co.uk
Turning en masse on fellow Jews who speak up against the insanity of Israeli policy in the territories is another.
Donald, I see and hear negative speech about Arab culture everyday; it’s commonplace.
“I see and hear negative speech about Arab culture everyday; it’s commonplace.”
That’s true. Anti-arab bigotry is the last remaining kind you commonly find (or that I can think of offhand). Though there has been some progress lately, as when Marty Peretz was called on this a year or two ago. But I meant there are general rules about this–the Arab case is one where the mainstream hypocrisy is only beginning to be overcome.
Well folks, this has been highly instructive and I’d like to thank you all for the forthrightness.
Offhand I can’t think of any group of reasonable people who would meet a call for civility with anything other than agreement – or embarrassment, if they felt rebuked. Many of the responders to Donald’s call, however, have responded with anything but civility. This is not because of some preference for brutal honesty over effeminate politeness, since there’s nothing intellectually honest about a group which tolerates only the Party Line, and shouts down any deviation from it.
Some of the commenters have defended their ideological rigidity with the sentiment that they need, or enjoy, a place to share with like-minded ideologues. (Others claim they’re persecuted or censored elsewhere and thus need the safe haven – which is roughly the same). Which is ultimately what Mondoweiss is: a club for fellow-travelers. The members like to tell themselves they’re winning some important argument, but they can’t even listen to one of their own members discomfort.
So it’s a club of fellow travelers that eats their own?
In the big world outside this blog, it’s called politics.
It’s why Israel has no left wing. Everyone is for the
strongest argument and political pressure.
The internet is tribal, Winnica.
It is a lame attempt on your part to attack Palestinian solidarity.
Yes, we are not mainstream. BUT – why then do you post here? Why does Richard Witty? Why does the ex-IDF fascist, eee?
How often do you tell us BDS is not working? And believe me, you are not the first nor the last.
Why do you think we know your arguments so well? So well that we have turned them against you in the form of a meme.
Majority rule does not imply moral credibility. It does not mean you are in the right.
In fact, you should ask yourself why a belief becomes mainstream.
I don’t care about what is popular and what is not. I care about the goddamn truth. No amount of emotional blackmail and chest-thumping is ever going to change that. Nor will it affect Palestinian solidarity.
We sit comfortably here typing furiously.
Palestinians are still under occupation. This is not an academic, arm-chair debate to them. This is their life.
That is all I need to know. It fuels me.
You said that well, Cliff.
Majority rule does not imply moral credibility. It does not mean you are in the right.
The majority of articles and postings here favor a minority view. That does not in itself imply they have moral credibility or are right.
They stand or fall on their own merits, a major one of which you stated:
I care about the goddamn truth.
Palestinians are still under occupation. This is their life.
That is all I need to know. It fuels me.
Winneca,
Where does the Mondoweiss style come from? It comes from the observation that there is an oppressor and an oppressed, an occupier and the occupied. There weren’t two equal sides to Apartheid in South Africa, and there weren’t two equal sides to racial segregation in the South.
The brutality of Zionism has lasted as long as it has by being able to blur out moral distinctions, and blurring out cause-and-effect in the Israel-Palestine conflict, so that strong opinions don’t form. Mondoweiss, Lawrence of Cyberia (Diane Mason) as well as journalists like Jonathan Cook, put the cause-and-effect back in order again.
My own experience once again: I read Haaretz from 2000 to the present, and I got lots of information, but still a lot of mystery. It was a mist of information. It was only Mondoweiss, Jonathan Cook, Diane Mason who clarified the mystery, and the result is heady. It was a pop! pop! pop! sensation, where the particles of information mist aligned themselves so a lot got explained all at once. Many epiphanies all at once.
Take a look at Jonathan Cook’s explanation of his reporting, for example:
Why my reporting is different
I have chosen to position myself in the region in two ways – one professional, the other geographical – that distinguish me from colleagues. This approach gives me greater freedom to reflect on the true nature of the conflict and *provides me with fresh insight into its root causes.*
Professionally, I am one of the few journalists regularly writing about the region who work as an independent freelancer. I choose the issues I wish to cover, so I am not constrained by the ‘treadmill’ of the mainstream media, which require an endless flow of instant copy and analysis. I am also not tied to the mainstream agenda, which gives *disproportionate coverage to the concerns of the powerful*, in this case the Israeli and American positions – in the US media to a degree that makes much of their Israel/Palestine reporting implausible. I also rarely accept commissions, restricting myself to topics that I consider to be the most revealing about the conflict.
Geographically, I am the first foreign correspondent to be based in the Israeli Arab city of Nazareth, in the Galilee. Most reporters covering the conflict live in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, with a handful of specialists based in the West Bank city of Ramallah. The range of stories readily available to reporters in these locations reinforces the assumption among editors back home that the conflict can only be understood in terms of the events that followed the West Bank and Gaza’s occupation in 1967. This has encouraged *the media to give far too much weight to Israeli concerns about ‘security’ – a catch-all that offers Israel special dispensation to ignore its duties to the Palestinians under international law.*
Many topics central to the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians, including the plight of the refugees and the continuing *dispossession of Palestinians living as Israeli citizens, do not register on most reporters’ radars.*
From Nazareth, the capital of the Palestinian minority in Israel, things look very different. There are striking, and disturbing, similarities between the experiences of Palestinians inside Israel and those inside the West Bank and Gaza. All have faced Zionism’s appetite for territory and domination, as well as repeated attempts at ethnic cleansing. These unifying themes suggest that the conflict is less about the specific circumstances thrown up by the 1967 war and more about the central tenets of Zionism as expressed in the war of 1948 that founded Israel and the war of 1967 that breathed new life into its settler colonial agenda.
Yes, there’s the objectivity of lonesome courageous Cook, and the easy subjectivity of Witty & his partners, the whole American Establishment spiel. Yet Witty feels he’s the “Jew” in this greater galaxy the Witty-neutered Phil & Adam of MW seek to address with this blog.
For what it’s worth my take on this is that it’s just yet another attempt (however well-intentioned), to do the impossible.
That impossibility is to try to identify not just one (hard enough!) but an entire constellation of absolute commons, not just of values, but of meanings, when there’s not even any escaping of mere sensibilities.
Easy to illustrate: Let’s take the most extreme instance which, in this kind of case, means the kind of thing the most people would at first blush tend to agree with which is “outlaw calls for violence.”
Well okay, but self-defense often involves violence. Indeed, to a very great definitional extent it’s *only* when violence *is* called for that we even start to grant any validity to a claim of “self-defense.” Thus, “violence” is really just one component of the normal kind of “self-defense” we think of.
I’m no Progressive (or even liberal), but didn’t Malcom X say something to the effect that when violence is used in self-defense he regarded it more as a matter of intelligence? Abstractly, not an unhinged observation I don’t think.
So I don’t then even need to go into the idea of, say “honor,” where for instance we would generally not condemn too harshly a person who punched another who called his wife a “slut” or etc. (Which “honor” concept has even found its way into the law in the form of “fighting words” exceptions.)
And like I say, you not only have this lack of common meanings but values too, and then even sensibilities. Look at Donald’s concern listing generalizing jews. Well, where’s the concern over generalizing “arabs”? Hell, every day in the MSM I see Israeli partisans trying to smear them using that same preciseterm, esp. in an attempt to say why Israel could never have them much as citizens, or have them as fully sovereign neighbors or etc. *Every* day. Including out of the lips of our political “leaders” from whom one never hears any generalizations about “jews.”
Almost invariably those who call for some curtailment of the marketplace of ideas do so because they don’t like or fear what’s being bought.
Fair enough, people make mistakes buying. But, as someone has observed here, lots and lots of what this site has been selling *has* been increasingly bought, with damn near all of it that I see being eminently respectable, and damn near none of the disreputable stuff I’ve seen here being so bought.
And yet, despite that history, now suddenly there’s calls for this marketplace to be artificially constricted?
Rather odd timing to me, which I disagree with regardless.
“Look at Donald’s concern listing generalizing jews. Well, where’s the concern over generalizing “arabs”? ”
Probably in most of my thousands of comments, along with tens of thousands of other comments by other people, not to mention virtually every single post on the front page. It’s easy to miss though.
Well, I shouldn’t be snarky, since I am trying to reach people. As I explained upthread I spend most of my time like most others here, denouncing the crimes of Israel which my government (the US) supports and ranting about the one-sided bigotry of our press, praising Glenn Greenwald as the best semi-mainstream blogger out there, and so forth.
It was probably a little egotistical of me to think that the regulars here would know that and take it for granted. Anyway, this blog is mostly about Israeli crimes and anti-Arab bigotry and that’s as it should be, but ideally we’d be the model of the sort of people we want everyone to be–sensitive, compassionate without dishonesty and so forth. Yeah, sure, I’m gagging myself. But if we want to win people over to either a one state solution or a two state solution that is actually generous enough to be acceptable to Palestinians (assuming they’d settle for that, and it’s their decision), then it really doesn’t hurt to be aware of people’s feelings and not tread on them unnecessarily. Some will despise MW no matter what, because we criticize Israel or aren’t Zionists (for the most part), but there are people who might be won over if we try to be more civil.
I think I’m done, or anyway, starting to bore myself for now.
Donald you made your point here in my opinion. Too bad you did not have somebody look at it before you posted it. It was needlessly a heavy blanket slap, when a small handkerchief would have wiped our noses well.
i’m sorry if you took anything i said personally donald. it wasn’t meant to be.
“I’m no Progressive (or even liberal), but…”
At long last, I found another non-Progressive, non-liberal anti-Zionist. They say we don’t exist. Anti-Zionism is a liberal concept, so no American conservative could rightfully claim a banner in opposition to Zionism. Nevermind that American conservatism is a brand of classical liberalism, not much different than American liberalism in the grand scheme of things.
Donald wrote:
“Probably in most of my thousands of comments…”
No in fact, I’d bet not. I’d bet not in a single solitary one did you ever say the same thing you said here which was identifying what you thought were “the sort of unhelpful comments likely to give people uncomplimentary ideas about this place” conspicuously mentioning only generalizing about jews and not generalizing about arabs.
In fact even if every single one of your past posts didn’t just not generalize about arabs but indeed railed against doing so this still would be quite different than your identification of what you feel some others might find uncomplimentary.
Don’t misunderstand, I don’t lack respect or even sympathy for your sentiments. But as I said, what you are trying to do is impossible, even in terms of finding common sensibilities which I think your omission of “arab generalizing” precisely shows and which is why I mentioned it.
*Your* sensibilities, that is, just led you to feel that it was most trenchant to avoid generalizing about jews which is why you only mentioned same, and that’s fine.
But you have no right to insist that others share your sensibilities, nor indeed even the basic logic behind it that we should all be concerned with persuading those you feel we should try to persuade.
For instance I might not care about persuading those people in particular. For one I might feel they are unpersuadable. Or I might want to persuade others more. Indeed I might not even care about persuading anyone at all and just speaking what I see as the truth and letting history take its course.
After all, there’s far more value to one person “just” being right than there is to an ocean of people being wrong with good intentions. Maybe even that’s the problem: People not being concerned with being “right” at all and instead judging words instead by how attractive they sound.
All of these things inescapably involve perfectly reasonable differences with your definitions, values, and sensibilities that others are perfectly entitled to hold.
Whenever there is a lively comment section of a blog like this, there is always a push by thin skin types to censor or control comments. It’s extremely short sighted to limit comments except in rare circumstances(unadulterated spam, personal threats, things like that). True, you get to sanitize the reading experience, but it is sooooooo much more boring-plus we never get down to the real issues that drive this conflict-which is fear, racism, anger, superstition…and if you censor all that stuff out, not only is it boring, but it gives the false impression that opinions on the Mideast are developed by carefully reading New York Times op eds. The more honesty and true interaction on here, the more people with open minds will come and participate. The more speech is controlled, the less people will feel comfortable to join in.
…Oh, and that business about being nice to avoid insulting liberal Zionists-well, that well is pretty much dried up as far as converts are concerned.
I have a very delicate suggestion. May I??
I don’t want to offend anybody ,but feel like I have to say it.
Please forgive me in advance if ANYBODY feels insulted by it.
I apologize thoroughly, and I hope I will be forgiven, otherwise I won’t be able to sleep at night. Having said that, ooph, I may proceed.
Maybe Donald will start his own website, with his own censorship regulations ,
and those who pass his strict ,politically correct filters, may enjoy politically correct, anesthetized discussions, a.k.a shooting the breeze,washed out of any true meaning or goals.
He will make sure that nobody will be offended or aggravated , assuming there will be any visitors left.
I’m insulted.
so we are even.
Mr. Johnson, I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with you.
IMHO, Phil and Adam are doing a very good job moderating.
I find the large majority of writers and commentators in MW to be very thoughtful, responsible, reasonable, civil, and intelligent. Perfect? Certainly not. But I disagree totally with any type of “soft censorship” or “hypersensitivity” so as not to “hurt the feelings” of someone or some group.
Facts are facts. Let’s not forget, the Palestine/israel debate and conflict is about people who are being TRULY HURT… murdered, imprisoned without cause and due process, not allowed to move without a permit, no freedom, no dignity, no human rights, … … … …
So Mr. Johnson, let’s forget about sensitivity and focus on debating ideas while keeping in mind that Palestinians are being physically, emotionally, financially, and psychologically hurt daily.
Thank you.
17.01.2012
Dear Mr.Ramzi,
I think you made a very valid point, with which I fully agree.
I hope nobody got offended for my support of dear Mr. Ramzi.
Thank you for reading and all of you have a nice and very pleasant, peaceful night.
I love Y’all.
Dumvi
P.S Those who got really upset I recommend herbal tea made of something… herbal.
and a song
link to youtube.com
I agree with much of this, disagree with other parts, but it was stated so politely I think I’ll just shut up.
Ramzi, you said it, you did.
People sometimes forget that it’s hard being super-sensitive when subjected to daily images of other people being actually killed, or imprisoned or tortured or kicked out of their homes, or all of the above.
I don’t want to insult liberal Zionists but I do want to make clear the extent of my disagreement with them, which means using disparaging terms (like ‘preposterous’, even ‘grotesque’) about their arguments, though not about them. I don’t think Zionism can take a genuinely liberal form, so discussion based on the idea that it can is misleading, even dangerous, from the start.
I am pickled in academic seminar language, which does have its place, I suppose. But we are talking about horrible injustice and suffering and sometimes I feel restrained to a rather shameful point. I think many Palestinian readers would share that view of the likes of me.
Self-examination such as Donald has promoted here is good but I don’t want to see it becoming self-doubt. Just to be more emotional I would like to say that though of course there are lapses, some by me, the people critical of Zionism whom I’ve met here are overwhelmingly people I’m proud to know even in this electronic sense: you mean a lot to me. Good people, humane people, sometimes very sensible, sometimes courageous, sometimes devastatingly well informed, sometimes powerfully analytic, anti-racist to their cores and roots. If ever there’s a Mondoweiss congress it would be fun.
This feels like playing the “Is it I” game.
I’m deeply embarrassed that I threw some sharp elbows yesterday on the Jesse Lieberfeld thread. I was put off by Phil’s use of the phrase, “brainy Jews,” and my perturbation got in the way of actually reading the entire essays. Phil Munger graciously called me to account, I apologized, I read the essays, and I must say, both essayists were impressive. The “brainy Jew” was not only articulate and brainy, he was courageous. I wish him well.
re other matters you raised, Donald –
“I know a fair number of Christians who would be instantly disgusted at the least whiff of anti-semitism or even what they might think is anti-semitism but isn’t. The latter problem has to be overcome with persuasion, but the former problem is solved by just being sensitive, knowing how something might sound and not saying it. Yes, sensitive.”
Is Richard Land among them? Or Gary Bauer? How about Rick Santorum? Any criticisms of their bruited quest to bomb Iran, or their persistent Islamophobia and Iranophobia?
“2 A suggestion that Israel be made to behave via a conventional war. “
This is an argument Norman Finkelstein has made, and defended against challengers. I don’t buy it, primarily because it’s hard to see how Israel can be punished without causing further suffering to Palestinians.
But it seems fair to posit that Israel deserves to be sanctioned or punished in some way. Why is Israel worthy of being protected and sheltered from the consequences of its violent acts, but Iranians and Palestinians are expected to grin and bear it? You say you seek “peace and justice,” but the sort of justice that exonerates and protect a violence-prone state is not justice at all but the ascription to Israel of an infantile level of moral accountability.
“3. Any suggestion that some sort of Jewish writing or behavior created the Nazis. At best this just seems wrong. Perhaps some Jews joined in the almost ubiquitous anti-semitism of Western culture before WWII and said deplorable things. By all means condemn any who did, but it doesn’t explain Nazi fanaticism.”
This is the “Holocaust denial” charge.
I think it is dangerous and foolish posture for an enlightened society, run on the rule of law and rule by the people, which system demands an informed public.
It seems reasonable to insist that facts are facts and truth is truth. It is a fact, for instance, as Erik Larson pointed out in a recent best-selling book, that Jews imposed a crippling boycott on Germany in 1933 with the intent of starving Germany into submission — submission to WHAT is not clear, as what Jewish people referred to as “persecution” fell into the category that Jesse Lieberfeld questioned in his essay yesterday.
Larson also revealed, and it is a fact, that zionists in the US conducted two mock trials of the Nazi government in 1933-34 (??), well before hostilities were experienced by with the definite intent on the part of the organizers of the mock trials to provoke outrage.
Demands were made that American ambassadors cease contact with their German counterparts — a ludicrous demand, but, since we have not learned from the past, a demand that has been enshrined into law by our current US Congress with respect to Iran. And by the same set of actors, I might add.
In my opinion, it is extremely important to put ALL the facts on the table and assess them objectively, dispassionately, and in as unbiased and non-rancorous a fashion as possible. I don’t think that has been done wrt the first and second world wars, and as a result, patterns of behavior that either unintentionally or by design result in people reacting with outrage –>anger –>violence –>hatred –> mass death, are not clearly delineated, and so are repeated.
Today, the United States and Israel are deliberately seeking to cause economic panic in Iran, with the goal of sparking outrage –> anger –> violence among the Iranian people. Iran is being propagandized and dehumanized even as “the Hun” was propagandized and dehumanized in the run-up to the first and second world wars, and even as Iraqis were propagandized and dehumanized in the lead-up to the starvation and slaughter of Iraqis.
Is that the kind of peace and justice you have in mind? Do you think genuine peace and justice can be accomplished by sweeping the facts of the harmful ways people behave toward other people are swept under the rug, because we have a sentimental affinity for one group but not another, or because we have been seduced by propaganda or family and social/religious group expectations — once again, as Jesse Lieberfeld pointed out.
I think we need to sweep aside emotion and rely on truth — facts, supported by evidence, weighed logically — and to use truth thus obtained to press for justice, and ultimately, reconciliation.
This is not a zero sum game we are playing. Israelis have rights but Palestinians and Iranians have rights equal to any and every right and claim of a Jew, and Israeli or an American.
A+
“People are still attacked even in this country for being Jewish.”
Which country is “this” country? Name it, please.
The United States of America.
Donald says:
January 17, 2012 at 7:32 pm
The United States of America”
I suggest you put some perspective and facts in your pronouncements. And btw these stats are on ‘reported” crimes……NOT how many were found to be valid so even these aren’t totally accurate.
The last link at bottom shows the states where attacks took place.
Hate crimes involving Jews are grouped under religious bias. Of the 915 reported as Jewish over half of them took place in New York and New Jersey so there must be something in their water.
Overall Jewish attacks or property defacement’s accounted for 11% of all the hate crimes reported in US. No where near the 2570 anti black incidents in the US.
Out of 350 million people in this country I don’t call 900 stray Jewish bigots signs of rampant anti semitism. That’s somewhere around 0.0000018% of the population. You are bull***** on this for your own weird purpose.
link to fbi.gov
2009 Report
Victims
■61.1 percent of all hate crimes were committed against persons, while 38.1 percent were crimes against property.
■Of the 4,057 victims of racial bias, 71.5 percent were victims because of an offender’s prejudice against blacks.
■Of the 1,575 victims of anti-religious hate crimes, 71.9 percent were victims because of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
Offenders
■Of the 6,225 known offenders, 62.4 percent were white, 18.5 percent were black, and 7.3 percent were groups of individuals of various races. The race was unknown for 10.2 percent of offenders, and other races accounted for the remaining offenders.■Of the 5,136 offenders who carried out crimes against persons, 40.3 percent committed simple assaults, 34.6 percent intimidated their victims, and 23.5 percent committed aggravated assaults. Murders and rapes were committed by 1.2 percent of the offenders.
link to fbi.gov
2010 Report
■In 2010, 1,949 law enforcement agencies reported 6,628 hate crime incidents involving 7,699 offenses.
■There were 6,624 single-bias incidents that involved 7,690 offenses, 8,199 victims, and 6,001 offenders.
■The 4 multiple-bias incidents reported in 2010 involved 9 offenses, 9 victims, and 7 offenders. (See Table 1 and Table 12.)
Single-bias incidents
An analysis of the 6,624 single-bias incidents reported in 2010 revealed the following:
■47.3 percent were racially motivated.
■20.0 percent were motivated by religious bias.
■19.3 percent resulted from sexual-orientation bias.
■12.8 percent stemmed from ethnicity/national origin bias.
■0.6 percent were prompted by disability bias. (Based on Table 1.)
Offenses by bias motivation within incidents
Of the 7,690 single-bias hate crime offenses reported in the above incidents:
■48.4 percent stemmed from racial bias.
■19.1 percent were motivated by sexual-orientation bias.
■18.3 percent resulted from religious bias.
■13.5 percent were prompted by ethnicity/national origin bias.
■0.6 percent resulted from biases against disabilities. (Based on Table 1.)
Racial bias
In 2010, law enforcement agencies reported that 3,725 single-bias hate crime offenses were racially motivated. Of these offenses:
■69.8 percent were motivated by anti-black bias.
■18.2 percent stemmed from anti-white bias.
■5.7 percent were a result of bias against groups of individuals consisting of more than one race (anti-multiple races, group).
■5.1 percent resulted from anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
■1.2 percent were motivated by anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias. (Based on Table 1.)
Religious bias
Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:
■65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
■13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
■9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
■4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
■3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
■3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
■0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. (Based on Table 1.)
Sexual-orientation bias
In 2010, law enforcement agencies reported 1,470 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias. Of these offenses:
■57.9 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.
■27.4 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias.
■11.4 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias.
■1.4 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias.
■1.9 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias. (Based on Table 1.)
Ethnicity/national origin bias
Of the single-bias incidents, 1,040 offenses were committed based on the perceived ethnicity or national origin of the victim. Of these offenses:
■65.5 percent were anti-Hispanic bias.
■34.5 percent were anti-other ethnicity/national origin bias. (Based on Table 1.)
Disability bias
There were 46 reported hate crime offenses committed based on disability bias. Of these:
■24 offenses were classified as anti-mental disability.
■22 offenses were reported as anti-physical disability. (See Table 1.)
By offense types
Of the 7,699 reported hate crime offenses in 2010:
■30.1 percent were destruction/damage/vandalism.
■29.0 percent were intimidation.
■21.8 percent were simple assault.
■11.5 percent were aggravated assault.
■7.5 percent were comprised of additional crimes against persons, property, and society. (Based on Table 2.)
Offenses by crime category
Among the 7,699 hate crime offenses reported:
■62.7 percent were crimes against persons.
■37.2 percent were crimes against property.
■The remainder were crimes against society. (Based on Table 2.) (See Data Collection in Methodology.)
Crimes against persons
Law enforcement reported 4,824 hate crime offenses as crimes against persons. By offense type:
■46.2 percent were intimidation.
■34.8 percent were simple assault.
■18.4 percent were aggravated assault.
■0.2 percent consisted of 7 murder and nonnegligent manslaughters and 4 forcible rapes.
■0.3 percent involved the offense category other, which is collected only in the National Incident-Based Reporting System.
link to www2.fbi.gov
a nice, simple cartoons about censorship
link to toonpool.com
link to jingreed.typepad.com
On point!
Donald,
I sympathize with your article here in that I feel that as non-Jews it is nice to take extra care and respect when talking about Jewish people in general, as opposed to a country’s political system.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t demand boundaries for people’s self-reflection. I am almost envious of the way 17-year olf Jesse was able to self-reflect and free himself from cultural feelings of superiority: It makes me want to see more Americans with feelings of their own cultural and military superiority free their minds and spirits.
Your article actually contains a hidden “thread” that runs through many articles on this site and others on the IP conflict: the topic of the Jewish people’s need for a nation state.
You wrote that anti-semitism is a serious problem, and warned that one form (like an individual’s) can lead to others (like societal). I agree that anti-semitism, like prejudice against other ethnicites, is a serious problem. People should be protected from persecution. So in my mind and that of others, protection is the best justification I see for a Nation-State.
You added that you weren’t sure if it mattered if someone was a liberal Zionist,
adding: “I’m not sure that it matters if someone thinks there could have been an alternate history where Israel could have been formed without injustice to the Palestinians if they agree that what actually has happened was unjust. There will be serious debates over one state vs. two state solutions, but in the end it is the Palestinians who have to decide what sort of solution they should go for.”
Of course it matters if someone believes a single-nation state is necessary for the people’s safety. If the people need a single-nation state for safety, why should they agree to one state and why should they leave it to the Palestinians?
So in conclusion, an important thread is running through the discussions. I would like to request that a contributor explain their opinion in an article on whether the people need a nation state. In particular:
i. Would a Nation-State be able and willing to risk itself to protect people persecuted abroad?
ii. Could a single-Nation-State placed on a mutually-shared homeland actually create more risks for the people than before?
iii. Are there better alternatives? For example, would spreading the people across many nations be safer than concentrating them in one small place? Or would a multicultural country like America that tolerates and protects minorities be as good or better protection for the people than a Nation-State?
“To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child.”- Cicero
Donald,
I find myself basically in agreement with most of the views you express here, though I’m still undecided about the ethics of excluding some comments over others, however repugnant they might be. On your third point for example, I have very, very mixed feelings. But before I address the issue, please bear with me while I briefly clarify my view of the issue behind the issue: I mean, of course, the Holocaust, and the Nazi persecution of the Jews in general.
It has, in fact, been recently asserted on this blog that the Jews of Germany, and Zionists, did contribute to the persecution by the Nazis. But the Nazis did not need Zionists, Zionist writers, or the specter of Zionism to persecute their Jews; Nazi persecution of Jews predated Hitler’s accession to power, as well as the advent of the depression. Antisemitism was one of the founding articles of the Nazi party, the cement that held it together. The conviction that the Jews were the principle corrupters and race poisoners of German racial purity, not to mention the ones most responsible for stabbing Germany in the back and losing them World War One, was sacrosanct to them. It was their bread and butter.
In the pre-war years, apart from outbursts of anti-Jewish violence in 1933, 1934, and 1938, the Nazis persecuted Jews principally by legal decree. Like the Spanish in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, individual acts of violence against Jews were occasionally promoted and encouraged, then used as pretexts to introduce legal measures against them. Jews were excluded from civil service, from practicing law and medicine, from posts in universities and schools, were denied German citizenship, and prohibited from committing “race pollution” i.e., having sexual relations with non-Jews among other indignities.
The truth of the matter is that the Nazis first persecuted, then, in late 1941 sought to murder all of the Jews on which they could lay hands, in whatever area they were to control. No rulers of an advanced, industrial nation had ever attempted anything even remotely so sweeping in scope and scale, and so far-reaching in wickedness. There was certainly indiscriminate killing on both sides: allied fire bombing of German and Japanese cities as well as the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But all of those actions, however terrible, served a discernible strategic function: to win and end the war. The murder of the Jews served no necessary, war-winning function. Its sole purpose was exterminate a race of people from the face of the earth, from all of the elderly right down to the last infant.
The Jews had known persecutions before, but never had they known an enemy who would brook no parley and no compromise, and who demanded no ransom from them, just their lives. Who could have foreseen such a monster? The Jews did not believe that the Devil took human form. This is, and remains, the only government directed, bureaucratically organized attempt at the extermination of an entire people. They were murdered not because of Zionism, or any Zionist action, or anything Herzl wrote, the threat of a boycott, or any war-related reason or rationale.
They were murdered because they were Jews.
Now, that said, should the suggestion that Jews did in some way contribute to their persecution by the Nazis be banned from this site? As repugnant and anti-Semitic as I find the suggestion to be, I would ultimately have to say: no.
Unlike many people here, I do not have an ancestral or religious connection to the Holocaust. I do, however, believe it is the worst crime ever committed, all the more so in that a modern, sophisticated industrial power harnessed its energies and resources to targeting an entire people for annihilation, and I am often angered by those here whose advocacy of the Palestinians or dislike of Israel leads them to denigrate this event.
I thus do not underate the seriousness and the unique magnitude of this event, but I do not believe that any topic of historical controversy should be banned, and though I don’t want to suggest that there is any legitimacy in the suggestion that Jews provoked the Nazis’ persecution, I think it far better to get such views out in the open to refute them with facts and evidence, than to ban them.
I do recognize that people of good faith can legitimately disagree on this matter, and I don’t wish to leave you with the impression that I think your suggestion intolerant or seeking to inhibit free and open discourse and debate. I am just saying that every controversial comment like this or others have to be evaluated on their individual merits, but my own view is that just about any comment that is not excessively ad hominen or does not incite violence should probably not be banned. However, it’s a judgment call, and it depends on the comment.
Obviously wrt the origins of the Nakba, whether Israel’s wars from 1948 to Cast Lead were just wars, my views are very, very different from the majority here. But I would have to say that, all in all though with some exceptions, the moderators here do an estimable job of keeping the discussions focused on the issues, and keeping the debates flowing freely and allowing all viewpoints to be registered.
@Robert Werdine
This is a well-written comment. Thank you.
I would just like to remind you that Donald did not call for any banning of comments. As I understand him, he asked for self-restraint.
In fact, on this blog it has been asserted on numerous occasions that “the Jews of Germany, and Zionists, did contribute to the persecution by the Nazis.” It is quite clear from the comments on this posting, that there is not going to be self-restraint on this issue from part of the commentariat. In fact, they see it as an important point to raise in order to debunk certain, in their words, “Zionist myths”.
I left being a regular contributor at Mondoweiss after taking on a similar set of comments more than a year ago. After going at it for several days with a substantial core of the commentariat, I burned out. Although I stopped commenting, I did decide to recently respond to a comment that suggested the Jews contributed to their own persecution by the Nazis. In fact the comment went further and stated that the German reaction should be seen as a lesson for the present. Mind you I let that comment stand unchallenged for awhile to see if anyone else would respond. As you may have noticed, there are commenters on MW who have no problem instantly adding 5-10 comments per post, but not in this case.
The problem is that such views do get out in the open on MW, but nobody challenges them. If you are going to be the one to refute them with facts and evidence, that would be great. It is quite time consuming. Otherwise, they go unanswered and some readers begin to believe these claims are true. Worse, outsiders draw the conclusion these are core beliefs of the site.
@Bruce and Robert Werdine
But the Nazis did not need Zionists, Zionist writers, or the specter of Zionism to persecute their Jews; Nazi persecution of Jews predated Hitler’s accession to power, as well as the advent of the depression.
Nobody said they did. You’ve got that backwards anyway. It was the Zionist who needed the anti-semites. Herzl openly claimed that Jews had lost the ability to assimilate and that they could never co-exist in the same State with Gentiles. He wrote that the Zionist movement needed to found a colonial company and harness anti-semitism as the engine that would drive the Zionist movement. He claimed anti-semitism would enable Zionists to transfer the Jews to their own Jewish State. He pitched the idea on the basis of the economic benefits the scheme would provide for the remaining Gentile populations who could take over the immovable property, businesses, and positions vacated by the Jews. Herzl, Jabotinsky, and Arlosoroff deliberately courted the leading anti-semites of their day. They even entered into formal, written, symbiotic, agreements in a few instances, e.g. Symon Petlura in the Ukraine. They also drummed-up support for such efforts with the Kaiser in their propaganda organs, like Die Welt.
The conviction that the Jews were the principle corrupters and race poisoners of German racial purity . . . were denied German citizenship, and prohibited from committing “race pollution” i.e., having sexual relations with non-Jews among other indignities.
Those same beliefs about racial purity have been part of Judaism since the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. They were reflected in anti-assimilation doctrines of the Zionist and Orthodox movements. The State of Israel routinely imposes the same “indignities” on its own indigenous non-Jewish population and migrant workers. The legal criteria for benefits and government positions are frequently tailored to exclude as many non-Jewish applicants as possible, i.e. Bill: Citizens who didn’t complete army service can’t be MKs link to ynetnews.com
should the suggestion that Jews did in some way contribute to their persecution by the Nazis be banned from this site? As repugnant and anti-Semitic as I find the suggestion to be . . .
The commentators have provided you with documentary evidence supplied from Jewish archives by Jewish authors which proves that Zionist leaders did contribute to the persecution of their fellow Jews. No one is blaming the victims. It’s not an inherently anti-semetic suggestion either, since the State of Israel adopted the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators -Punishment- Law- 5710-1950 with a mind to prosecute known Jewish collaborators, such as the notorious concentration camp Kapos. The leadership had no idea it might be considered appropriate for use in prosecuting some of their own activities, until stories surfaced about Zionists collaborating with the SS to select suitable young Jewish pioneers from the concentration camps for emigration, while denying undesirable Jews the same privilege – even when the opportunity had presented itself.
but never had they known an enemy who would brook no parley and no compromise, and who demanded no ransom from them, just their lives. Who could have foreseen such a monster? The Jews did not believe that the Devil took human form. This is, and remains, the only government directed, bureaucratically organized attempt at the extermination of an entire people.
Hannah Arendt, Ben Hecht, Folke Bernadotte, and many others documented the fact that Eichmann and other German officials actually did want to parley. BTW, there are commandments in the Torah to exterminate the seven nations inhabiting the Land of Canaan, plus any Amalekites living there or elsewhere. So, the concept of genocide wasn’t completely alien to the Jews. See for example Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence, link to press.princeton.edu
FYI, it’s estimated that 262,000,000 people were murdered by their own governments during the 20th Century and millions of them were targeted precisely because they were members of specific ethnic groups. link to hawaii.edu
The problem is that such views do get out in the open on MW, but nobody challenges them.
The books by Alfred Lilienthal, Hannah Arendt, Ben Hecht, Morris Ernst, Boas Evron, Francis Nicosia, Simha Flapan, and Edwin Black on this subject have been out in the open for ages and anyone is welcome to challenge the evidence.
Donald,
If you’re still tracking comments here – good for you. Of course the crazy ass invective and extreme views are counterproductive. Actual hasbara folks probably do a little Montgomery Burns hand rub when they see that stuff. Helps portray supporters of Palestinian rights as nutjobs.
Phil, thanks for chiming in. What Donald is saying is so obvious…. the mean spirited, angry, and abusive posters like Mooser (to name just one out of many) come off like 2nd grade class clowns or middle school bullies.
It’s quite odd to read your self-righteous indignation in light of your own comments.
In a thread discussing ethnic cleansing, land expropriation and institutionalized government discrimination, you somehow found it appropriate to write:
link to mondoweiss.net
Neither you nor Donald found that offensive, of course. It didn’t offend your sensibilities to make light of other people’s suffering, or to cram yet another platitude about the wonders of Israeli democracy, “[T]he first city in the entire Middle East to elect a Communist mayor.”
What I do find offensive is your serpentine behavior.
I never made light of other people’s suffering. That’s a delusional interpretation of yours that you represent as fact. If there’s one thing you’re proud of, it’s the ability to channel what other people area feeling, their motives and unspoken assumptions. Could be a stage act.
Nazareth is a great city, no matter how hard you try to belittle it.
You seem to be living in a world of your own, a reality of your own, one where words mean one thing for you and something else for the rest of humanity. Next you’ll claim that the English language that you use is not the same as the English language that everyone else uses.
You might also claim that basic human values and decency are different on your planet.
Exactly who are you trying to fool when you pull a stunt like that?
Nazareth is a great city, no matter how hard you try to belittle it.
Chiming in here, perhaps without enough facts, but talking about the ethnic cleansing and land expropriation is NOT belittling Nazareth. Its belittling the vaulted pseudo-democracy of Israel, and highly appropriate, IMHO.
Mentioning the great knafeh in Nazareth in a discussion on land expropriation is equivalent to recommending the black-eyed peas during a discussion of pre-civil rights legislation Selma. That is belittling of the larger issue. Don’t know why that’s hard for you to understand, Newclench.
Or not. You AND Avi all together still don’t represented a very great slice of ‘reasonable interpretation land.’ Do you think there are all these rules and boundaries, visible to you but invisible to others, and hence an important job? Don’t say this, do say that, don’t cross that line?
It fits well with all the intuitive (=mind-reading) conclusions that pass for informed opinion. You didn’t say X, so you must think Y. Alas, no matter how hard you try you only have my stated opinions to play with, not the ones I’ve kept to myself.
But sure, go on inventing opinions and thoughts I don’t hold and putting my name on them. Assure readers that your taste measurements are precise, and not, just possibly, of a piece with the malicious and vindictive manner used to treat anyone who dissents from your extremist version of the truth.
You know, the intemperate stuff that Donald is quite rightly drawing attention to.
Newclench, I’m not putting any boundaries or rules on what you say. I am simply offering you a chance to see how others could interpret your comments. Do you disagree with my analogy, or are you just angry that I brought it up? Can you even see that bringing up a recommendation on cuisine in a discussion of discrimination might be perceived as a belittling distraction by those you are seeking to converse with?
And how do you know that I hold “an extremist version of the truth” except by doing the same mind reading that you are accusing me of doing? And how do you “know” that Avi was “belittling Nazareth” except by a very convoluted attempt at mind reading? Another suggestion: It might help you to make your points if you weren’t doing EXACTLY the same thing that you are accusing someone else of doing. Think about it.
Newclench, next time you are in Nazareth, meet this man and have a chat with him, link to mondoweiss.net
@tree – you got me. I was doing exactly what Avi was doing, and it is indeed very silly. Kind of you to notice.
Assigning unspoken/unwritten motives, feelings and thoughts to others is a fool’s game.
Donald,
I too was a bit put off by your original post as it seemed far too broad a brush for MW which I find pretty temperate compared to most blogs. I think the existing moderator/censor system works pretty well as it stops the way over the top comments by those whoseviews are extreme, or whose emotions are getting away from them. Even so, once in awhile comments venture into the cringe factor zone, even a couple on this thread, so I know what you mean. The problem is where do you draw the line. Some of the examples you cite demonstrate that problem:
You want to exclude comments about attacking Israel militarily yet Zbiginew Brezenski (sp?) said that the US had the right to shoot down Israeli aircraft that were en route to attacking Iran. He was criticized and he recanted a bit, but his point was well-taken. If the US thought an Israeli attack on Iran would create a monumental mess against US vital national security interests, it, hypothetically could take such an action. The same could hold true for Israel’s Samson option. It might also hold true if an extreme far right Israeli government decided to use force to evict every Palestinian from Israel and the territories. So, why would you want to ban that topic?
I also think some of your subsequent criticisms of American’s explanation for his comments regarding the hypothetical ability of one American boomer submarine to successfully attack Israel were unfair and taken out of context. Some of our MW commenters are edgier than others; American’s comments tend to be pretty edgy at times but are also thought provoking.
I also take issue with your anti-Semitism limits. That charge has been so misused and overused that we should be very hesitant to employ it ourselves. Much of the time loose language is the problem (e.g. using Jew instead of Zionist, etc.). I commented recently on that problem and was critical of Phil and someone else for their use of loose language with regard to American Jews and Zionism. Again, some of the thread discussions do get into the cringe factor zone but weak comments get hammered and the blatant ones censored.
My main complaint has to do with important threads getting hijacked by extraneous comments (like attacks on our Hasbara trolls, or 9-11 diversions). I know it is necessary to contest Hasbara nonesense, and I know the 9-11 subject is entitled to be heard, but good, important threads often get destroyed by the diversions. I wish I had a solution. I no longer think censorship should apply for either of the above.
Finally, I agree that as Mondoweiss becomes more mainstream it is important to protect its image and prevent attacks against it based on over-the-top comments. Phil, Adam and most of us want Mondoweiss to be influential so protecting its image is critical to gaining greater influence. But again, where to draw the line is the problem. I personally don’t feel that the current comment screening guidelines need to be changed. At most, the screeners might be directed to issue warnings and require comment rewrites for ad hominem attacks, and require more civility for those who tend to excess.
This particular thread (now over 250 comments!) is a good case in point. It was a very good read with lots of valuable discussion. I wouldn’t censor a word from it even though a few of the comments made me cringe a bit.
Donald, while I didn’t agree with your article, I admire your courage in posting it and hanging in there to do battle to the end, and even modifying your beliefs along the way. Most important, your article allowed us to thoroughly address a very important topic.
Gil Maguire
My main complaint has to do with important threads getting hijacked by extraneous comments (like attacks on our Hasbara trolls, or 9-11 diversions). I know it is necessary to contest Hasbara nonesense, and I know the 9-11 subject is entitled to be heard, but good, important threads often get destroyed by the diversions. I wish I had a solution. I no longer think censorship should apply for either of the above.
irishmoses,
26 of your 248 comments contain the word “conspiracy” and this likely misses some of your posts on 9/11 (dismissively shutting the discussion down generally, and calling for censorship sometimes). This is over 10% of your comments.
link to mondoweiss.net
For myself, and I have studied 9/11 in depth and have a very strong and well-informed opinion on it, and ~10% of my comments are on the topic or reference it (but likely a lower % of my comments than you). Sadly, many of those comments are in response to people like you, and your reactionary focus on shutting me down prevents any sincere discussion among people who are interested in discussing it. Perhaps job well done, but perhaps you are contributing to the very ill you despise.
Alternative 9/11 theories cause strong reactions, and I do not have a big issue with you being condescending and often devoid of substance (you always link to one ridiculous biased debunking website, which is transparently uninterested in objective, logical, and scientific analysis).
But I think you need to do a reality check on how often 9/11 material is brought up here. It is infrequent, and when it is brought up, it does not hijack the entire thread. *Sometimes* it does hijack the thread though, but that is usually when people who despise the topic of 9/11 ‘truth’ are unfairly dismissive and call for censorship, which derails the conversation and makes it even longer. However, this is so rare, I think it is a passable phenomenon, but should be avoided (restraint on both sides is needed).
But I have to say I agree with what you have said here, regarding a call that 9/11 discussion *not* be censored. This seems to be a change of opinion. And while I *do not agree* that 9/11 thread-jacking is currently an issue, I agree that it could be an issue in time, and in fact would support corrective measures if it becomes needed (comment rejections, shutting down 9/11 talk at times, and banning people who are only here to advocate one side or the other and do not have other interests or input) .
////
Regarding your request for a “complete 9/11 theory”, a few weeks ago, when 9/11 last came up, I am still pondering that.
link to mondoweiss.net
It is a troublesome request, as it is largely asking people to get so specific they have to make *unsubstantiated* claims (which in turn you might jump on; missing and dismissing the whole). The real burden for people in my position is to prove the official story is incorrect, the government is lying and covering up substantial information (more than covering for ‘incompetence’ which is expected), and point out evidence which clearly indicates that a false-flag was implemented. Some details I can state with near certainty. Some general actions I can outline, but the who and exactly how is naturally speculative. Other things I can offer “best guesses” for (and supporting information, which corroborates my best guess).
So perhaps I will get to that in time. But naturally the way you posed it is problematic. I did draft a way we can approach such an exchange, and maybe we can destroy some minor thread with the exchange (presumably that old thread). But you might want to read this exchange which offers some insight into these issues-
link to alternet.org
(why reinvent the wheel, when matt taibbei and david ray griffin went over some of this)
“That charge has been so misused and overused that we should be very hesitant to employ it ourselves”
In one of my earlier drafts of this post I identified that as the problem. We’re so used to the charge of anti-semitism being misused and overused that we are like the villagers in the story of the little boy who cried wolf. In fact, we get angry when the word “anti-semitic” is used, because we’ve started associating it with attacks on anyone who is pro-Palestinian. I get angry myself when it is misused. I know that has absolutely no credibility in this thread because I’m this or that or the other, but it’s true.
But I think that because of this quite justified suspicion of the term “anti-semitism” people at this blog have overreacted. Somewhere in this thread I linked to a comment from 2010 by a commenter who vanished in early 2011, right about the time he was denying that David Irving was a Holocaust denier. That was 9 months ago. This guy wasn’t some closet anti-semite, making comments one found anti-semitic, but didn’t say so for fear of triggering a huge thread about how anti-semitism is used to justify murdering Palestinians. This guy gloried in his bad boy claim that he himself was an anti-semite. He doesn’t say that particular thing in the link I provided, but it wasn’t hard to find. In the link I provided elsewhere he’s talking about what the Jews did that caused the Germans to become monsters. Sorry. That’s anti-semitic. It goes way beyond the history of whatever Jews did or didn’t do in the prewar period–it blames them for making Germans monsters. It’s exactly like talking about a rape victim’s skimpy attire
This guy wasn’t a pariah here. It’s the boy who cried anti-semitism syndrome. Real ones show up and almost no one believes it.
It’s naive to think this blog with its relatively open policies on what people can say and with its subject matter wouldn’t attract anti-semites. They can’t go too far or they’ll be banned (though the person I mentioned went pretty damn far). It attracts anti-Arab bigots still. Why wouldn’t it attract the other kind, especially if people are so skittish about using the term anti-semite they don’t get called for it?
Donald,
I did not know the history of this anti-Semite, who seems like a real bad actor. I’m slightly ashamed for the community here, as you state they did not make him a pariah. Good thing he was banned.
However, if this specific issue, noted above as #3, was only represented by a man who was banned months ago, why in the world would his behavior warrant a place in your column, in which enumerated transgressions were specifically laid out?.
I strongly feel you included #3 due to a few recent comments, that were quite nuanced, conditioned, and rationally supported, largely made by Jeffrey Blankfort and myself chiming in (perhaps some other person joined in).
If you think those comments were beyond the pale, please quote what you take issue with.
Also, take solace in the fact that it started from a random pondering from the quite knowledgable Jeffrey Blankfort. The only reason his comment gathered the little steam it did, was because of an unsubstantiated charge of anti-Semitism, specifically laid by Jerome Slater.
I do not think MW should be filled with musings on Zionist dealings with the Nazis, or the Jewish boycott of Germany, or other such arcane historical facts (which *are* frequently toted by anti-Semites; I am fully aware of this). But if they come up in a rational manner, on 1 thread in a thousand, they are perfectly fine, and DESERVE to be mentioned in context if it is discussed in a nuanced manner. And they should NOT be met with charges of anti-Semitism. Truth and logic should not be verboten. You should be MORE UPSET about Jerome Slater’s attacks, but that is my opinion, and I guess you have other sensitivities (but at least you do agree that false charges of anti-Semitism are an occasional problem).
BTW, Jeffrey Blankfort is Jewish, and my father is Jewish, born in 1949 in a German refugee camp. I think we both are secular atheists, but I can’t speak for him. However, I do identify with Jewish “culture” on some abstract level, went on birthright, spent summers with Jewish relatives, and lived in Israel briefly.
It seems like on #3, a rare topic made you very uncomfortable. In fact, these topics make me slightly uncomfortable, and I was a little wary of engaging in the discussion. But that does not mean such comments are numerous, and such discussion is quite rare.
I do not disagree with some of your points, and I think we all try to stay conscious of the overall mood here. And it has been a little vitriolic and dismissive at times. But as you can see, I really take exception to #3, because though you may have been sensitized by actual anti-Semitic comments a year ago, I think it made the list because of a few recent comments, and it is targeting them in an oblique manner (else why does #3 make the list? how old news is this banned guy?).
So actually, please quote what inspired #3, and what comments the internalization (or implementation) of #3 would ACTUALLY ALTER (in fairly recent history). I am sincerely interested, and I do not read ~70% of the columns here, so it might be a problem I simply have not witnessed (at all). If you have to go back a year, then I think it is not a problem worth noting. If it has to do with a few recent comments, I take issue with the type of actual censorship, or self-censorship you are seeking.
*Please note that I do not disagree with much of what you are actually saying in #3….. I just think it is not a problem of note, and it could be stifling sincere discussions which should come occasionally. See how thin my skin is?
I am trying to have the last word but doubt I will cause I have wasted too much time on this already and am calling it a day.
I am looking at a copy of a letter my great, great grandmother wrote to her 2 sons serving in the war of 1812.
In it she instructs them to …”guard against the coarsening of character incidental to camp life”.
What we have at Mondo is in many ways camp life where familiarity could breed contempt.
I have never seen real contempt here in the usual rough and tumble and even though we treat witty and eee like dimwits no one gets down right vicious with them. And I have seen us go after someone and guest posters with… “how could you possibility think that!”
On two recent occasions, before this one we have seen passions flame. The Paul one I consider a normal politicial fight like fan fights of Dallas Cowboys vr the Eagles.
The Slater one was different , Slater did attack the commenters personally who made impassioned arguments against his position and he got it back in part becuase of that and because his argument devolved into some definitions and contridictions he couldn’t rationally justify and I think in the end some realized some of it was deliberate provocation.
I think Donald’s lecture was also perched on the same assumption of superiority of his views and some dishonesty. Not in little ..to me..because of his misrepresenting of my own comment. I ask myself why someone allowed to guest post would deliberately lie to try and bolster his point and the only answer I get is to provoke, not from me specifically, but from the group at large by including something portrayed as shocking and unthinkable.
Let me say that I do think we should guard against being seen as ‘course characters”
by drop ins who not understand the dynamics of the group sparring here and we should be on guard against too much incivility.
And I totally agree with Phil and everyone who has said in this thread we should stick to facts even though we have to repeat them over and over for the benefit of those uninformed who might be lurking here. I don’t think any “opinon” on here influences anyone, only when someone comes across a fact they didn’t know before are they likely to be influenced one way or another.
BUT…..I have seen this type of Donald thing and thing Slater did in attacking the site as a whole because of it’s “regulars” or commenters before at other sites. So I am suspicous when it starts to look like a trend or effort.
I don’t think we need Donald to speak for Phil or this site….we all know when we have lost it and overstepped cause it goes down the monitor rabbit hole. If Phil wants to censor more or change the tone it’s his site he can tell us, which he somewhat has, and we will accept his reasons for it.
My attitude is this….yes we could do without some pointless pie throwing, childish fun as it sometimes. (but not without Mooser’s wit)
But the Donald’s and Slaters who expect not just politeness but total deference and some kind of whimpish response to their holier than thou and sometimes hypocritical statements can have exactly what is deserved…..which is…a mostly empty comments section.
You know, not once have I ever seen those of us here who get in the middle of these things ever say to a Donald or Slater their position stinks or is wrong
‘just because we say so’.
Most at least give some logical reason for their comment other than because I say so.
My attitude is this….yes we could do without some pointless pie throwing, childish fun as it sometimes. (but not without Mooser’s wit)
I hope Phil hasn’t given Mooser the boot. We’ve not heard much from him this month. His ofttimes intemperate but deadly accurate comments would be sorely missed.
Mooser wasn’t ‘booted’. He was offended and rightly so when Phil sent him an e-mail asking him to go easy on Slater.
Phil is under the false impression that liberal Zionists are reformable. From personal experience I know that some may be reformable, but the vast majority are not.
At this rate, Phil is going to find himself surrounded by liberal Zionists who will alienate everyone of conscience and drive them away. Thus coming full circle where he started.
Phil is under the false impression that liberal Zionists are reformable.
Possibly so, Avi. Perhaps it is just a fond hope. The website, I believe, was founded as a discussion venue for liberal Zionists.
But you’re right, he can’t have his cake and eat it too.
If he wants a vibrant, welcoming, ever-expanding mondo readership, he must keep the site wide open. (Within the limits most commenters on this thread have deemed reasonable and are in fact already in place.)
Because of the Internet, the facts about Apartheid Israel are now better known. My Canadian newspaper was on about the plight of women in Israel this morning. It’s doing more and more stories like this. In the last year or so a very effective pro-Palestinian lobby group (Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East) has sprung up. CJPME’s volunteer researchers watch out for Israeli hasbara in the media. When they find it, head office sends out an alert and a cadre of letter writers (including me) get to work.
People everywhere are enraged about the treatment of the Palestinians. People everywhere have a stake in what happens in Israel. Who on earth wants a World War III?
Some of these enraged folks are finding their way to Mondo. Phil and Adam must screw up their courage and deal with the new situation they are facing.
I hope to see Mooser back soon with guns-a-blazing!
I would like if this site made room for reasoned liberal Zionists, that run a range of opinion, not only periodically sanctioned Jerome Slater.
The majority of those that have read of Palestinian struggle, feel sympathy for it.
But, the majority of those that have read the pendulum response, feel antipathy for the response.
Even on Cast Lead, the reasoning that underlies why people think that Hamas’ actions created the conditions that led to Cast Lead, is important to hear.
Not hearing of that, adds up to a self-blinding apology for assaults on civilians.
And, a renunciation of effort to find and then argue for consented solutions. (Please don’t tirade about how the term consent “really means” Israeli dominance. By consent I mean consent, not of self-appointed solidarity.)
Before I get upset, let me ask a rational, legitimate question: Is this site trying to emulate the Huffington Post and lose my respect? Perhaps my respect means nothing around here. Who am I anyway? Speaking of respect…
I have so much respect for many of the bloggers here. I come here sometimes to rest my weary soul that’s been abused, pounded on and outraged on other sites, for instance, the Huffington Post. The thing about that site and some one should denounce this, is that Jews are very sheltered there, but I’ve seen so many comments stating NUKE IRAN, CARPET-BOMB GAZA, Palestinians don’t exist, Israel is surrounded by a SEWER OF ARABS and on an on and on. Now if you were to put Jews or Israel in that same context that comment would never appear; I may have seen one pass .9999999% of the time on an article that really pissed people off, and it was quickly deleted. When Huffpo posted the article on the “urinating Marines” the comments against Muslims were so offensive, so obscene, I wanted to throw up, scream, cry, and tear off my hair. Where I’m going with this is here: protecting and sheltering one side TOO MUCH is a form of RACISM AND BIGOTRY, because the censorship hides truth and reality and makes that group look angelic enabling even greater DEMONIZATION of the OTHER side by creating an imbalanced perception. This is what Huffpo does in my opinion, DELIBERATELY. Are you trying to be like them??? When you stiffle rage against injustice YOU PROTECT THE SIDE DOING THE INJUSTICE.
I come here to read some of THE MOST INTELLIGENT, thought-provoking, insightful, PASSIONATE, eye-opening discussions on the web. So when I’m sick and tired of battling biased ignoramuses elsewhere, when I need an injection of hope, when I want to do battle on a higher level (and by higher, I DON’T necessarily MEAN POLITICALLY CORRECT, far from it), I COME HERE!!! God, this is like blogging heaven here with the exception that my comments are moderated, sometimes take a while to appear but 99.9% of the time they do, and I’m grateful for that.
Now Donald here may think it’s blogging heaven for anti-Semites. This is a place where get to hear of injustices perpetrated by Zionists almost DAILY that often don’t make it to other sites on the blogosphere. We’re exposed to some pretty gruesome stuff here sometimes. People here are very human, very empathic; very passionate. They get in people’s skin and feel the pain. I’m cursed that way too, I suffer with others; can’t help it; it’s my nature for good and bad. People get pissed when they’re exposed to injustice and this site EXPOSES it fully and that’s one of the things I love about it. When people get pissed because a Zionist blew away a young Palestinian’s brain, when an innocent Palestinian child is shot 17 times point blank and so many bright lights in the cause of Palestine are extinguished; that’s OKAY, we should be really pissed!! We might vent with an obsenity or two before we exhale again. When hundreds of hundred year-old olive trees are burned to the ground by some insane lunatics, or Palestinians are beaten and spat upon some of us might get get a wee bit carried away. When Congress bows before Netanyahu dozens of times and Zionist war criminals get to meet with heads of state or some lying Zionist weasel, like Mark Regev or Michael Oren, comes on the tube, or Obama capitulates to the Lobby; I might be fit to be tied. THE CAUSE FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE, NOT Anti-Semitism is what moves us. Too bad that so many Jews are Zionists! Is that our fault?? Forgive us for being HUMAN! Or thank God for that, because it is this kind of passion and sometimes rage that creates movements for justice and REVOLUTIONS against the corrupt, greedy and oppressive who are above the LAW.
I have never resorted to 1,2 or 3, that I know of and please quote me if my memory fails me. I don’t believe I’ve resorted to 4 and 5 either, but I have some reservations where these two are concerned and believe more discussion is required, especially on 5.
Regarding NUMBER 6 – I HAVE TO CONFESS, I AM A REPEAT OFFENDER AND I’M NOT GOING TO EVER APOLOGIZE FOR IT.
“Liberal” Zionists fall into two categories: BLIND AND DELUSIONAL OR HYPOCRITICAL AND SELFISH.
One of the reasons I come here is to EXPOSE “LIBERAL” ZIONISM for what it is. It is not altruistic in any way; it is rather trying to rescue Zionism and I don’t care if that includes saving it from itself; it is not well-intentioned; it is NOT honest and sincere; it is NOT TRUTHFUL; and it is NOT JUST. At its best, and I’m talking about “Liberal” Zionists who have one foot in Zionist Utopia and the other in Anti-Zionist Reality, at its best, IT’S TOTALLY DELUSIONAL.
So I find Number 6 to be an outrageous, squirrely excuse to shield “Liberal” Zionists from criticism as if they have no responsibility whatsoever in the injustice, as if by the mere fact they are Zionists of another stripe they’re not enabling the one and only Zionism that has ever existed.
Oh and this is really delusional: “I’m not sure that it matters if someone thinks there could have been an alternate history where Israel could have been formed without injustice to the Palestinians if they agree that what actually has happened was unjust. There will be serious debates over one state vs. two state solutions, but in the end it is the Palestinians who have to decide what sort of solution they should go for.”
No. This is a case of an injustice that happened and is STILL happening and if it’s still happening being a Zionist of any strip is being a PART OF THE PROBLEM.
And Palestinians are going to decide whether they want a ONE-STATE SOLUTION? Reeeally? On what planet? Should I laugh or cry at the absurdity of this pretense?
This article merely indulges more injustice because it tries to silence outrage and nothing less that outrage will work against the racist and apartheid conditions that Zionism spawned.
The warrior is a child (in need of a haven).
I salute you, kalithea, not only for what you say here but for what you do elsewhere.
What courage, what tenacity, what fortitude, what sumud!
For you, kalithea, link to youtube.com
Thanks so much, beautiful lyrics, and I very much appreciate those kind remarks.
Thank you for this post, kalithea. You literally made me cry. Sometimes, it is only people like you who give me hope and faith in humanity, and I agree completely with everything that you said. I also agree with your comment below about supporting a member of the tribe versus supporting an outsider. I love this blog, but I have to admit that I do feel like an outsider here. I don’t think anyone here does that purposely to Palestinian commenters, but it happens just the same. I think it’s probably natural because Palestinians are not the intended audience. It is a little disheartening that most of the comments on this site are in response to articles about the Jewish identity while the daily round-ups on the horrors occurring in Palestine and Israel against Palestinians are often met with silence, but I think that maybe most everyone here feels what I feel reading those, and that is disgust, sadness, horror, and exhaustion. I do agree with you that the best comments are the ones that are passionate. I think it is easier to post on Mondoweiss in a passionate way about what is happening because the level of knowledge of the conflict amongst most commenters is so high. It makes it, for lack of a better word, safer to use a certain vocabulary about what is happening than it is on other sites. I appreciate that, and I would be sad if that changed. I think it is more upsetting to me when people try to be fair and lukewarm about what is happening than when they are passionate one way or the other. There is no fairness here whatsoever, and to speak about the conflict in a fair and balanced way perpetuates the entire Zionist myth of the history of the region and peoples. There is a time to be calm and evenhanded and there is a time to be outraged. Thank you for your outrage. It gives me hope.
Rania, you and I and kalithea, I believe, are in a real sense, kindred spirits in a cruel world.
I am not an Arab so I do not feel an outsider the same way you do, yet I do have similar reactions to the things you talked about, and to your response to kalithea.
You compared the response of commenters to articles about Jewish identity and those giving the daily roundups of the horrors occurring. You are so right about the contrast, and about the probable reason for the latter, most everyone here feels what I feel reading those, and that is disgust, sadness, horror, and exhaustion.
I find the contrast more disturbing on the usual response to articles written by Palestinians about their daily life and experiences of the Zionist juggernaut. The actual responses are excellent and fitting, but seem always to be much fewer than for other articles.
There was one recent disgraceful exception, a thread that had 160 responses, “Thanks, my enemy, I love Palestine”, by Waleed from Gaza.
Someone hijacked it from the first post, and it was a disaster from then on, with Waleed being effectively ignored and certainly a bystander instead of receiving the recognition and response he so richly deserved.
I was one of the guilty parties in this, and finally suddenly realised what we had done, and hence did what was so needed, and apologized to him, and then Phil did likewise, link to mondoweiss.net.
I so agree with you that There is a time to be calm and evenhanded and there is a time to be outraged. I was outraged, and remain so because the culprit has never made his own apology or retraction to Waleed. It just brings tears to my eyes…
Do please continue to post here. Know you are valued, and never lose hope!
Kalithea,
I sympathize with the pain that you feel, but this last part is important enough to call out and ask you about:
“And Palestinians are going to decide whether they want a ONE-STATE SOLUTION? Reeeally? On what planet? Should I laugh or cry at the absurdity of this pretense?”
Kalithea, MW has educated me and a great many American Jews regarding Apartheid in Israel/Palestine so that it’s crystal clear what DANGER the Zionist state is in. Apartheid is a political nuclear bomb or super-gun that destroys regimes.
BUT, Kalithea, the Palestinians need to pull the trigger! They need to present a formal, one-state proposal that is the new official position of the PLO, with their diplomatic efforts working accordingly.
If, for some reason, we find ourselves 50 years from now and the Palestinians are still talking about two states, and are unable to pull the trigger on the One-State gun, then yes, the Palestinians might well be doomed to live in Bantustans.
It’s my opinion that we are still living in the pre-history of the conflict. The Israel/Palestine anti-Apartheid battle can’t really begin until that Palestinian proposal is on the table. And that proposal should look like a deal for equal rights for all religions and ethnic groups, like the Freedom Charter of the ANC. As the wronged party, it’s for Palestinians to do that. Liberal Jews who sympathize with their position aren’t in much position to do anything without that One-State proposal.
It’s my opinion that we are still living in the pre-history of the conflict. The Israel/Palestine anti-Apartheid battle can’t really begin until that Palestinian proposal is on the table.
There already is a Palestinian proposal on the table and it’s consistent with international consensus. The PLO and the NDA (Balad Party) have proposed that Israel end the occupation, that a Palestinian state be established in line with the 67 borders, that Israel must be a state for all its peoples, and that “justice” means the right of return for all the refugees in line with the applicable UN resolutions and international law.
FYI, that is exactly the same proposition that was adopted by the inhabitants of the Bantustans in the Union of South Africa and the neighboring occupied Namibian territory. The number of States really didn’t have anything to do with the Anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa and Namibia.
According to the NDA program, any other solution that implements the principle of equal co-existence, and equal sovereignty, can be accepted. The principle is not two states; the principle is the values of justice and of sovereignty for two nations. Haneen Zoabi said: These values [currently] lead us to solve the occupation problem via two states; and the problem of Zionism and racism via a state for all its citizens. And, of course, justice means the right of return for all the refugees. See the interview link to israeli-occupation.org
Hostage,
I learned something here, I read the article, but to sharpen my point:
As long as there is a division of opinion about what the new non-Zionist arrangement will look like, Israel and its allies will be able to play one side off against the other and prevent movement on the issue. The non-Zionist proposals need to settle out to something people in the world’s democracies can comprehend and rally around.
*The number of States really didn’t have anything to do with the Anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa and Namibia.*
Really?? How are equal rights laws, and a non-racist political agenda, supposed to be enforced without political representation and representation in the courts? And how can that happen without voting rights and citizenship in a common State?
The number of States really didn’t have anything to do with the Anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa and Namibia. . . . Really??
Of course. The result was a two state solution proposed by the UN and international consensus – South Africa and Namibia. The Union of South Africa had originally claimed that it had the right to terminate the mandate and annex the territory of South West Africa/Namibia. The very same questions came up regarding de facto annexation and the legal consequences of a prolonged occupation and the policy of apartheid in violation of international law and UN resolutions. See Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) link to icj-cij.org
Bear in mind that Article 2(7) of the UN Charter severely limits the right of the Organization to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or require a Member to submit such matters to settlement. So, from a legal standpoint, it is much easier to address the issue as an international conflict between States.
I might as well chime in and be counted. I mostly agree with Donald– decorum never hurts, especially if the idea is to win over others who are not quite there yet.
Look, I think eee is a sociopath, and I think Slater didn’t exactly show a lot of respect where he might have with no skin lost, and I have no idea at all what to say about Witty anymore — he is the Human Punching Bag.
But yelling rarely helps the yeller nor the yellee. I believe the most effective commentators here are Shmuel , David Samel and Hostage. I have never heard these guys ever raise their voice. My two cents –N49.
>> NorthOfFortyNine @ January 18, 2012 at 12:25 am
Solid post.
>> I believe the most effective commentators here are Shmuel , David Samel and Hostage. I have never heard these guys ever raise their voice.
+1.
4. Any generalization about “Jews”. Any general comment about any ethnic group is most likely stupid and anyway, anyone talking this way sounds like he should be wearing a sheet.
If you can’t find a sheet just wear tefillin, payot, and a tallit. I enjoy quoting the documentary record which illustrates that the representatives of the Zionist Organization, Jewish Agency, Government of Israel, and our sages spent a lot of time and expended a lot of their precious political capital talking that way and reinforcing or appealing to those ethnic stereotypes. Ironically, there are a number of Zionist regulars here who invariably come running and circle the wagons to defend those very same points of view.
I agree with the title but apart from the last one the suggestions don’t fit the title.
The suggestions fit better with not offending the sensitivities(justified to a varying degree) of a jewish target audience that is still lurking out there.
And I think that is an audience Phil very much wants to reach.
The title applies to many comments on this site, the suggestions cover only few of them.
I imagine there would be a use for a neutral sounding(not confrontational) acronym that would mean something along the lines of “There are a lot of redundant statements right now about how bad the bad guys are. There’s a lot of testosterone and competition in strong statements. They’re not necessarily wrong but they fit better with patterns such as group behaviour, ganging up, and flaunting credentials. Please consider toning them down.”
Give me a first, TDAZT(tone down the antizionist testosterone).
Donald,
As someone who has the highest respects for you and always enjoys reading your comments, I recognize your suggestion is well intentioned, though misplaced.
This topic has gone beyond being one we can address dispationately and to force ourselves to be moderate would be futile and pointless. I participate in a number of blogs and comments sectins that cover this topic and they are all heated, passionate and often sabotaged by pro Israeli commentators who are quick to drag the discussion into the gutter.
Having said that, I believe that the pro Israeli contigent need to be encouraged to partiticipate, not matter how offensice their language. I take it your suggestion would censor them too?
The reason I am opposed to the moderation you are proposing is 2 fold. By allowing he foul mouthed pro Israeli commenters to participate:
1. It spreads the message to the Israeli spin doctors that they are losing the debate, and losing it badly
2. Those moderates you are so concerned about get to see who is really behind the vile and abusive language.
I used to believe that the fence sitters needed to be coased into taking an interst in this topic, but I have come to realize that they will always be non commital. One only needs to consider the innefectual proposals by Jerry Slater to realize this. You may recall that his presciption to affect chance is peaceful dissent and popular demonstrations, even though he aknowledges that both are a waste of time.
There’s no point pretending to be removed and detached from what we come here to discuss. The topic is what it is. When I took a moral stand on this subject, I didn’t measure the validity of my position by the temperatments of those that share it. It was mine to make.
If so called moderates are going to be so easily frightened away by passionate debate, then perhaps they don’t have what it takes to begin with.
Jerry also alienated liberal and less liberal zionists to this site on the basis of his commentary that Israel had no right or obligation to defend Israeli civilians prior to cast lead, that the originating political relationships were criminal, thereby justifying Palestinian resistance, with no functional commentary on valid forms of that resistance.
Only fighters will feel invited to come and fight. I don’t see that that point-counterpoint fighting adds to anyone’s knowledge even.
The best setting is one that facilitates sincere and probing discussion.
If you are confident that your argument is compelling, then trust that and act on it. Don’t go to the character assassination path to win an argument, and then claim that you won an argument. (Winning an argument or a war is temporary anyway. The actual best that can be constructed/better argument is an improved “decision-tree”, that rests on moral principles – including political morality, that does consider others.)
Its difficult in war. I will repeat my dog story. That is that I brought a friends dog to a concert as a hippie youth. The dog started growling at another dog and looked like was going to end up in a vicious dog fight. I attempted to break up the dog fight by grabbing the dog that I was watching. In order to be unhindered in continuing to fight, the dog bit me (his “friend”). By that time, the dog had gotten distracted from the dog fight, and no dog fight occurred, but I had to have stitches and a tetanus shot.
War spins out, war of words. If not mediated.
There are presentation/discussion settings that can realize the full articulation of arguments without the shooting.
You are obviously speaking about yourself, and claiming to be a spokesperson for liberal Zionists.
Prior to Cast, there were no rockets being fired at Israel, so there was no need to defend Israel. In fact, it is beyind dispute that Israel were negligent in carrying out their duty to protect the Israeli public when it chose to break the ceasefire with an umprovoked and murderous attack on Gaza.
Whoever Jerry might have alienated, they certainly weren’t liberals.
Yes it is, but seeing as you’re are never sincere and avoid pobign discussion, that woudl exlcude you wouldn’t it?
If you are confident that your argument is compelling, then trust that and act on it.
The smart thing would have been to leave and dissipate the agression.
Hi Shingo. If I rewrote that post in light of the thread above, a big chunk would change into a call for less vitriol and I’d probably toss out examples 1 and 2, as they just generated more heat (though I still think that kind of war talk is bad).
As for civility, there’s no hard rule one could propose–besides, people will lose their tempers for good reasons and bad. But I think it would be best on the whole if we moderated the tone, because we might be scaring off people who could be persuaded.
On the censorship thing, I’d strike that out of my post too. But Phil already censors. I don’t know if you were around several years ago before then, but when he didn’t the place was a playground for both Holocaust deniers and openly hatefilled Arab-bashers. Phil banned some of both.
So what happens now is that the blog still attracts all sorts, bigots of both types and also non-bigots (the vast majority), but the bigots have to stay within Phil’s rules. My objection 3 is the one that bugs me perhaps more than the civility issue, which is always going to be a problem at most blogs, and on looking through the archives I find myself saying some of the same things in this thread (below) about a now vanished commenter. This particular guy openly gloried in calling himself an anti-semite–I think an atmosphere where someone like this is respected is not a good one, any more than an atmosphere where people glory in Israeli conquests is a good one. And so far as I could tell while this guy hung around (I think he was banned after he defended David Irving, or maybe that was coincidental), he wasn’t a pariah at all. Of course, there you find me suggesting he be tossed out. Okay, bad idea. What would have been a great idea would have been if everyone who saw that post had condemned the ideas it contained. But they didn’t. (You did, btw.) Why not? I think it’s that people in general tend to have one-track minds and embrace tribal values and that’s all of us, unless we really work at it. We come here and we pick sides and root for the home team. And the person who made the nasty remark was in many of his posts an extremely articulate supporter of the pro-Palestinian cause. Unfortunately he also had this other little tendency.
link
Hi Donald,
I can’t say I disagree with anything you’ve said and had this been your original post I would have given your post the thumbs up and left it at that.
Re examples 1 and 2, like I said, they are not clear cut cases of calling for violence. When one sees people like Slater (knowing his position of Israel and Zionism) getting on their soap box and making such board platitudes about humanitarian intervention, one can’t help but call him out on his inconsistency and hypocrisy. As I said, this was only compounded by the inadequacy of his answer.
I do agree that manyof us are gulty of falling silent when some Israeli critics cross the line on topics like the Holocaust, and indeed, allowing these statements to pass without being challenged is destructive. Having said that, it is as you say, a fine line. The comment you linked to for example covers many grey areas. While I disagree that the Holocause should not be covered in the school curriculum, I am just as opposed to the subject beign used to traumatize Jewish youths. I agre that the posts crossed the line, but I cannot say I don’t empathize with come of the sentiments expressd in it.
I am sill indifferent on the argument abot scaring off people who could be persuaded. There are ample resources for people to educate themselves on the IP conflict and it’s history. Someone complained in a post that becasue we are constantly covering the same ground with thansk to peopel like Witty, what the blog is stagnating. I thinkhe has a point. Must we have to cover 1948, 1967 Camp David and so on every time a newbie comes along?
I am glad that Phil censors infalamtory posts and keeps a lid on abuse. I also recall when the forum was a free forall and extremely toxic, so thinkgs have imporved considerably.
Yes, because the problem is TOTALLY not comments about how schools in Gaza are valid military targets, or how Palestinian society will always be “dependent” on the “welfare” of the Israeli occupation, or how everybody with an Arabic last name is an anti-Semite and should be named as such at every opportunity. Those comments are TOTALLY not the problem here, right? Keep letting those through moderation, go nuts, that’ll draw huge crowds to Mondoweiss.
I’m picking a very good time to withdraw from this place.
You’d be missed.
You’d be missed.
I second this, chaos4700.
Thank you. I’m trying not to completely leave, but to be blunt? This is getting bat-shit crazy. I’d like a pie chart showing the number of comments on Mondoweiss saying “Israel should be nuked!” versus the number of comments saying “The Nakba was faked!”
If there is a credibility problem on this blog with respect to a global audience, its credibility among Jews of European descent is really kinda low on the totem pole if one goes by scale of things.
i hope you don’t leave chaos.
I’d like a pie chart showing the number of comments on Mondoweiss saying “Israel should be nuked!” versus the number of comments saying “The Nakba was faked!”
yeah, absolutely. extreme zionists are regularly afforded inflammatory postings. it’s not about the way they say it, it’s what they say. it is as if one can promote ethnic cleansing here if done politely. that’s not a 2 way street here.
but i guess that’s just what we have to put up with to open the discourse up to zionists because the vast majority of the ones we get here are extremists. it’s weird.
A) The vast majority of Zionists are extremists, period.
B) We don’t have to put up with it. We could lift moderation and have free speech, instead of cutting slack to certain people because — quite frankly — they are Jewish and for no other reason. Which is exactly why Witty and eee and hophmi get away with what they’re doing here. Phil has a double standard when it comes to other Jews. It’s demonstrative.
Chaos4700
Please don’t leave.
Witty, eee and hopmi are representative of people Phil is trying to reach. They are his study cohort. JSlater is respected widely between people who Phil wants to engage in the conversation.
He has more understanding of moral dissonance that Zionism creates than any of us ( Although I was brought up with few nationalistic anti-Semites, and believe me, some of the dissonance is scarily similar), and much more patience with the slow process of change.
All the impatience of those who never had to undergo this untangling of neurons will not speed the process. Anyone who ever wanted to change their eating habits and struggled should understand Zionists who read Mondoweiss.
Zionism, like any nationalism (not to mention miriad of other beliefs) is emotional and not rational. Limbic brain, after puberty, is extraordinarily difficult to change.
Why? Why is Phil trying to reach them? More to the point, why is he willing to sacrifice people like Haytham and Cliff to cater to people like Witty, eee, and hophmi?
At some point, Phil has got to realize that some people are so deeply callous and fanatic and, well, racist that there just isn’t any point giving them a seat at the table because they will drive everyone else away. Sometimes, by force if possible, which is LITERALLY what happened to Seham and Haytham’s families at the hands of eee’s and dimadok’s.
Seriously. Saving Judaism from Zionism is going to take a lot more elbow grease than that, Phil.
Every bit of hatred spewed against Palestinians / Arabs by Zio-supremacists hurts the cause of Israel / Zionism.
According to my reading of his article, Donald is merely (and politely) suggesting that pro-Palestinian / anti-Zionism commenters avoid making overtly anti-Semitic comments or expressing violent anti-Israel sentiments which could hurt the pro-Palestinian cause by potentially alienating would-be supporters.
There really isn’t anything offensive or horrific about his suggestion. The resulting vitriol and outrage is truly puzzling.
“The resulting vitriol and outrage is truly puzzling.” -eljay
Eljay, with all due respect, do you spend a lot of your time puzzled? I find you puzzling.
Back in September, annie wrote to you: “haytham is smart educated and knows his stuff, so they are trying to take him out. that is the way it appears to me.”
Your response was the following:
“annie, I appreciate what you’re saying. But as I just wrote in another post that’s awaiting moderation (September 7, 2011 at 2:51 pm), Haytham is not the only person I haven’t stood up for in reponse to a charge of anti-Semitism.”
Note that this was just before you wrote this to me:
“You have a chip on your shoulder (i.e., you take things way too personally, even when they are not intended as personal attacks) and you have a short fuse.
…
I’m sorry you feel that I defended GF too much – even though he is verbally abused more often than you are, and with labels that are at least as vicious as anti-Semite.
But I haven’t labelled you an anti-Semite – in fact, I’ve stated that I don’t think you are one – and I haven’t insulted you in any other way.
…
I have no apologies to make to you, so I won’t make any.”
See, eljay, it doesn’t really matter who is “verbally abused more” if you are going to act on principles of honesty and justice. You clearly do not value these principles in open debate.
While Guilty Feat and others were throwing the label “anti-Semite” at me, without any basis, you defended your decision to speak out on GF’s behalf by claiming that he was attacked more often than I was, ignoring that the attacks on him were warranted because they were true while the attacks on me were unwarranted because they were false. Others pointed this out to you at the time more eloquently than I did but you agreed to disagree and withdrew.
You can tell a lot about someone by who they choose to defend and who they choose to ignore.
Very puzzling indeed.
>> Eljay, with all due respect, do you spend a lot of your time puzzled?
No, I don’t spend a lot of my time puzzled. And, with all due respect, you appear to still have that chip on your shoulder.
>> See, eljay, it doesn’t really matter who is “verbally abused more” if you are going to act on principles of honesty and justice.
So, according to you, the “principles of honesty and justice” dictate that one person cannot call you an anti-Semite but that many other people can attack that one person with – to quote you quoting me – “labels that are at least as vicious as anti-Semite”. That’s an interesting perspective on “honesty and justice”.
eljay:
And you’re more interested in pointing out obvious “chips” rather than being intellectually curious or empathetic. Many commenters here have noted my often harsh tone but, unlike you, they also have tried to understand why it’s there and have looked at my posts as a whole and not simply as “rants,” which is what you called them last time. This is not to suggest that you must agree with me or even interact with me. Just try to be fair and open-minded for once, at least.
It would be really refreshing to read something like that from you. Think about it. Or don’t.
To quote you “I have no apologies to make to you, so I won’t make any.” Come to think of it, it actually sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder, too. Why do I think you didn’t come by yours honestly, in contrast to me? Care to touch on that issue? Please, tell us about your background.
Also, admitting that you’re puzzled is not a sin. Stop acting like I insulted you on that score. So sensitive.
Additionally, I see that you added this gem:
“So, according to you, the “principles of honesty and justice” dictate that one person cannot call you an anti-Semite but that many other people can attack that one person with – to quote you quoting me – “labels that are at least as vicious as anti-Semite”. That’s an interesting perspective on “honesty and justice”. -eljay”
Listen, eljay, this has been explained to you in so many ways by multiple people. Calling Witty a Nakba-minimizer, eee a militarist, hophmi or winnica a shill, or guilty feat a liar is different than accusing someone of being a “low-grade anti-Semite,” with the backing for this claim being mostly “because I feel like he is.”
There’s truth, there’s lies and there are all kinds of things that are arguable but seriously, open your eyes. You can’t see the difference between “attacks” that are backed by facts and “attacks” that are simply attempts to shut down debate? You are literally the only one here who hasn’t grasped this fact. Even the crew I mentioned above know this. They have to in order to successfully manipulate people like you into thinking that speaking the truth forcefully indicates a “chip on a shoulder.”
>> Also, admitting that you’re puzzled is not a sin.
You’re right, there’s no sin to admitting that I’m occasionally puzzled. I am occasionally puzzled.
But you asked me if I “spent a lot of [my] time puzzled”. And I replied, “No, I don’t spend a lot of my time puzzled.”
And there’s no sin in answering truthfully.
It’s funny that my clear and honest answer to your direct question should offend you. So sensitive.
eljay:
We are getting nowhere–yet again–and I think that is because you are stubbornly refusing to understand my point.
For the final time: My point is that there is a difference between “attacks” that are backed by facts and “attacks” that are simply attempts to shut down debate. You defended the latter. Everyone else here (that is, everyone other than you, Guilty Feat, eee and hophmi) defended my right to engage in the former.
It’s as simple as that and there is nothing that you can do to change what you wrote then. Anyone can go and read your posts from September. Maybe you feel differently now but I wouldn’t know since you don’t share too much here.
Some people, like me, put themselves out there and share experiences, including painful ones, and others, like you, sit back and take little sarcastic and snide shots when they can. Is it satisfying? Do you feel fulfilled? No need to respond.
Haytham, I get that your thing is to be that angry “in your face” guy who tries to push buttons (or whatever the point of it is). Good for you, but it does nothing for me.
I find it interesting that I’ve posted many dozens of comments since that GF thread which offended you, and not one of them has interested or bothered you enough to merit a single comment or critique
But in this thread, where all I’m doing is agreeing with Donald’s suggestion to people on the pro-Palestinian side to temper their remarks in order to keep as many potential new supporters on-side, you show up out of nowhere to be all angry and in my face again.
Maybe it’s some sort of therapy for you. I don’t know. Regardless, knock yourself out.
eljay:
You are a master of missing the point. Since you’ve made this about you, again, let’s touch on that. I’m not sure how many of your posts I’ve read since September 2011 but it hasn’t been that many. Either way, there were many, many comments here that I wanted to add to or argue against, since that time. The fact that you have taken my decision to post on this thread to “mean something” greater than it does is bewildering and possibly, in my opinion, disingenuous.
What inspired me to post after you did was your comment that you were “puzzled” by the fact that the vast majority here were upset by this article. This is typical of your style. You are more about feigning ignorance, misunderstanding or indifference than you are about seeking out and hearing other points of view.
Let’s look at this in a superficial way, which is your obvious preference. From the comments that I’ve read on this thread, you are the ONLY commenter who claimed to not comprehend why this post has caused a stir. You are the only one who didn’t “get” why it could possibly be controversial. Do you wonder why I can’t possibly take your approach seriously?
Finally, with regard to your ridiculous comment about “therapy,” no, you are completely wrong. There has been nothing at all cathartic about this exchange with you. It is always difficult to discuss issues–especially volatile ones–with highly superficial people, especially those prone to mental shortcuts rather than critical thinking.
>> eljay:
>> You are a master of missing the point.
And you are a master baiter. :-D
Oh, come on, lighten up – that was just a joke! :-)
And, anyway, you’re not actually *that* good at it. ;-)
Haytham,
No matter what your reason, I, for one, am glad to see you back posting comments and hope you continue to do so. And, although eljay continues to be puzzled, I am not and totally understand and agree with your point. Sadly, eljay cannot see that he gave silent acceptance of GF’s slur against you, without cause. It would a good thing if eljay could apologize for that but if he can’t understand the point, and the undeserved hurt he caused, there will be no apology forthcoming, despite the fact that deserve to hear it from him. I hope you will continue to comment here on whatever topic you wish.
Donald,
On the broader issue, my two cents worth is that toning down the personal insults by all involved would no doubt be a good move, but I think that you have your examples all wrong, and your suggestions, although meant to be helpful, were more stifling and misleading than they were accurate. In a discussion specifically about “just war”, it is highly appropriate and even handed to apply the same precepts to possible US action against Israel as to any other country. To not do so, or to imply that doing so is beyond the pale is simply to admit that “just war” theory is simply a crock of shit to justify prejudices and immoral actions. And to complain about posters spewing vitriol when Slater himself is incapable of arguing without personal and sometimes vicious attacks seems to show a similar hypocrisy or blindness.
Although I appreciate their contributions and often agree with things said by both Donald and eljay here, my personal take is that they both are overly concerned with seeming reasonable (or being seen, as opposed to being, reasonable, which is most certainly not always the same thing. In a discourse such as I/P which has been skewed by lies for so long, in many cases what seems reasonable is in fact highly unreasonable, and what may at first seem unreasonable is simple justice, morality, or history.
I am reminded that Donald, when he first started posting here, came to Richard’s defense, no doubt because, on first glance, Richard seemed
reasonable to him. I and others urged him to read Richard a bit more and predicted that he too would eventually recognize the glaring hypocrisy amid Richard’s attempts at sounding “reasonable” and “liberal”. I think eljay was caught in the same error with GF. The only way that I know to promote the morality that what IS reasonable is much more important to grasp than what simply SEEMS reasonable, is to allow an open discussion on these issues where “SEEMS” has been distorted by long term omission and lies.
I forgot to mention that, despite whatever I think of the original post by Donald, I have to say that the discussion here in this thread has been first class. This place has always been heads above any other comment section anyplace else that I have seen, and I mean that sincerely, despite the vitriol, which is quite mild by internet standards.
And, anyway, you’re not actually *that* good at it.
Ever consider the possibility that he wasn’t trying to be good at “it”? Maybe it would make you more open to his point and less defensive. Try it out.
>> Sadly, eljay cannot see that he gave silent acceptance of GF’s slur against you, without cause.
Errrr…no he didn’t. (It’s all in this thread, starting at this post.)
I considered GF to be a generally reasonable person undeserving of the amount of flack he kept getting from others so, in the thread linked to above, I spoke out in his defence. Haytham appeared out of nowhere and got all angry and “in my face” over it. (That appears to be his M.O., and I guess it usually works for him.)
But I clarified my reason for speaking out on behalf of GF, I stated that GF should back up the accusation he’d made in the other thread or withdraw it, and I stated that I did not think that Haytham was anti-Semitic.
If Haytham can’t wrap his head around that, it really is too bad. And since I’ve got nothing more to say about it, I won’t be returning to this thread.
To tree–
My memory of this is a bit vague, but when I first came here and saw the crazies on both sides (before Phil started throwing out the most egregious, one of whom I still see commenting at a liberal Zionist site, or did, when it was still active) I did think Richard and I would be allies. He made the right sounds about reconciliation. I thought he just needed a bit of nudging to see that Israel’s behavior was worse than he admitted. So I nudged. And nudged some more. No motion. At first I was perplexed. Eventually I started getting ticked off.
None of my post, which I’d rewrite if I had a time machine handy, was meant to say that we shouldn’t be harshly critical of Zionism. But I don’t think the comment section here is quite so clean and virtuous on the pro-Palestinian side as people imagine. You can get away with saying pretty much anything if you’re on the right team–that’s how it is at most blogs and this place is no exception. (There are exceptions, but this ain’t one of them.) As for vitriol, it’s pretty bad in most blog comment sections and partisanship is the norm. It’s why I wouldn’t really trust any blog comment section I can think of to give a fair look at any subject. Go to some liberal blog, at least the ones I’ve visited, and you quickly see what the party line is. Or alternatively, there will be two party lines and they regularly rip into each other.
I’m a big fan of the front page, the blog itself. (Which, btw, isn’t going to be seeing any more posts from me. Not that Phil has offered it but even if he did I’ve got nothing that should go up there. And what I did put up would need a rewrite.)
Donald,
If you remove the demand for condemnation, the litmus test, you might see me in more positive light, based on what I do advocate for, even work for, including communicating to the Jewish community.
In actual discussion, I do not let go by the assumption that “everything is right with Palestinians, that they should just accept their fate”. I insist that people review the history, from the rational Palestinian perspective which I describe clearly and candidly. I don’t use rancorous language at all, but I do describe their history and condition objectively to the best that I know, without accepting diversion.
My point in doing so, is to get to a status of problem solving, that the problem is a joint problem, that we should put our heads together to solve, leaving both communities standing.
But I don’t think the comment section here is quite so clean and virtuous on the pro-Palestinian side as people imagine.
Thanks for the personal reply, Donald. And I certainly applaud the courage to both make the original post and to stick around to respond. Kudos for that.
My point was not that the comment section is “clean and virtuous” on the pro-Palestinian side. It isn’t, but my point is that I think trying to make it so is counterproductive to truth and justice. My point was that limiting discussion to just what is deemed reasonable to supposed “Jewish sensitivities” is a mistake and only results in continuation of an unjust status quo. Only by open discussion can true “reasonableness’ be found. For example, I found the discussion that followed the long ago post you linked above from PG fascinating and a good example of openness leading to knowledge and a delineation of what is and is not reasonable, better made openly through discussion, whether heated or not, than simply assumed and self-censored.
Is it possible to define, rather than simply give examples of, the boundary between sane and crazy discourse on this topic?
Errrr…no he didn’t.
That may be your perception but it is not mine. I’m not talking about Haytham’s perception here, although it may be close to my own. You claimed you defended GF because she/he(I still don’t know which is correct) was being “crapped on” and didn’t like posters being “crapped on” unfairly, and then failed to defend Haytham when GF majorly and totally unfairly “crapped” all over him by baselessly calling him an anti-semite. Then suddenly it was a “personal” dispute, that you hoped they would get over and make up. Different standards were applied by you to GF and Haytham, something that I would have not expected from you, given your posting history here. I was quite shocked by your response at the time. I’m not standing up for Haytham here, who can clearly state his own arguments. I’m telling you what my perception was and is.
And since I’ve got nothing more to say about it, I won’t be returning to this thread.
Sounds like my suggestion of your defensiveness on this issue was spot on.
Witty said: “My point in doing so, is to get to a status of problem solving, that the problem is a joint problem, that we should put our heads together to solve, leaving both communities standing.”
Witty ignores that when Israel was “created,” its soldiers–through various means–depopulated and destroyed more than 400 Palestinian villages and displaced and/or dispossessed over 700,000 indigenous Palestinian civilians.
Witty ignores that Israel continues to displace and/or dispossess Palestinians today, in East Jerusalem and elsewhere. Witty also ignores the 711,000 illegal Israeli settlers in the West Bank, along with their illegal structures (including what can only be described as a land confiscation wall) stolen land–including farm land–illegal businesses, illegal use of natural resources (that is, the resources that Israel proper isn’t already stealing) and of course their racist violence against Palestinians, especially children, and the Jews-only roads.
Witty ignores that Israel has the 4th most powerful army in the world with as many as 500 thermonuclear weapons, including rumored nuclear submarines for second-strike capability, while Palestinians do not have one tank, one fighter jet, one modern missile, one military base, etc. Witty ignores that it is Israel that demands “security guarantees” from the unarmed Palestinians, while at the same time massacring Palestinian (police personnel who were in training) along with all the women and children it murders. Witty ignores that Israel has never fulfilled one single signed commitment with the PLO, neither in letter nor in spirit.
But please, so long as we can disregard ALL OF THAT, Witty says let’s “put our heads together to solve” how we can “leave both communities standing.”
Tree wrote:
Tree: I should have let you make the argument. You summed it up very nicely. Thank you.
Just when it seems you’re set a new benchmark in terms of hypocrisy, delusion and lack of self awareness, you somehow manage to up the stakes and pull out something truly remarkable like this statement.
“For example, I found the discussion that followed the long ago post you linked above from PG fascinating and a good example of openness leading to knowledge and a delineation of what is and is not reasonable, better made openly through discussion, whether heated or not, than simply assumed and self-censored.”
Not that long ago. I think most of us around then are around now. Mid 2010. PG vanished around early 2011.
Your stance in favor of uncensored thought obviously has merit (though in fact Phil does censor things here) and I’ll accept the notion that I’m too quick to want to banish people. But I didn’t think that discussion ended where it should have. There should have been general agreement that PG’s views were appalling, just as there should be general agreement that the Gaza War was one giant war crime. Richard accuses me of having “litmus tests” and he’s right. People should have a consistent standard on human rights and basic decency. That’s the litmus test. PG flunked it badly. Which was a shame, because he was a very articulate opponent of a war on Iran, while saying some really despicable things about Jews. And people who in various posts came to PG’s defense when he was saying such things also fail.
And also, it’s not like Holocaust denial/revisionism is a dead issue around here. I can’t always judge what some people are trying to argue (and can’t help wondering if that has something to do with the threat of banning), but occasionally it’s clearcut, as when someone gives a book recommendation to a work by a Holocaust denier. Which happened a few weeks ago.
Maybe the tradeoff for having a pro-Palestinian blog is having people like PG pop up. But I haven’t noticed that at other places. I haven’t seen Abu AsadKhalil (who refers to Israel as the “Zionist entity”) ever show the slightest tolerance for Holocaust deniers or anti-semites.
” more important to grasp than what simply SEEMS reasonable, is to allow an open discussion on these issues where “SEEMS” has been distorted by”……Tree
Ah tree, …the “seeming” to be instead of being….you described it perfectly….I had been trying to put my finger on this and the ‘SEEMS’ made the light go on.
Donald,
Not that long ago. I think most of us around then are around now. Mid 2010. PG vanished around early 2011.
2010 is ages ago, and so yesterday, don’t you know? The nineteen eighties, however, were mere moments ago. I’m clearly approaching that certain age where time goes both slowly and quickly at once. ;-)
But I didn’t think that discussion ended where it should have. There should have been general agreement that PG’s views were appalling, just as there should be general agreement that the Gaza War was one giant war crime.
At its most negative interpretation, PG’s initial statement was no worse than the type of comment eee makes here at least once a week, i.e., its all the Palestinians’ fault (every last one of them) that they were ethnically cleansed because they didn’t accept partition, or they “chose war”. And eee just keeps on spewing this stuff out, despite becoming quite the broken record. He hasn’t contributed one new thought here that I can see, and his stuff isn’t even original to him, since it merely parrots a standard Zionist hasbara line from way back. I wouldn’t ban eee, and I wouldn’t ban PG either, whose sins are considerable less offensive in my interpretation.
My take on the discussion that ensued was that PG either “clarified” or “walked back” his original comment and his “explanation”, whether bonafide, or merely an attempt to take back the original intent, had considerable merit. I think that in general many if not most people tend to leap to a conclusion that if you look for reasons or explanations for horrible occurrences that you must, ipso facto, be attempting to “blame” someone, whether the victim or not. At least in PG’s later comments that was clearly not what he was trying to do, anymore than Susan Sontag was blaming the 9-11 victims in her essay, or anyone else who pointed out the perpetrators’ stated reason for the attack.
Now, such a commonly made assumption that “explanantion” equals “blame”, while it seems “reasonable” to make, is not at all reasonable. It is an illogical leap. And its a double leap to assume that “They/he/she deserved it” is implied. If one truly wants to mean “Never again,” then one must search for reasons, and there are usually multiple ones for why and how something happened, and I don’t think that any proposed explanation should be dismissed out of hand without an airing of the reasoning behind it.
For an example of the value of looking for explanations or reasons, let me use a recent example from here in LA. There was a serial killer on the loose until just recently, killing homeless men. He has been caught. He stalked his victims before killing them. One of his homeless victims had been interviewed, by the LA Times I think, during the killing spree, but of course prior to his being stalked an killed, and had said that he was not afraid of being killed. This was apparently why the killer chose to stalk and kill him, in particular. Now, most emphatically, the poor homeless victim was NOT to blame for his own murder. The only one to blame for that is the murderer himself. Neither is the Times to blame for the man’s murder. However, clearly, the man’s murder was an end result of having been identified and interviewed by the Times. Why is this important to know? Because, in the future, the Times should now be aware that by interviewing him and identifying him, they unintentionally marked him for murder in the murderer’s fevered mind. Precautions could be taken. No “blame” is attached to anyone but the murderer.
Why do I think this topic is particularly important? Because there is this totally ahistorical myth that “no one else” helped the European Jews and that only the Zionists did so. Both parts of the myth are wrong. Why is this important to point out? Because so many otherwise reasonable people, like Jerome Slater for example, believe the myth that only Israel can or will protect them against some possible future threat against Jews. Its fantasy. Not because Jews are on average any different than anyone else, but rather because they are essentially like everyone else. Israel will easily abandon those Jews whom it doesn’t find useful to its own survival, just as the early Zionists did, and exploit them when the exploitation suits its purposes. They did it with Yemeni Jews early in 20th century Palestine, they did it with German Jews and any European Jew who didn’t fit their definition of “good human material” , they did it with Jews in the DP camps, they did it with Holocaust survivors, with Russian Jews in the ’80s who wanted to go to the US or Germany instead of Israel, they did it with leftist Argentinian Jews in the ’80s as well, when it was in Israel’s interest to keep the arms deals with the military junta there. Does this ability and predilection make Israel any worse than any other country? No. but it is madness to assume that Israel will do something that no other country would do, which is to do something it considers contrary to its own interests, especially when there are so many examples of Israel’s abandonment and exploitation of Jews that prove otherwise. But apparently, this “seems” unreasonable to point out, and therefore the idea must be censored and any poster pointing this out is liable to be raked through the coals, considered unclean, and be a candidate for banning.
Meanwhile….. eee will tell us yet again that the Palestinians brought this all on themselves and Israel will go out of its way to defend any Jew…… except of course, that there are a lot of Jews who aren’t REALLY JEWS because they don’t think in lockstep with eee, and he’s happy to point out the growing number of these ersatz Jews, especially among the more articulate and compassionate Jewish posters here.
“Witty ignores”
Haytham,
You don’t have a clue what I ignore and what I understand and include in my reasoning and presentation.
Please resist the temptation to imagine that you understand what another thinks, especially if you haven’t communicated with me directly and respectfully.
Donald,
On your litmus tests. You read one comment and conclude that I fail your litmus test, even a hundred comments fails your litmus test of not including a condemnation and/or demand.
And then you know that you’ve read elsewhere of me making cogent and effective comments insisting that insensitive pro-Zionists incorporate the history and current experience of the Palestinians in their understanding and advocacy.
From those two often repeated experiences, you must have some sense that I am not the simplistic “hasbarite”.
@tree
As I already replied to another of your comments, you are creating another myth or shall we say a straw-myth.
Where is this totally ahistorical myth that “no one else” helped the European Jews and that only the Zionists did so besides your imagination?
I am not a Liberal Zionist so I have disagreements with Slater, but you are misrepresenting hum when you state “he believe[s] the myth that only Israel can or will protect them against some possible future threat against Jews.” Unfortunately, I don’t believe there are any Liberal Zionists interested in dialogue left on the site to ask if they do in fact believe the myth.
Witty:
You are like a petulant child. You remind me of my son, who is almost 3 years old, only you’re neither as sharp, nor as humorous.
I know what you ignore because I read what you write. What you ignore is actually what speaks loudest about your writing. You are so very transparent, both in your thoughts and your motives.
And by the way, your righteously touting of your “reasoning and presentation,” especially considering that you are almost universally mocked and scorned here due to your lack of intellectual honesty, is one of the funniest things I’ve read at MW. Thanks for that.
Yeah, spot on Haytham, you nailed that petulant child.
And yeah, the joke’s on him for saying “the rational Palestinian perspective which I describe clearly and candidly.”
Lol!
I’m going to post here and probably quit.
If I were to rewrite the post, I’d focus on one thing–point 3 (though I think they all have validity). It doesn’t criticize people for pointing out that the Zionists didn’t do enough to save Jews–it says “Any suggestion that some sort of Jewish writing or behavior created the Nazis. At best this just seems wrong. Perhaps some Jews joined in the almost ubiquitous anti-semitism of Western culture before WWII and said deplorable things. By all means condemn any who did, but it doesn’t explain Nazi fanaticism. ”
So there’s no criticism of what, say, Hostage writes on this subject. I’m in no position to evaluate what he writes. I don’t know enough. Somehow people thought I was criticizing such claims. Nope. Assuming he’s right, which is beyond my pay grade, such things should be discussed.
So what I’d emphasize is the disturbing fact that we did have a poster here in 2009-2011 who said that the Jews did something that turned the Germans into monsters. He called himself an anti-semite. He cited David Irving and denied Irving was a Holocaust denier. And while some of us on the pro-Palestinian side attacked him, others defended him. I supplied one link to him above and another is here–
link
I pick this guy out because he was out in the open and should have been a pariah, but try googling his posts and he wasn’t. Some of us criticized him and some defended him. Why? He’s not the only one either. He’s just the most obvious, though I remember another clearcut case. And a few weeks ago someone recommended a Holocaust denial book.
Most people here aren’t anti-semites, but what happens is that there’s a tendency not to see it when someone is. It’s all part of that blog tribal culture thing we have going on.
Tree, PG may have tried to walk it back, but that original post in the earlier link was clear as day in showing his callousness. And it’s consistent with his other posts.
This blog is supposed to be about the human rights of Palestinians, but we don’t make a convincing set of advocates if some of us leap to defend the views of people like PG.
And on my point 4–suppose a blog comment section contained a post by someone who said that the question to be asked about a serial killer of women is what the women did to make him a monster? And some people defended that comment? Would one want to go to that blog for a serious discussion of feminism in America?
Anyway, I think MW is a great blog doing great work, but the comments section doesn’t always live up to the ideals we espouse, not by a long shot.
I’m falling asleep–I was googling various past threads for hours and this final comment is probably getting incoherent. But this has been bugging me for years. And no, it doesn’t mean that anti-semitism in the current day kills anywhere near as many people as anti-Arab bigotry. But that’s not the point.
And on my point 4–suppose a blog comment section contained a post by someone who said that the question to be asked about a serial killer of women is what the women did to make him a monster? And some people defended that comment? Would one want to go to that blog for a serious discussion of feminism in America?
Frankly, I would find such a question interesting, but would surely not take the killer’s answer as fact, but rather as a window into his psychology, and maybe as a precautionary tale of how to avoid pissing off a psychopath.
I have to agree with anonymouscomments here. It seem your post was precipitated by one of Jeffrey Blankfort’s comments, and perhaps Slater’s response to it, but yet you seem reluctant to elaborate on what you found offensive in it. Your analogy doesn’t work with what Blankfort said, and despite what Bruce believes, the antisemitic outlook of Zionism is well documented.
Here’s an analogy that I believe works to illustrate Blankfort’s point. Suppose a woman or group of women were to claim that all women were destined to be weak and submissive and needed to be raped in order to understand their predestined lot in life. Does this mean that all women are to blame for this small group of women’s toxic proclamations? No. Does this mean that all women “deserve” rape because this group of women are idiotic mysogynists? No. But does it mean that this group of women should be condemned for making misogynistic statements and feeding and reinforcing ugly sentiments towards women? Yes, indeed, and the fact that they are women and doing this should make it all the more appalling. That’s the equivalent to what Blankfort was saying. As a woman, I certainly wouldn’t want that group of women in charge of anything, most certainly not my future. They don’t get a pass for their misogynism just because they are women, anymore than the early Zionists get a pass for their essential antisemitism because they were Jews. If you can tell me what’s offensive about my reasoning above, perhaps you can convince me of the point you are trying to make about Jeffrey’s comment.
“You can tell a lot about someone by who they choose to defend and who they choose to ignore.”
When it comes to defending a member of the tribe over an outsider, truth is sacrificed for cowardliness.
kalithea:
Forgive my presumptuousness in saying this, but from one person with a “chip” on his shoulder to another, I want to sincerely thank you for adding this:
“When it comes to defending a member of the tribe over an outsider, truth is sacrificed for cowardliness.”
This is how I felt back then, and how I feel today, and I’ve written as much, but it’s nice to see someone else understands. It’s what makes me sad about not participating so much in the MW comments. I really feel like no matter how righteous, the only “anti-Zionist” views that are truly safely held and protected here are held by MWers who happen to be Jewish. Everyone else is suspect.
This is what Haytham said in September:
This thread is about how we who comment relate to each other and to what is written, in the context of the wider influence of Mondoweiss.
It raises the question of whether others share Haytham’s feeling and conclusion:
1) Do you, a Jew, consider that is or is not the unspoken reality here?
2) Have you, as a Palestinian or Arab, had similar feelings to Haytham, or, even tentatively, drawn any kind of similar conclusion?
3) For you, neither Jew nor Arab, is there any sense of such an underlying bias here?
4) Phil and Adam, what is your take, what is the site position, on this issue?
I’ll tell you right now I see EXACTLY what Cliff and Haytham see going on here, and I agree with their assessments. It’s the reason I stated for withdrawing several months back, for several months (until I noticed someone actually asking about me and that was the only reason I came back).
Phil means well but hasn’t fully committed to being truly colorblind, as it were. To be blunt.
Don’t mention it. I get it. I’m just returning a favor someone else did for me.
I always say, the cause for humanity is the most noble of all no matter how down and dirty the fighting (war of words) gets. You just have to keep believing it and turn off the noise. Someone will always have your back; and that person won’t necessarily be part of your tribe, but they will often be someone who’s been in your shoes.
Haytham,
I don’t understand why you would bother to be offended by eljay. His entire contribution to this website is in the form of picking one or two soundbites from richard witty and regurgitating them, parodying them ad nauseum. What I’m getting at is that the intellectual pool is rather shallow on that end.
In addition, eljay is Donald’s sidekick. Whatever Donald says, one finds eljay in the amen corner.
Also, Donald is not personally or emotionally invested in this so-called political conflict. And his experience with Israelis and Palestinians is elementary. In other words, he has a long way to go before he can claim to be an objective voice of reason on the issue at hand.
I value Palestinian voices here. Abir Kopti comes to mind. I wish there were more spokespeople from mainstream Palestinian organizations – political parties, national institutions, from Hamas to the People’s Party to whatever. All the Arab parties in Israel. Speakers from the Palestinian diaspora in Lebanon, London, Egypt and the Gulf.
It’s not like welcoming the ‘hinged’ is some kind of insult against the ‘unhinged.’
Chaos:
I also understand the urge to leave mixed in with the desire to stay. It’s all very frustrating.
And, sadly, that might be the worst part…
Don’t leave Chaos…..don’t capitulate.
Please.
Alright, alright. I didn’t say I was leaving again. :) But this place has become almost insanely stressful to me. Incidentally, the mobile version hasn’t worked on my phone for the last few days, but frankly that’s been a blessing in disguise.
I must say that I have never felt suspect or subject to disapproval here, except for the Professor Slaters of this world. I fully fit his description, as the police would say, of an anti-Zionist, but I don’t call myself Jewish and indeed think that there is no scientific test for being Jewish or not. Though there was one definition, which rather pleased me, offered by Professor Falk, which seemed to make no problem about including an active member of the Church of England under his big Jewish umbrella.
Despite not sharing your uneasiness in this respect I’m very glad to see you back.
this has been a fascinating discussion. I’ve read almost the entire thread and I have to say — there is some major talent on this board.
for what it’s worth, I found myself resonating to both points of view. I think there’s something to Donald’s original post, and I think there’s something to the dissenting point of view. The whole thing puts me in mind of those impassioned political discussions in early 20th century European and Russian cultures. Revolutionaries. Smoke-filled salons. Heated discussions that went on into the night, accompanied by endless glasses of tea or schnapps or whatever. People who were basically on the same side falling out over some article of dogma…
… sorry, no intention to offend anyone :>)
I posted somewhat regularly on Phil’s blog when he was still located at The New York Observer, that must have been in 2004, 2005. At that time it was about the only venue in which to discuss the American/Israeli relationship, and to raise concerns about American interests. It’s amazing to see how the discourse has moved out into mainstream newspapers since then. You can comment almost every day if you want to on NYT threads or WaPo threads, not to mention the big mainstream magazines and websites. Even the Reuters website, a small commentary there where you can get in an anti-war message whenever you feel so inclined. I don’t remember any of this being available only a few short years ago, the mainstream press was marching so in lockstep with the Israel lobby that no reader would raise a peep for fear of being thought anti-semitic or worse. Crazy was more like it. Phil’s blog at the New York Observer was really a vanguard for liberal dissenters to the stifling Israeli line.
Going back to Donald’s original post: even though I did agree with his appeal for civility and moderation, even though I myself react against some of the more stridently impassioned anti-Israel posts and think they do in fact devalue the blog — even so, I also have to say this: it doesn’t matter.
I see Donald as starting from the premise that a reading of MondoWeiss has the potential to influence new readers to the liberal MondoWeiss message about the American/Israeli relationship, and I do not agree with that premise.
New readers can find validation here for already formed opinions on Israel and the Israeli lobby in the US. Or they can find validation here for the idea that there are anti-semites under every bed so let’s bomb Iran quick, let there be no light between the foreign policy of the two separate countries, it is anti-semitic to suggest that the US has her own interests separate from Israel.
if it takes so little for an impression of anti-semitism to be formed by those already primed to see “haters” in Americans like myself — I am careful to keep my commentary exclusively to standing up for American interests, not attacking Iran because it is antithecal to our interests, not allowing a foreign lobby to further degrade the US political system etc. — if someone like me can be labeled anti-semitic, then the term really does start to lose value. What have the Israeli apologists got left to say to someone who advocates nuking Israel? They’ve already shot their wad on innocuous little antiwar peace & justice types like me … and obviously I’m not going to shut up now, just when it’s starting to get interesting!
wonderful blog, thank you all for being here and being so eloquent.
thank you Brenda for your long readership. I urge you to speak up more.
And yes I echo your view that the comment board at this site is one of its great strengths, and great talents have come out of it i the classic social media way.
“brenda says:
January 19, 2012 at 11:10 am”
That is a great/accurate comment that really does sum up the whole question of debate on Israel.
Donald’s post needs to be confronted head-on, starting with his item number 1.
“ A suggestion that Israel be nuked or might be nuked by the US. Completely insane.”
This is worded sloppily or worse. American did not “suggest” (i.e. propose or advocate) that anyone be nuked. He did point out that in an extreme scenario, the US could nuke Israel, assuming that all other measures of restraint had failed. American made this point in response to multiple claims that Israel is too strong to be attacked. That is to say, it was not American who first raised the nuclear issue.
First there were numerous hypothetical discussions about what if the US had developed nukes earlier in WWII (i.e. if it got involved earlier on a Just War basis) and could have saved more Jews. This is what you get when you start discussing cockamemie rationalizations for starting wars. Nuclear weapons are a major fact of life, so you can’t discuss starting wars without talking nuclear options.
The nuclear issue was later raised again by Jerome Slater, who, when repeatedly asked why he didn’t support US intervention in Gaza under his Just War theories, said this:
“The second reason is that Israel is indeed so powerful that the casualties on all sides would be horrendous–even if we leave aside the possibility that an Israel on the verge of defeat would use nuclear weapons–which would be more likely to occur than not.”
That is, Slater claimed (absurdly) that Israel would actually attempt to fight a US intervention, and if it was “on the verge of defeat”, would nuke the US.
Donald himself said: “I agree that the US shouldn’t have intervened militarily against Israel in Gaza–for one thing, Israel has 200 nukes.”
In response, American pointed out the absurdity of these claims and then Donald accuses him of “suggesting” a nuclear attack. Nice one Donald.
But to return to the substantive issue: the fact (and it is, obviously, a fact) that the US could nuke Israel. It is also a fact that Israel applies nuclear blackmail against Europe and the US : (“We have the capability to take the world down with us” link to en.wikipedia.org)
These are simply the brutal realities of the nuclear age, which have been with us for some time. Where was Donald during the Cold War? All nuclear powers automatically consider *all* possible deployments of nuclear weapons and would be crazy if they didn’t.
As for Donald’s idea that military conflict between the US and Israel is “unthinkable”, I would point out that
(a) it already happened (The USS Liberty)
(b) Admiral Mullen pointedly raised the Liberty issue with the Israelis when he was telling them not to attack Iran (he told them not to even think about a false-flag attack against a US ship, designed to draw the US in)
(c) The US repeatedly let it be known that it would not allow Israel to fly over Iraq to attack Iran. What does this mean? Since the Israelis are notorious for violating airspace, this had no meaning at all unless there was a credible threat to shoot down any attempt to cross Iraqi airspace.
If I recall, point (c) was even mentioned in the MSM (and by Zbig Brzezinski) but Donald seems to think that these realities should not be discussed, despite the current situation, in which:
1. Israel is making a determined attempt to precipitate a WAR between Iran and the US.
Such a war would completely pole-axe the US economy, which simply cannot withstand $12/gallon for any length of time. It is not a question of Iran “closing the gulf”. It is that Iran can easily take out Saudi and other oil installations (which are, to put it mildly, extremely vulnerable).
The economic chaos would lead to the collapse of the US empire in very short order, since it is already in obvious decline and is structurally weak.
Unlike many politicians, the US military is acutely aware of these facts, and conveys them to the President every time a President starts talking about attacking Iran. Do you really think Bush Jr. didn’t WANT to attack Iran? Of course he did, he desperately wanted to do it. But the military told him what the consequences would be, and he made one of his few rational decisions and “Decided” not to be known as the President who destroyed America.
2. The US military and intelligence communities are acutely aware of the constant hostile behavior of Israel toward US interests. They realize that Israel simply doesn’t care about the fate of the US. They are frustrated that mentioning this is taboo in Washington.
3. Since Israel uses military force and threats of force (including nuclear blackmail) as its first and only response to all situations, the US is compelled to consider Israel in a military context. As American points out, the Pentagon has a huge library of scenarios and plans that it studies and maintains. When it comes to the Middle East, those scenarios have to include worst case possibilities.
4. It is well known that the US maintains plans to attack and disable the nukes of other powers, such as Pakistan. Looked at objectively, it is clear that Israel is a more dangerous rogue state than Pakistan, because it has much more powerful delivery options for its nukes and also frequently threatens to use them.
At the moment, the Islamists in Pakistan do not control the nukes. At the moment, Bibi *does* control the nukes in Israel and it’s not clear to me that he isn’t completely nuts.
5. There is actually a precedent. Remember when South Africa, Israel’s partner in nuke development, decided, all of its own accord, to abandon nuclear weapons? Well, the story I’ve heard from South Africans is that is wasn’t voluntary. The US told them they were going to do it. Or else.
Of course, unlike Israel, South Africa didn’t possess second-strike capability etc, so the threats didn’t have to be all that heavy. There were many ways the US could “persuade” the South Africans to give it a rest.
Now suppose the ever-increasing penetration of the Ultra-Orthodox sector within the Israeli military and government continues to expand (and it will). Eventually *they* will control the nukes. Then what does the US do?
Does Donald really believe that the US military won’t have to consider all possible scenarios when that bunch of nuclear-armed crazies, located in the world’s critical energy region, start making their moves? When the President is confronted by threats of this magnitude, Congress simply doesn’t matter.
6. Currently there are 3 carrier groups in or heading toward the Gulf. Why are they there?
Are they there to deter the Iranians? No. Because everybody in this game knows the Iranians are not going to start this war. Also, if the US really believed that the Iranians *were* going to attack, there is no way they would put the carriers in the Gulf itself, where they are far too vulnerable.
Are they there to attack Iran? No, because again they would keep the carriers out of the Gulf in that scenario. Also, you would see a massive build up of other air firepower – the carriers are simply not enough.
So what are they doing there? They are there to deter Israel. By putting carriers groups in such easy reach of Iranian counter-strike, the US is making sure that Israel knows it will be blamed for their loss if Israel attacks. Particularly after repeated public statements making it clear Israel does *not* have a green light for this and then the cancellation of the joint exercise.
One of the targets of an Israeli raid would be Bushehr, which is on the Gulf coast. So the Israelis would have to fly past the carriers to get there. This puts the US in a position to give a very firm “no”.
And of course, the media assumes the carriers are there to threaten Iran, so it’s hard for the Lobby to make Obama look “weak on Iran”.
BTW, in case you wonder why the USN is sending carrier groups into a confined body of water where they are extremely vulnerable to missiles, torpedoes and mines: politicians in Washington routinely use the carriers in this way, overriding the Navy’s objections to putting them at such extreme risk. The public mostly doesn’t realize how vulnerable these things are, especially to modern “smart” torpedoes that are almost impossible to stop.
The point here is that the US is compelled *currently* to view Israel as a dangerous and unpredictable military player and the US cannot avoid taking steps to deal with this situation.
Donald doesn’t want that to be mentioned, for some reason.
American made this point after having demanded why Slater wouldn’t approve of US intervention to prevent the Gaza slaughter. Various people claimed that it was inconceivable for the US to act against Israel, because Israel has nukes.
Leaving aside the question of whether it might be technically possible for the US to take out all of Israel’s long-range nukes, I would point out that it doesn’t matter. When Israel attacked the USS Liberty, they knew the US had nukes and could vaporize them if it wanted to. Yet they still attacked a US ship.
If the US decided to enforce a no-fly zone over Gaza and had to shoot down a few planes to prove they weren’t bluffing, Israel would have backed down. They would not have nuked the US, for the reason that American mentioned.
So the fact that Israel is a nuclear power is irrelevant. It is totally dependent on the US, and a no-fly zone could probably be imposed simply by transmitting back-door codes to the software running in the fire-control systems of the US-made fighter aircraft that Israel uses to slaughter civilians.
In other words, US intervention was perfectly possible in Gaza and does indeed provide an interesting test case of the Just War theory. The Israelis would have panicked at the first sign of US intent and the slaughter would have been prevented without a shot being fired. So the only real question is US intent.
As an aside, I think the Just War theory is a total crock, and I notice that neither Slater nor the dear-departed warmongering Hitchens ever seemed interested in getting themselves killed in stupid wars, however just they claimed them to be.
wonderful summation, opaleye, really cool.
its clear its arab/muslim shooting season, we of course dont hunt israelis or jews, that would be unthinkable. what is really off putting to arab commentators is that this double standard, we must be polite while our whole world is being pounded to bloody dust, is unnoticed or unremarked.
Mr. Weiss was at least agnostic if not actually supportive of the bombing, the actual bombing of libya, but ah no those are just arabs down there, for a moment i was worried, i met a libyan israeli in germany years ago, he was a vicious racist and dissimulator, but i am glad he was not under nato bombs, really you think we regard ourselves as lowly apparently as you see us, if you dont want people to talk about killing you and yours stop attacking us, or grow a pair, whats wrong with US jews that you need to be wrapped in cotton wool. cant you see whats coming you had better man up now.
supposed people of goodwill dont want any harsh words, hitchens talked joyfully of how he and george were going to kill the ‘islamofascists’, but we the longtime objects of this international lynching, its been going for centuries you know, we were the first civilians to be slaughtered by airpower 25 years before guernica, we have just celebrated the centenary of the inception of terror from the air in Libya circa 1911 by destroying libya from the air circa 2011, in ’25 the french destroyed a third of dasmascus in a few minutes but we must watch our words, its so parochial of you.
the israeli regime (zionist entity) favors blunt talk of killing but you imagine that this harsh discourse is only for arabs and the lesser orders. its a farce isnt it this lisping insistence on not intimating that violence may be visited on you, the USA is a merciless power, for the moment you are inside their tent, its not going to last as long USA nationals believe that they have no need of caution what motive have they to stop this awesome slaughter, in africa, asia and latin amercia, in your very own black and latino neighbourhoods, you’d better tell your people to beware no one will escape this oppression without great suffering, bluntly. things are changing and its going to be war and the outcome is far from certain, but the catastrophe is a given and the US jewish community is singularly ill placed for a realignment of forces, hubris, complacency, the vile sophistry of slater and phony gentility wont do you any good. you need to humanize the self, we others dont need you to humanize us our utter humanity is manifest, even if you only see it imperfectly. its like fanon never wrote, perhaps you need to take a long hard look at yourselves. this is of course being written by an arab, on the whole a worthless one, since i have no dog in the better race culture religion person shit, whatever the category i am the lowest, i can be honest with you, your whole society has an air of totalitarianism which you celebrate as good polite rational discourse, every one of the best posters to your comment section was attacked by the senseless anti life argument that “this is unthinkable” you better understand that those with hands on the levers of power will do to you what they are doing to us as Captain Jack of the Modocs said “by and by”.
isnt opaleyes account correct, some of your commenters are the only reason i come here, hostage, mooser, american, annie, kalithea, shmuel, samel, avi, and others, you are very lucky to have them, courage mon brave rhetorical bombing does no damage, the only target is exactly what needs destroying your inhuman complacency in the face of this carnage, lets roll eh.
also thanks for the great site and all your work, obviously.
“your whole society has an air of totalitarianism.” No shit, gamal.
what is really off putting to arab commentators is that this double standard, we must be polite while our whole world is being pounded to bloody dust, is unnoticed or unremarked.
Gamal, you are exactly right.
Yes I think Gamal has hit on a very important point.
It seems that even a blog that is supposed to empathize with the plight of the Palestinians requires that the words are carefully chosen so as not to alienate “liberal Zionists”. They are also supposed to accept the premise that the future of the Plestinians lies entirely in the hands of Jews.
It seems that even a blog that is supposed to empathize with the plight of the Palestinians requires that the words are carefully chosen so as not to alienate “liberal Zionists”.
I don’t think Donald or Phil are doing anything other than suggesting that we attempt to be more civil. I’m unapologetically anti-Zionist, and I’ve never had a comment rejected by the moderators. Those have included some that condemned the sense of entitlement exhibited by liberal Zionists, including Buber or Magnes, e.g. link to mondoweiss.net
They are also supposed to accept the premise that the future of the Plestinians lies entirely in the hands of Jews.
I’ve commented on that in the past. I consider it fair criticism. Here are some of my thoughts on the subject:
*I’m always shocked when someone talks about Palestinians as if the are inanimate objects that can only obtain their own freedom and independence when acted upon by an outside force (except for the UN). Of course the Israelis and the US won’t admit such a possibility – even under those conditions. They insist on a perpetual servitude in which the natural resources, airspace, and territorial seas are controlled by Israel.
link to mondoweiss.net
*Historically speaking, Palestine’s enemies either treat Palestinians as inanimate objects that can only be acted upon by an outside force or sovereignty, or worse still, as a homogenous mass that can’t take any legitimate action on the local, tribal, or clan level without unanimous consent from Palestinians everywhere. If we don’t insist that our own governments operate that way, why should they?
link to mondoweiss.net
*This is the only case I’ve ever heard of in which it is claimed that the final status of territory can only be established through negotiation. Ordinarily when countries dispute the legal status of territories or boundaries they submit the cases to international arbitration or adjudication. There is a really long list of precedents for that approach.
link to mondoweiss.net
*The Security Council authorized coercive measures to enforce the terms of a boundary agreement contained in The Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters, 4 October 1963. The Security Council held that the parties were still bound by the terms of their acceptance. Nothing precludes a similar use of force to compel Israel to comply with the boundaries contained in the 1949 Armistice Agreements. It is still bound by the terms of its own acceptance and by a UN Charter obligation to accept and carry out the provisional measures authorized in accordance with Article 40, Chapter VII, under the terms of UN Security Council resolutions 62 and 73. Bush Sr. rejected linkage between Iraq’s withdrawal and Israeli withdrawal, but promised that the issue would be resolved after the Gulf War.
link to mondoweiss.net
(hostage)I don’t think Donald or Phil are doing anything other than suggesting that we attempt to be more civil.
I disagree. The emphasis is on jewish sensitivities, which for a part have been adopted by many europeans and americans. It’s not a symmetrical situation and there’s room for improvement. I’m not going to complain about the glass not being full though. A lot has been achieved on here.
Excellent Opaleye.
You made a much better and through case than I did for what I was trying to convey to the Slaters and Donalds.
many thanks for this post, opaleye. this is the most encouraging thing I have read in a long while. the most encouraging thing since the “postponement” of the joint US/Israeli military exercises scheduled for this spring, with 9,000 US soldiers deployed to Israel as we speak and now without anything to do ….
maybe there is hope after all :>)
would you mind saying a word, something about your background? military? arms control?
this is the most encouraging thing I have read in a long while.
amazing actually
Brenda,
well, for the most part my analysis is just based on what can be gleaned from the interwebs and a bit of logic and my failure to attend the mandated “2-minute hate sessions” against Iran, so that unlike a lot of people, if you sneak up behind me and whisper “Iran”, I don’t feel any need to wet my pants, hide under the bed and start drooling and foaming at the mouth simultaneously.
I have some specialized knowledge of naval weapons systems, which may lead me to different interpretations of naval movements than you usually see in the media, put forth by ignorant bobble-heads whose “analysis” has to be understood in the context of the fact they have just wet their pants, hidden under the bed and are covered in their own foam and drool.
The key facts that lead to my interpretation of current events are:
1. The obvious efforts of La Clinton (as Robert Fisk calls her) to distance the US (and herself) from the terror attacks in Tehran. It is not so much that she expects Iran to believe her, nor whether she is telling the truth, but the mere fact that she is trying to convince them of that (or anything really) indicates an attempt to de-escalate the situation. Given her notorious boasts of US capacity to annihilate Iran during the presidential campaign, and her general enthusiasm for starting wars, it must have taken some pain on her part to come out and plead with the world to believe that “we didn’t do it, honest, it wasn’t us”. The only reason I can think of for her to undergo that painful procedure is dire concern that the situation was spinning out of control and that this is not what the White House wants to happen (unlike certain other parties).
2. The cancellation of the exercise. Attempts to spin this as no big deal or routine are bilge. If there were logistical issues, they would have been solved. It is absolutely not routine for an exercise to be cancelled when all the elements were already in place. This was a signal from Obama that he is sick of being bullied, and also perhaps a signal of de-escalation to Tehran.
3. The crude oil price is very sensitive to these matters. Oil traders don’t care what you do to the Palestinians, who don’t have any oil. But if you are going to mess with the Iranians, crude gets bid up substantially. The price spiked up a few weeks ago and again when the scientist was killed, but the price is now subsiding because oil traders have looked at events and seem to have concluded that probably not much will happen in the short term at least.
Looking a bit further out, if the economy is falling apart and Obama looks a loser, I would be worried about his being tempted to do something stupid a few weeks out from the election (long enough to get the reflexive flag-waving but short enough so that the economy wouldn’t quite have time to vanish without trace prior to election day).
I read some of the same stuff you do, opaleye, so I fully accept your take on the oil markets. I’m also reading the websites of the nuclear proliferation and arms control experts, and your analysis is right in line with what they have to say — they are an international group, btw, not only Americans weighing in there.
I just wish they’d say something publicly!! This whole IAEA “evidence” on Iran is a load of crap, just like it was in the run-up to the Iraq war. They know it. Obama has to know it, has to. It would be so easy to blow that whole line right out of the water. As you say, it is a matter of US intent. I’m not totally convinced that the tail is wagging the dog here.
I think your specialized knowledge of naval weapons systems gives you an edge to understanding what is going on from a military strategy perspective, also probably gives rise to particular questions in your mind which you then find answers to (and share with us :>)
thanks again for your post. I really enjoyed reading it.
Brenda,
US intent toward Iran is regime change. But it seems to me they want to get there by putting a big economic squeeze on them and hoping the resulting tension will boil over and the government will fall. This is of no interest to the Israelis, who basically want the US to destroy Iran so they will have no regional competitor. What they really fear is another country in the region becoming successful: economically, technologically, culturally etc, and Iran looks like it might just be able to do that, hence the freak-out.
Did you guys here the Mearsheimer interview with Adam and Lizzy.
He declared that the Iranian enrichment program is a big deal, not insignificant, but that the means to convince Iran to desist continuing their enrichment program are not currently effective, and that at some point powers will have to decide whether to accept Iran as a nuclear power, or to contain Iran as a regional power.
But, the “don’t worry, be happy” theme relative to Iran’s program and policies, is not realistic.
A) Brilliant brilliant post, Opaleye.
B) This is all because of Slater? Again?!
C) Mondoweiss (or at least the people behind it) have gone slightly… well… bat-shit crazy. Apparently.
@Opaleye
I just want to say that I find your analysis here first rate and hope you continue.
If the issue is posts that are really extremist: (e.g., “nuking Israel” or “nuking the Palestinians”), then the moderator should delete the offending posts. It is perfectly acceptable (to me, and undoubtedly to others) that the website sets and enforces some limits.
If the issue is that some people don’t want to hear serious criticisms of Israel, then too bad. Serious criticisms of many different countries get voiced all the time.
And what about people who can’t stand even mild criticisms of Israel? They are not going to be reading Mondoweiss in the first place!
There are many points that would deserve responses or discussions, but I would prefer to let one of my special bookish or internet friends, as I call it for some time now, speak on the topic.
I would like to quote a recent book by a liberal on Antisemitism, admittedly with Phil’s earlier obsession with the polar opposites Assimilation – Zionism in mind, which admittedly, as he knows, I didn’t like.
“the Jewish mind” – “the Arab mind”?
Steven Beller, Antisemitism. A very short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2007
sorry my typo: eternal not ethernal