Michael Walzer, from Peace Now site
Princeton political theorist Michael Walzer was to take part in an anti-boycott event last night in a Brooklyn church, sharing the stage with two speakers known for their attacks on Islam. One of them, Zuhdi Jasser, has claimed that Islamists want to impose Sharia law in the U.S. and is featured in the Islamophobic film that has stirred a firestorm at the New York Police Department: "The Third Jihad."
The event was titled "Stop BDS at the Park Slope Food Co-Op" -- the co-op is considering boycotting some Israeli products. The second speaker with whom Walzer planned to share the stage (forgive my journalistic training, I don't know if the event came off) was Brooke Goldstein. Here is a description of her book opposing "Islamist lawfare". It describes Hamas as a "hateful terrorist organization" and suggests that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has "ties" to terrorists. She has also done a movie about child suicide bombers-- I can only imagine the Islamic angle. From Amazon:
The free speech rights of authors, researchers and journalists writing on issues of public security and national concern are increasingly under attack through both violent and non-violent means. An important non-violent challenge to free speech has emerged in the form of “Islamist lawfare,” the use of the law as a weapon of war to silence and punish free speech about militant Islam, terrorism and its sources of financing.
The strategic end of Islamist lawfare is to further the goals of the Islamist movement, one of which is to abolish public discourse critical of Islam and punish anything deemed blasphemous to its prophet, Mohammad. Another goal of Islamist lawfare is to impede the free flow of public information about the threat of Islamist terrorism, thereby limiting our ability to understand it and destroy it. In this way, Islamist lawfare takes the form of a complementary legal campaign to terrorism and asymmetric warfare.
As for Jasser, he was the star of Peter King's Islamophobic hearings of last year, also a star of the anti-Islam movie, The Third Jihad, the Clarion Fund film that was shown to New York city police officers. Jasser has written,
"America is at war with theocratic Muslim despots who seek the imposition of sharia..."
Words cannot express our shock at the loss that our country has suffered today with Andrew's death.
Andrew, we will miss you more than words can describe. You will be in our prayers forever. We know that you fought for us and from now forward we will fight for you!
While you were with us, we should have expressed to you more our thankfulness and gratitude for the ground you broke for us on so many levels. To new media, the blogosphere, and the war of ideas you are a pioneer who will have a special place in history. Thank you for giving so many of us the ability to find a home where our ideas could be heard. I was truly blessed for the time I had to get to know you. Please know that while we will no longer be able to commiserate on this earth, I will continue commiserating with you in prayer from her e forward.
Know that today all of us warriors in the battle for liberty are Andrew Breitbart!
Thanks to Kiera Feldman for this post!
Well Hamas is “a hateful terrorist organization”, so I don’t know what to quibble with there.
Nonsense, Krauss! I’ve eaten a ton of it, and it “hasn’t hurt me none”, as a very famous Jew once said.
What terrorist organiAtion does Waltzer belong to Krauss?
And is that hate(if indeed they are haters)endemic or conditioned?
LOL, throw stones much?
How many times have you shared a stage with people known for attacking Judaism and/or the Jewish community?
Oh wait, you’re one of them. Do you ever apply the rules to yourself that you apply to others?
“Oh wait, you’re one of them.”
Okay, Hophmi, you win! Your long list of citations and irrefutable quotes has convinced me that Phil is “attacking Judaism and/or the Jewish community”.
I mean, when faced with all that evidence, from such an obviously disinterested and fair source, well, I just have to face the facts. And when I think of how much time and research you put into that verifying your accusation, I admit myself defeated.
I just thank God that Judaism has menschs like you to defend it and attack its detractors.
Hophmi, in another article on Mondoweiss today, Phil, if I’m not mistaken, refers to Jews as “my community”. Can you imagine? Doesn’t it just wring your withers? Don’t let him get away with it, Hophmi! I’m sure your detailed, factual, and up to the minute dossier of Phil’s inadequacies as a Jew will be convincing to all.
But one thing Hophmi! Please, whatever you do, don’t start comparing Phil’s Jewishness to your own. Oh, I wouldn’t mind seeing Phil taken down a peg or two, but I don’t want him driven to suicide!
Well again, Mooser, I’m sorry the logic is difficult, but it’s simply a matter of apply the same standards. If it’s anti-Islam to attack Islamism and theocratic Muslim despots (Islamism is a Muslim political movement and theocratic despots are, well, despots), it’s without question anti-Jewish to attack Zionism (a Jewish political movement) and Israeli government leaders (who are not even theocratic despots).
And to criticize Walzer for sharing a stage with these people? Not only has Phil shared stages with people who have said nasty things about Jews and the Jewish community, he’s actually one of the people who have said some of the nasty things, much worse than criticizing a conservative religious political movement and those in it who promote religious totalitarianism.
Let’s be honest here. For activists like Phil, it’s OK to criticize hate as long as your own political community is excluded from the definition.
“he’s actually one of the people who have said some of the nasty things”
Hophmi, already, you win! The long list of citiations, links, quotes and actions is damning! You could have stopped after the first, oh, fifty.
Oh, BTW Hophmi, would you mind telling us who is Phil’s “own political community”? I’d love to know, and we might as well get it out in the open.
“it’s without question anti-Jewish”
Poor Hophmi, looking for love in all the wrong places. He’s the Delta Dawn of Mondoweiss.
The contention is not that ‘it is anti-Islam to attack Islamism.’
Try again.
Criticism of Zionism is not bigoted by definition.
Just as criticism of Islamism is not bigoted by definition.
Both can possibly veer into the territory of antisemitism and Islamophobia respectively.
That has to be proven though.
So why don’t you actually back up your hysterics instead of issuing false dichotomies.
Phil always puts forth an argument and cites his sources.
You just whine and lie.
“Just as criticism of Islamism is not bigoted by definition.”
Phil said it was. He called Brooke Goldstein anti-Islam for criticizing Islamism.
And remember, this was in service of smearing Michael Walzer. Or as we like to call it, guilt by association. Or as I like to call, an exercise in blatant hypocrisy coming from someone like Phil.
What source did Phil cite and what argument did he make here? He said Jasser is a bad guy because he appeared before Peter King and praised Andrew Breitbart. That would make him a conservative, but last I checked conservative and anti-Islam are not synonymous terms.
Brooke Goldstein’s credentials for being anti-Islam are describing Hamas as a “hateful terrorist organization”, and saying CAIR has ties to terrorists, neither an untrue statement and neither an anti-Islamic one last I checked. Goldstein’s other offense is to criticize Islamists for seeking to criminalize depictions of the prophet as an attempt to stifle free speech – which it undoubtedly is.
And I don’t see a single source cited by Phil controverting any of these statements he criticizes.
hophmi said:
Yea, I remember who Brooke Goldstein is.
She is part of that industry of Islamophobic bigots who flood the market with all this literature and documentaries about Islamism.
Criticizing Islamism is one thing, but there is an entire industry that produces this crap that goes beyond criticism. It’s a career for these people – who are politically pro-Israel in many cases (like Goldstein).
Calling Hamas a ‘hateful terrorist organization’ is a political label.
The United States Institute for Peace published a report in 2009 about Hamas, entitled, Hamas: Ideological Rigidity, Political Flexibility or something along those lines.
It concluded, among other things:
And what ties does CAIR have to terrorism?
Why hasn’t CAIR been put on the terrorist list?
Hophni says Brooke Goldstein’s credentials for being anti-Islam are describing Hamas as a “hateful terrorist organization”, and saying CAIR has ties to terrorists,
Yep that makes her an islamophobe. CAIR does not have ties to terrorists. It is a civil rights organization dedicated to protecting American Muslims. I have attended an annual fundraising dinner hosted by them over the past 6 years and they are about as mainstream as could be imagined. Goldstein has been a source of fabrications.
RE: “How many times have you shared a stage with people known for attacking Judaism and/or the Jewish community?” ~ hophmi
AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED: You have just “blood libeled” Phil!
P.S. INTRODUCING MY NEW AVATAR, “NUTTYYAHOO” by DonkeyHotey (JPEG) – link to google.com
“AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED: You have just “blood libeled” Phil!”
Go read what a blood libel is, and then get back to me.
He’s being sarcastic I’m sure.
You should be more concerned by the Zionist hysteria over the PennBDS conference, wherein people like you regularly used terms associated w/ historical Jewish suffering and the Holocaust, to attack a non-violent resistance tactic.
You should examine your own rantings. Everyone who has been unfortunate enough to scroll past your temper-tantrums on MW, knows that you regularly use Jewish identity as an ideological bludgeon to emotionally blackmail your opponents.
You have never once criticized eee for his absurd no-true-scotsman of who is and is not a Jew.
Do you realize how insane you seem to a non-Jew/non-Arab/non-Muslim/etc. (ie someone who is not tied to this conflict by religion or ethnicity)?
It is people like you, hophmi, that put the worst possible face on Zionism.
But I think we both know, you need antisemitism to know yourself. You wear that diagnosis on your face so blatantly it’s as subtle as a Michael Bay movie.
“It is people like you, hophmi, that put the worst possible face on Zionism.”
Whatever you need to tell yourself Cliff.
“But I think we both know, you need antisemitism to know yourself. You wear that diagnosis on your face so blatantly it’s as subtle as a Michael Bay movie.”
You don’t what antisemitism is, so your opinion on the matter is of little consequence.
“Everyone who has been unfortunate enough to scroll past your temper-tantrums on MW, knows that you regularly use Jewish identity as an ideological bludgeon to emotionally blackmail your opponents.”
LOL. I’m not the one who throws temper-tantrums here, Cliff. You take care of that much better than I do. There’s no reason an accusation of antisemitism should emotionally blackmail anybody unless they have something to feel guilty for.
“You have never once criticized eee for his absurd no-true-scotsman of who is and is not a Jew.”
Is eee part of this discussion? And yes, I am inclined to see as hypocritical people who do nothing but bash Jewish tradition, intermarry, talk of the glories of secularism and complete assimilation, and then declare themselves to be Jews for the purpose of gaining extra street cred in the pro-Palestinian activist community.
“Do you realize how insane you seem to a non-Jew/non-Arab/non-Muslim/etc. (ie someone who is not tied to this conflict by religion or ethnicity)?”
I don’t care about appearing insane. I care about being right.
“But I think we both know, you need antisemitism to know yourself. You wear that diagnosis on your face so blatantly it’s as subtle as a Michael Bay movie.”
You don’t like that diagnosis, and like a lot of people here, you’re much too self-righteous and smug to think it could apply to you.
hophmi said:
No. When someone plays the antisemitism card or the Holocaust card without reason and purely to hijack the narrative – then that is emotional blackmail.
Emotional blackmail has nothing to do w/ suppressed guilt on part of the accused.
The organizers of the PennBDS conference were not Nazis or Kapos, as was insinuated by the many Zionist loons who harangued them in public condemnations.
hophmi said:
I don’t support colonialism. You do. I don’t support apartheid. You do.
That’s the difference between people like me and people like you.
People like you, call Palestinians, ‘Nazis’ because of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Then people like you, lie that you made such a ridiculous and hateful argument.
hophmi said:
You came into this thread parsing Phil. So I am parsing the person flinging the accusations.
You are welcome to even try to put me under that same scrutiny.
No one has to try to expose your past stupid remarks and tacit approval of others stupid remarks.
I take it that you agree w/ his no-true-scotsman.
Are you going to parse pro-Israel Jews in the same manner? Or does Zionism supersede assimilation/secularism/etc.?
The only thing you and eee take issue with, is non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews. The other things do not matter.
hophmi said:
You’re not right. You’re just insane.
“There’s no reason an accusation of antisemitism should emotionally blackmail anybody unless they have something to feel guilty for. ”
Since you are well known for your hatred of African Americans and people of Hispanic descent, why am I not suprised…
Excuse me? I don’t recall commenting on either African-Americans or Hispanics.
RE: “Go read what a blood libel is, and then get back
to me.” ~ hophmi
MY COMMENT: I have long understood precisely what a “blood libel” was in the historical context, but Zionists constantly accuse critics of Israeli policy of perpetrating a “blood libel” when those critics have certainly not accused anyone of literally murdering children to use their blood in their religious rituals and holidays.
Consequently, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Get used to it!
ALSO SEE: Dershowitz Gives Palin the Go-Ahead on “Blood Libel”, By David Weigel, Slate, 1/12/11
SOURCE – link to slate.com
P.S. INTRODUCING MY NEW AVATAR, “NUTTYYAHOO” by DonkeyHotey (JPEG) – link to google.com
P.P.S. ALSO SEE: The Term ‘Blood Libel’: More Common Than You Might Think - link to nationalreview.com
P.P.P.S. RE: “Go read what a blood libel is, and then get back
to me.” ~ hophmi
ADDITIONAL REPLY: Zionists constantly accuse critics of Israeli policy of perpetrating a “blood libel” when those critics have certainly not accused anyone of literally murdering children to use their blood in their religious rituals and holidays. For (another) example, see the excerpt below dealing with Reagan, Begin, “blood libels”, and bald faced liars.
EXAMPLE: How Many Violations of US Arms Laws are Too Many? ~ by Franklin Lamb, Counterpunch, 3/16/12
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to counterpunch.org
thumbs up on the new avatar
“It is people like you, hophmi, that put the worst possible face on Zionism.”
Ever wonder why Phil didn’t ban him? He is the face of Zionism that we wish to expose.
RE: “thumbs up on the new avatar” ~ chauncey
MY REPLY: Thanks. That Netanyahu is a real swashbuckler! I’m so honored to have him as my avatar (thanks to “DonkeyHotey”, speaking of swashbucklers).
Still waiting for Woody Tanaka to show me where I demonstrated a hatred for African-Americans or Hispanics.
“Still waiting for Woody Tanaka to show me where I demonstrated a hatred for African-Americans or Hispanics.”
Hopster, you said:
“There’s no reason an accusation of antisemitism should emotionally blackmail anybody unless they have something to feel guilty for.”
So why should you care that I accused you of anti-African-American bigotry or anti-Hispanic bigotry unless you, in your own words, “have somethign to feel guity for.”
Because my criticism is based on the discussion here and what people here have actually said. There are plenty of people in the mainstream who would agree with me that the ideas expressed by Phil Weiss, especially his accusation that the Jewish community bears responsibility for the Iraq War, his embrace of rhetoric blaming the American Jewish community for promoting Israeli interests over American ones, and his promotion of people like Jeff Blankfort, who has a long history of disparaging statements about Judaism, his promotion of people who promote banning circumcision, his promotion of conspiracy theories about the relationship between early Zionists and Nazis, not to mention his frequent posting on the supposed disproportionate financial influence Jews have, and so on, make Phil an antisemite.
Yours is a lie you pulled out of thin air.
No, the fact that “plenty of people” are as block headed as you are about what is antisemitic is no different than a random assertion that one is a racist, on the key fundamental principle — the truth of the claim. Your problem is that you believe the silly, stupid notion that your cultural, religious and beliefs are somehow beyond criticism and that any criticism of those things is hateful or bigoted. You’re wrong.
There’s nothing inherently antisemitic about any of the things you mention nor all of them together, so claiming someone is an anti-semite based merely on these things speaks of nothing other than a pathetic desire to protect your fragile ego from contemplating that the things that you like and the culture you belong to and its history might not be pure as the driven snow.
Grow up. Of course they’re not perfect, they’re human artifacts, nothing more. Anyone who doesn’t expect that they’re flawed and worthy of criticism — like every single other human creation — is insane.
And, yes, infant circumsion, except for medical necessity, is a barbaric practice and constitute gential mutilation. That Jewish people might disagree (hell, even if all Jewish people disagree) doesn’t make that statement antisemetic, because it’s not about Judaism.
“his promotion of people who promote banning circumcision,”
Hophmi, just because your parents had you mutilated shortly after birth is no reason you have to inflict the same punishment on all Jewish males from now on. Whatsamatter, afraid of the competitition?
Oh, I’m not against circumcision. I think every Jewish male should have the opportunity, once he is of age to make medical decisions for himself. I’m sure we’ll see scads of 18-21 year old Jewish males lining up to make the cut.
“who has a long history of disparaging statements about Judaism”
Oy Gevalt Such disparaging statements he makes! All I can say is, thank God I’ve never heard a Jew make disparaging statements about Judaism. In fact, the entire process of Judaism splintering into three almost completely different sects Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and God only knows what else) was done with no hard words at all!
And that’s another thing I’ve noticed about the ultra-religious Jewish sects. They only have the kindest and most moderate things to say about each other. It’s inspiring.
“Ever wonder why Phil didn’t ban him?”
Just as an aside, my impression from reading the post on the recent bannings gave me the impression that the banning decision is not one made exclusively by Phil Weiss. In fact I got the impression ( I would have to read it more closely- no specific delineation of the banning process was given) that a banning can even be imposed on Phil by “the moderators”.
At any rate, Hophmi’s comment below on Phil’s “anti-semitism” is a real good try at getting their attention. It sure should.
“There are plenty of people in the mainstream who would agree with me that the ideas expressed by Phil Weiss, especially his accusation that the Jewish community bears responsibility for the Iraq War, his embrace of rhetoric blaming the American Jewish community for promoting Israeli interests over American ones, and his promotion of people like Jeff Blankfort, who has a long history of disparaging statements about Judaism, his promotion of people who promote banning circumcision, his promotion of conspiracy theories about the relationship between early Zionists and Nazis, not to mention his frequent posting on the supposed disproportionate financial influence Jews have, and so on, make Phil an antisemite.”
Gosh, when Hophmi decides to overwhelm you with a gale of facts, figures, irrefutable citations, and quotes, why, there’s just no gainsaying him, is there?
And, I might add:
“There are plenty of people in the mainstream who would agree with me”
Of course, I wouldn’t advise starting with the coup de gras but Hophmi knows what he’s doing. Good Gott, what an effective advocate he must be. I bet Judges fall like ninepins in the face of his invective! “Your Honor, we of the jury find the defendant, Phil Weiss, not just guilty, but guilty as hell!”
Actually, I am grateful to Walzer for helping me make the argument that there is no such thing as just war. He wrote a book in which he argued that Israel’s wars were examples of just war.
Here’s what Chomsky had to say about Walzer in 2008.
“More extreme recommendations have been made by highly regarded left humanists in the United States, for example Michael Walzer of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton and editor of the democratic socialist journal Dissent, who advised 35 years ago that since Palestinians are “marginal to the nation,” they should be “helped” to leave. He was referring to Palestinian citizens of Israel itself, a position made familiar more recently by the ultra-right Avigdor Lieberman, and now being picked up in the Israeli mainstream. I put aside the real fanatics, like Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who declares that Israel never kills civilians, only terrorists, so that the definition of “terrorist” is “killed by Israel”; and Israel should aim for a kill ratio of 1000 to zero, which means “exterminate the brutes” completely. It is of no small significance that advocates of these views are regarded with respect in enlightened circles in the US, indeed the West. One can imagine the reaction if such comments were made about Jews. ”
link to counterpunch.org
The Poison Ivy League rears its ugly head again.Mis education writ large,with big dough and little minds.