Total number of comments: 102 (since 2011-02-21 16:29:34)
This is my political blogs pseudonym. thank you. I tried to register once before with a fake email addy. apparently you guys were serious about the email thing. who knew? hope that's ok. please don't publish my real email. thank you.
Website: http://jewvsjew.blogspot.com
Showing comments 102 - 101
Page: 2 1
Showing comments 102 - 101
Page: 2 1
Must be beautiful being a citizen of the Empire.
Once you vote on the future of Israel in the democratic state
And once in the Jewish state.
Free speech is like money
Some people just have a lot more of it than others...
The Arab woman in the cell, the one who informed the guard of your conversation, is probably not allowed to join recreation time so people in the general population don't recognize her.
There's a high probability that she's an informer. Probably does a week in the cell - talking to new arrivals, and a week outside the prison gates - with family or whatever.
Well, at least we're past the intelligent debating.
Now it's just reading comprehension and nit-picking.
Which would lead me to guess we're almost at the end of our discourse.
So I'll make myself clear, as to avoid mis-comprehension.
Yes, religion has dogma. However this dogma tells us nothing about people's actual beliefs. As is said over and over, people pick and choose. And different people pick and choose different things even if they claim to follow the same religion.
Sam Harris is making the case that they don't. That they monolithically embrace all religious writings and moral guidelines - dogma. This is demonstrably false.
Sam Harris is has written some of the most morally repugnant texts in modern times. Well, in history, really. You may pick and choose which parts of his dogma you agree with and which parts you don't - but then you can't rationally claim that you can somehow know what religious people believe just by looking at the many, varied, often contradictory texts. This is simply unsustainable. Irrational.
One must also look at the clergy - at the people citing that dogma - and at the audience of that clergy.
I apply the above maxim to Sam Harris and his congregation as well. And on that front we agree - his appeal is exactly in the virulent Anti-Islamism Anti-Arab dogma that he is supporting. As well as his attempt at voiding morality of its meaning.
ps. Watch the entire video (I linked it too) - it's a doozy.
Thank you, aiman.
That's exactly what he does.
He puts out a book titled "Lying" and "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values."
And he's basically an immoral person who rationalizes torture telling people they're not responsible for their immorality and a lovely book talking about the "illusion" of free will.
Couple that with an essentially faith-based, unsubstantiated, irrational claim that Science Can Determine Human Values - and what are you left with?
Moral Landscaping.
"I don’t believe that this is what he is arguing. Indeed, I would ask that you provide a quote whereby he states that it is okay by him to murder someone who disagrees with scientifically proven values."
Here's a part of Rogan/Harris interview:
link to youtube.com
He is asked specifically for his opinion on the wikileaks video Collateral Murder and the pilot laughing how "he shouldn't have brought his kids to a war zone" - kids who were shot and whose father was killed.
Harris is careful not to condemn the murder.
He then goes on to his ethically and morally bankrupt tirade about how "the thing that's horrible about this" video is that we (ie. the chopper pilot AND Harris, but also all of us) are just not wired to understand the consequences of our actions.
conclusion:
Sam Harris IS ok with murdering Muslims who disagree with his values. And provides the moral cover for such murder on youtube and the airwaves.
QED
---------------
Full Harris/Rogan interview here:
link to youtube.com
(minutes 8 to 10 are a morsel. Just apply Harris's own rhetoric to himself - and you can see how the New Atheist are basically religious. And why that's a bad thing)
---------------
"No, it isn’t [an apt metaphor] because it falsely presumes that there is a set of core beliefs, values, dogma and ideas to “atheism” that these people go against. There simply isn’t."
But that's my point also. Of course there is no set of core beliefs, values, dogma (well, Harris is seeing to that...) and ideas to "atheism" that these people go against.
My point is that there is also no such set of core beliefs, values, dogma and ideas to "Islam" or to Muslims as a group. Or any other group of people who claim to believe in the same religion. Jews, Christians, Buddhists, whatever. It's not there. Definitely not in the dogma. Dogma is nothing. It's historical record.
But that's exactly the point that Harris(!) is trying to make.
That's what he is preaching: That there IS such a set of core beliefs, values, dogma and ideas that define a group of people. That this set of values can be found and proven or disproven somehow in others' belief-systems. In religious people's belief-systems. In religion.
Of course Harris's sermons are phrased in such a way that lets atheists see themselves as exempt from this maxim.
Or put in other words:
"You guys (religious people, but Muslims mostly, Buddhists sorta ok) simply have bad beliefs and values - as a group. Our group doesn't. And we have Almighty Science and Holy Determinism to prove our moral superiority."
"I think that much of what we call “values” are, in fact, innate preferences which have developed in the course of our evolution as an intelligent, social species."
It's not the values themselves that have developed evolutionarily.
It's the process by which we hold values. This process is heuristic at its core. It is in a very literal sense, made up of unprovables/unknowables.
Regardless of what unprovables/unknowables one bases one's values on.
The factual-truthness of those unprovables is very much irrelevant to the formulation of values. And to people holding those values. And basing their actions/culture on those values, and writing dogma that reference those values.
Values, to a very significant extent, are made of non-facts.
For example, it cannot be proven in a rational manner that killing is bad. Even if it is bad, most people will hold that in some cases killing is justified. Some might actually value killing under certain value-formulations (ie. self-defense, justified war etc.) while still holding to the basic value that killing is bad. Inherently paradoxical.
Humans will hold on to that value despite being shown "scientifically" that this paradox. A paradox that proves their value is not a fact.
Values are non-rational assertions by definition. (not irrational, mind you)
Harris is advancing a system that could (according to him) prove scientifically that some values are objectively better.
Sam Harris's entire project is based on this misguided irrational idea that values=facts. Therefore if those values are "scientifically proved" to be wrong, the people holding them will cease to do so. (and of course, if they don't agree with your "scientifically proven" values - it is morally just to put them to the sword).
This is basically what theology attempts to do - to lend objectivity to one's own values and definitions. Sam Harris is having a theological debate that he's masquerading as a scientific, materialistic, atheist one.
You wrote somewhere else:
"No, clergy are religious people who are ordained to perform religious acts or to spread religious teachings. There is no such thing among atheists."
My contention is that there IS such a thing among atheists.
Harris et al. are participating in exactly such a thing - forming a clergy - amongst atheists.
One need only look historically at how Organized Religion formed amongst existing religious teachings. What were the political motivations to organize religion and how it was subverted.
Atheist claim that Organized Religion is responsible for the most atrocious wars. Well, one may say similar things of the New Atheists.
"No atheist one considers Harris anything more than a person who is giving his opinion."
Not true. He is considered a scholar and authority by many. It is not just an opinion. It's an authoritative opinion.
So if we go back to the Pope having/not having real authority:
The Pope didn't always exist. It was a long historical process with roots in the inundation of Europe with Christianity - an anarchist off-shoot of Judaism. The Pope is a counter-measure to the anti-authoritarian messages of Christianity. But he wasn't always there. He didn't always have authority. Only people imagining that he does.
His imagined authority is quite real for those who imagine his authority is quite real. Therefore his authority is quite real for everyone else in that sense.
"That wouldn’t surprise me, as there is a significan anti-Muslim tendency in their writings which is in keeping with the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry that is endemic among israaeli Jews."
I concur.
Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins are these people's clergy. There is a large strata of intellectual, centrist, academic atheists of Jewish descent that these people appeal to.
They tell them what to think and what to say in order to keep their Anti-Muslim rhetoric AND still be considered reasonable thinking non-religious people.
"And there has been a great deal of rejection of his ideas of late in the community, over his idea that morality can be scientifically or rationally determined and that the authorities should give special scrutiny at airports to everyone who might be Muslim."
I'm glad to hear that. My point is that it's not separate instances of misreadings/misunderstanding of his work on my part. Rather it is endemic to his writing. And many people are encountering this and commenting on it. Converging on a single point of ideology.
These New Atheists are, in a sense, a heretical movement within atheism.
If you'd rather think of my use of the word "heresy" as a metaphor - then by all means do.
I believe it's an apt metaphor.
Actually libra has it pretty much right:
“Oh dear, now we have an outbreak of heresy within the atheistic ranks. ”
Though not so much in the atheistic ranks, as in the rational thinking philosophical ranks. Harris is a fidel-in-rationalist-wool. So in a metaphoric sense I do view Harris, Dawkins, Maher, Hitchens to be heretics to the idea of reason and enlightenment.
The all propagate a false dichotomy between religion and science that is simply false. Many scientists were religious. Much of religious thinking is completely compatible with reason and rational thinking (especially some of the moral thinking expressed in religious writings here and there. Some might have aged worse than others, but still)
Harris at all deny this. And claim they are pure rationalists. That's bulshytt.
Harris is especially culpable with his Moral Landscaping - the attempt to erase all moral teachings of our past and start anew.
There's a talk he gave at TED where he claims values are facts. That's religious theological thinking at its worse: values = facts (ie. My values = facts).
It's a rationally unsustainable claim. Values are not, in fact, facts. They cannot be proven or disproven "scientifically" as Harris claims. Values are effectively axioms. Unprovable by definition. They're Common Sense. Common Sense is what we use when we can't prove something. When we can't know something for a fact.
Values are NOT facts. By definition.
Yet Harris claims they are. Not only are his values facts - he can prove them scientifically. HA!
Harris then goes on to base on this shoddy piece of theological reasoning an entire secular "scientific" method of proving which values are better than others. Harris' method is only lenient towards Buddhism, it appears.
"Oh, baloney. Sam Harris has authority over no one but himself."
Neither does the Pope, really. Yet people in Africa don't use condoms on his authority. That's what clergy is.
Sam Harris is a notable Atheist. And at least here in Israel, he is quite the hero for many Neo-Atheists.
They love that moral shit he's peddling - no free will, we're all just machines, therefore we have no guilt nor responsibility.
Harris has that interview with Rogan where he explains why the "Collateral Murder" pilot laughing and saying "he shouldn't have brought his kids to a war zone" shouldn't be blamed for his actions. That morality gets distorted when you're so removed from those you kill.
Harris, Bill Maher and Hitchens are really big here in Israel - what with their religion bashing, but more importantly the atavist Anti-Islamism.
Really big amongst the Israeli secular right.
The New Atheists are a de facto clergy.
piotr: "There should be some atheist clergy who could exclude worthless likes of Sam Harris from out community."
Sam Harris IS the clergy. That's the scary part.
A fidel in rationalist-wool.
I'm an atheist. And I think Harris-Dawkin-Hitchens et al. are - de facto - creating a neo-Atheist orthodoxy.
Though I am an atheist - ie. I don't personally believe there exists a god - I'm actually an agnostic. I don't know things I can't know. And I admit it. God is one such unprovable/irrefutable formulations. Unknowable.
Unlike my agnostic atheism, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al. are true believer atheists. They are religiously atheistic.
They philosophy they put forth is religious in nature. Not rational nor scientific - despite loud proclamations to the contrary.
One really needs to listen to their theories or try to read their books to understand how insidious their belief is. They ARE fundamentalists. With everything that entails.
They are truly infidels and heretics to the cause of rational thinking. Philosophical nihilists. Theologians in scientists' clothes.
I once recommended to a girlfriend of mine to read Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, after some discussions we had about the subject. She bought the book and quit after a few chapters. So I picked it up and started looking through. I was appalled. It was the most spiritually-bankrupt pedantic sermon I had ever read. Ever. And I agreed with Dawkins on his ideas.
I think the title of one of Sam Harris's books is Moral Landscaping.
Apt.
Rhetorical question:
What is to be gained by labeling one country as fascist, when all nominally-democratic countries (across the board) are adopting similar fascist tactics within their own borders? To a larger or lesser extent. ie. only as much as is politically expedient.
Fascism or Apartheid only seem such when compared across a backdrop of other non-Apartheid non-fascist countries.
Israeli media, for example, shows its citizens how European countries turn away immigrants in boats, to justify its own actions against immigrants. Or how the US - the greatest democracy on earth - puts up walls and laws to battle Mexican immigration in Arizona.
Fascism is already a more-or-less socially accepted label in Israel to describe Israel. And has been so for a couple of years already. Israeli media and Israeli politicians frequently use this word when discussing politics. As do everyday folk.
It would seem the topic of this post is on whether 'fascism' is, or should be, a politically-correct term. That, at least, should be a no-brainer.
I'm not sure if this is naivete, or perhaps wishful thinking aka. confirmation bias (the natural tendency of humans to favor information that fits one's one beliefs) but what Kristol is saying is very simple:
The state of Israel is not going to become minority Jewish (!)
You guys are dismissing this claim by Kristol because of what it entails.
This is not disagreement about facts, as Ben-Ami puts it. Ben-Ami is talking of today's demographics. Those, of course, can change.
If anything, out of the three options: 1SS, 2SS, 1S-Apartheid - Ben-Ami's 2SS is the least realistic. From a realpolitik perspective.
Kristol is basically saying that Israel will do whatever is necessary to keep a Jewish majority within Israel. ie. keep the "status quo" apartheid regime until Israel has been ethnically cleansed of Arabs. At which point it may well give all its remaining subjects equal rights and become, de facto, Jewish and democratic.
That's what Kristol is saying for anyone who is willing to hear.
Well, to be perfectly fair, I think the Israeli army ALWAYS has plans for this-or-that war on the drawing board.
Why would you think that's coming to an end?
A regional war could bury the Palestinian problem for a looong time.
Or just long enough to expel a few.
"If Israel went away"?
WTF does that mean? Nobody, and I mean - nobody, thinks Israel is going away anywhere. Israel has strong institutions like an army, courts, treasury, parliament, treasury, income tax, executive offices etc.
These institutions (overwhelmingly run and staffed by Jewish Israelis) do not have any viable alternatives anywhere within Israel or Palestine. Therefore are not going away anywhere under any reasonable or practical future paradigm. Be it 1S, 2S, 2S-federal, 1S-apartheid or 1S-ethnically homogeneous.
What in the world are you going on about, BK?
"I fear two states is no longer an option but think it is the most practical solution."
Hi BK,
May I inquire into the practicality of a solution that is no longer an option? I usually apply the word 'practical' when referring to things that can be done.
At first Oren starts saying "my assumptions" but quickly corrects himself and says "I HAD, I believe [esc. clause], information about the nature of it"
But then Bob Simon cuts Oren off and 'corrects' him "You don't know what's going to be put on air".
Oren accepts this 'correction' gracefully - "Ok. I don't. True"
ie. Oren KNEW of the footage. He just couldn't know whether it would be AIRED or not. A technicality.
It's in both Simon's and Oren's interests to not show how cozy (incestuous?) Israeli government's relationship is with American media. And not talk about how Oren even came by the information in the first place.
"AIPAC rules the world"
"Jews control the airlines"
"Netanyahu runs the global economy"
All unprovable.
All non-refutable either...
I especially remember Netanyahu manging to get the Greek government to stop the second flotilla from even leaving Greek harbors a year ago.
It was amidst riots against the Greek govt' accepting the "bailout" proposed by the EU.
Israeli papers recently told of Israel buying 3% of the land in Greece as well as some national services.
Jewish Empire, here we come.
That's also the position of Bibi and the Israeli administration in general.
Israel sees itself responsible for world Jewry.
I don't remember who it was, a couple of years back, that suggested French Jews emigrate to Israel en-masse after an attack on a Jew, but I remember Sarkozy got his panties in a bunch over the suggestion.
As a rule, international Jewish organizations support Israel, Israel's government and Israeli government's actions unequivocally and profess to represent the Jews in those countries when they do so.
"American Jews won’t vote on Israel in 2012 election"
Well, this might be technically true - in as much as both Obama and Romney have Bibi's back. They both support Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza. They'll both support Israel in the UN. They'll both supply Israel with military resources. etc.
So, Israel is de facto not an issue in these elections.
Americans, Jewish or otherwise, simply cannot vote Israel in 2012. It's not on the table.
Such is the face of the Jewish Empire.
Of Great-Greater-GREATEST Israel.
From AIPAC to the Euphrates.
It has been foretold.
I get where you're coming from. And understand your reasoning.
However there is a fault.
Saying that the media is no longer strictly the MSM, is true.
As is saying that the MSM is not strictly Jewish.
For that matter, Zionism is not strictly Jewish anymore either.
However, a certain perniciousness persists.
These shifts can be seen either as achievements or accommodations.
Did Phil and Adam give you this platform because they are Jews? I doubt that very much.
Were Phil and Adam in a position to allow you this platform because they are Jews - is another question entirely. And one which does not reflect directly on them (or any individual in particular) but rather on the system as it operates.
The question of the Jewish State is, very much a Jewish question. Not exclusively a Jewish question. But for better or worse, it need be parsed from an exclusively Jewish perspective as well. The fact that all the media afforded me - as an individual - is de facto controlled by Jews (facebook, google, MSM, Hollywood, Israeli media - and, yes, mondoweiss) is an integral part of this question. It affects our ability to even "hear" outside voices and opinions. Some cultural controls are primal. Sub-conscious.
So far I have heard statements to the lines of "Jews control the media" only from non-Jewish sources. Or unofficially within informal talk among Jews themselves.
I would like to see Mondoweiss take a stab at this question.
I know where NPR, and therefore the rest of the MSM and media are going to fall on this. "We're slaying dragons here" was the rallying cry a couple of months back.
Show me.
Oh,
My mistake. Sincere apologies are in order. I assumed too much.
I'm sorry.
Perhaps this question can percolate upwards then...
No intimidation was intended. My apologies if my words conveyed any such emotional appeal.
I was going for blunt and succinct.
What is the major malfunction?
Why can't Jews say "Jews control the media" when evidence bears this?
I know why non-Jews can't say it. They will be labeled antisemites.
I know that we Jews have been raised to believe that such a statement belongs in antisemitic propaganda only. A statement only David Duke and Arabs would make. Well, times are changing.
The evidence show this statement to be true. A statement of fact. Therefore it cannot be antisemitic.
I do believe this is a watershed issue for Mondoweiss.
And I mean this from a leftist perspective. As well as a Jewish perspective. And of course within the confines of an evidence-based discussion.
I read this blog as an Israeli currently suffering a fascist regime stripping my country of any vestiges of democracy it might have had when my parents uprooted themselves and me to come here from a Communist dictatorship three decades ago. A regime that bears too many similarities to the one I escaped from. Ve'ha'zroa od netuya
As American Jews you have had a large say in the fate of my country - at least within my lifetime. I believe you still do. You are Jews, and you are close to the centers of politics and media of the world. I would sincerely like to hear you take an unequivocal position on this issue.
It is 'put up or shut up' time. This was not an attempt at intimidation. It was an attempt to highlight the urgency and importance of this issue. Either you speak the truth and stand behind it, or you are NPR-lite. You can't have it both ways.
Hi Annie,
I'll try to clear up Denis's question.
When Denis says 'Not one time do they ask “Why is that?”' - he's not asking about the apparatus. The media filters. He's asking another question.
He clearly states that the media filters amount to "the elephant in the room: The Zionists control the US MSM — and even that is a euphemism."
And when he euphemistically says Zionists control the US MSM, he's talking about the true driving force behind Zionism - Jews. Sure, not all Zionists nowadays are Jewish. But that's just smoke and mirrors.
The question is about the big elephant in the room - the obvious fact that Jews control the media. Say it Annie: "Jews control the media".
I can understand why a non-Jew might be loathe to say such a thing bluntly. But why can't Jews say it, when it is right in front of their eyes?
Are you also afraid to be castigated as antisemites?
Perhaps you fear being cast into the "self-loathing Jew" camp by your community?
The third option, of course, if you don't speak up and call a spade a spade, would suggest that you are complicit...
It's cards on the table time, liberal American Jews of Mondoweiss.
Put up or shut up.
"‘Death to Jews’ in Paris 1890s spurred Herzl [to create a movement to relocate all Jews from Europe]"
ummm...that seems to be the idea behind these attacks, no?
To make all Arabs leave the land of Israel/Palestine.
The original Wikileaks documents were redacted.
A few days before Der Spiegel, and Guardian all came out with their explosive stories, a story appeared in the Israeli press.
It was Bibi. He was all smiles and he told the Israeli public that "Israel had nothing to worry about". He was right.
There is absolutely nothing damaging to Israel in all the documents. Nothing about the assassination attempt on Haled Mashal's life in Jordan. Not even low-level documents from the US embassy in Tel-Aviv.
Guess which spy agency Assange was wary of?
You betcha!
As Allison writes of this current batch: "The documents do not provide credible specifics on the Mossad's infiltration of the intelligence company"
and they never will...
"Israel has zero world class companies."
Say what???!
You're mad!
The education system for the children of tomorrow may be substandard. This says nothing of the elite today. As far as hi-tech is concerned, Israel is a global power. Hi-tech, as in weapons and computers.
How would it not be top notch?
I want to throw my voice in and say that I think both these additions to the comments policy are wrong and badly thought out.
I live in Israel. Bills are being passed that would disallow us to discuss and dissect Nazis and the holocaust. And to draw comparisons between the rise of Nazism in Germany to what is happening in Israel today.
I'm sad that Mondoweiss is also chipping in. I think Nazis and the holocaust need to be dissected and watered-down and made sense of. For too long has the Jewish establishment kept its stranglehold on this important piece of history. It's time for that to go the way of the dodo. If holocaust denial enters the conversation for that purpose - of dissecting and picking apart Nazi/Jewish history - then that is the price to be paid.
As for 9/11 and the controversies around it - this is also an important issue to dissect. The closer we are to it historically the more we can make sense of it. I don't know if this was a Pearl Harbor type event or even a false flag attack a-la the burning of the Reichstag, but the different takes on this historic event deserve to be heard - even if we cannot reach a clear-cut conclusion with what we know today. Perhaps to be dissected by future historians.
"We have dragons to slay" - then let them be slain. All of them.
A White South African writes an op-ed about what is and what isn't apartheid.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"...if he really sees its brutality (and I’m not sure he does)."
You're missing the point - he SHOWED the brutality:
FREEDOM FOR PALESTINE - on the backdrop of men climbing a barbed-wired concrete ghetto wall.
RIGHT VS. MIGHT - showing men with rocks opposing a tank. David vs. Goliath style.
And a colorful VISIT PALESTINE poster.
I thought it was funny.
Is this a position you express in places other than Mondoweiss (or other BDS-supporting circles)?
Or is this a position you keep to yourself mostly? Not actually sincerely and fully trying and pushing to see it adopted and implemented by Israel?
Israelis will say "enough" only if we see a major shift in U.S. Jewish money policy.
Most people I know are quite happy about how Stanley Fischer has so far saved us from the global financial crisis.
Pandora tommorow? Pandora already happened.
That's what we're seeing right now - what's coming out. It sure ain't pretty so far.
Luckily Pandora also let out the Tikva before it was closed. Whatever's going to come out - as some of the truth surely will - at least you'll still have hope.
Cheer up.
oh, and...
A light bringer who says there is more to truth than one should expose. the irony
That's a great video. Just listened to it at work.
I like how he puts the word holocaust back in its full historical context while still allowing the narrow NewSpeak dictionary meaning that only refers to the Jewish Shoa under the Nazis.
"It’s clear that most of you here support Hamas." - hophmi
Well, I can't argue with that.
I can deny it (and I do) but I surely can't argue it.
I wish things were as clear to me as they obviously are to you. Life would be so much simpler - up till the point where everything came crashing down around me for no apparent reason.
See you on the flip side.
Not denying anything.
I've watched footage uploaded by the activists. They make no link between themselves and Hamas. Neither do I. But more importantly neither does Hitchens.
Hitchens CLAIMED that "it seems safe and fair to say that the flotilla and its leadership work in reasonably close harmony with Hamas". However, there was no link - reputable or otherwise - that might substantiate his claim. (an actual LINK - a source, an article, an opinion, whatever - would do nicely)
So there's no need to deny Hitchens' UNSUBSTANTIATED claim. It's up to those who make such claims to try and substantiate them - if they so wish.
If you (or anybody else) can make/find a relevant link between flotilla activists and Hamas, you are more than welcome to educate us about it. That is to say, you are more than welcome to post a LINK to any relevant article linking the flotilla activists and Hamas.
So you see, we need not "take the trouble to deny" any link between flotilla activists and Hamas. We can simply ignore the idiots who make those claims but fail to substantiate them.
I also forgot to mention Bill Maher.
Maher also likens his "lineage" from Carlin's anti-religiousness. Like Hitchens he just uses it so he can hate religious individuals - mainly Muslims tho. Islamophobia is safe - same as "Modern Antisemitism" (is that an actual term? cause we were taught about it in school) supposedly was in the first half of the 20th century. It's also safe to rile on activists supporting Gaza Arabs because they're all Hamas.
And yeah, we should make a huge issue of Hitchens' intellectual dishonesty. This is the same guy who underwent waterboarding just to prove it wasn't torture, found out that it was in about 3 seconds, and he still can't pull his head far enough out of his own ass to stop himself from writing glaring fallacies.
I remember Hitchens in a discussion with some Jew on a TV show, being extremely hateful towards that Jew for having officiated male genital mutilation. His hate is not only directed at Muslims, but towards religion (and religious people) in general.
There's a growing secular anti-religious movement here in Israel that is modern on the one hand but allows people to still keep their hate and Islamophobia. These people revere personalities like Christopher Hitchens and Pat Condell. But also George Carlin and Richard Dawkins.
While I have great admiration for Carlin and have no qualms with Dawkins, its obvious to me that Condell and Hitchens ride their coattails in order to advance Islamophobic sentiments.
"For 63 years people like you have been saying the same things"
Exactly!
It's Israel who has been changing its tune depending on the wind.
It's occupied - not annexed. No, It's not occupied - it's part of israel. There's no siege on Gaza. The siege is necessary. We withdrew. We'll never withdraw. etc. etc.
eee, are you one person or is it a few people sharing the same account?
eee, that almost sounded like a threat. Albeit one that is being implemented daily under one form or another. Palestinians are already the losers. They cannot "end up the losers", as you've suggested. They've already lost.
As the saying goes in my country - You cannot threaten a wh*r* with d*ck.
Your veiled threat of "unleashing" pogroms against the Arabs is indeed a foregone conclusion in the minds of many living in this tortured land. Let's all hope it does not come to pass.
טריפו = Truffaut (as in Francois)
but it can also be read as Trip-o (as in acid)
It's a play on words - like most modern Hebrew - translating English concepts in such a way as to mean different things in Hebrew or English.
Palestine = Eretz Israel
Stern Gang = Lehi (Freedom Fighters of Israel)
copyright = creators' rights
etc etc
I think satire is dead. or antisemitism. or truth.
Yup, I had friends and colleagues who shot themselves during their service. I myself got some relief from my commanding officers by making repeat appointments with my unit's psychologists and petitions to be discharged from the army :D
I think the statistic back then was around 50-60 suicidees a year.
Though I must admit at the time I chalked it up to youth and hormones and not to the experience of being a soldier.
GuiltyFeat:
Wouldn't you say that this post is a stepping stone in such a campaign? The fist such step, in fact?
Your comment comes across as less than supportive of Philip's position - to say the least.
You might want to work on that if you don't wish to come across as one of those Zionist hacks you are so eager to distance yourself from.
GuiltyFeat:
Wouldn't you say that this post is a stepping stone in such a campaign? The fist such step, in fact.
Your comment comes across as less than supportive of Philip's position - to say the least.
You might want to work on that if you don't wish to come across as one of those Zionist hacks you are trying to distance yourself from.
So, how does the fact that the crowds were college party folk NOT say something about the nationalistic jingoistic sentiment alive and kicking in the USA today?
Obama made this party for them and they came.
I must admit I'm surprised that my sentiments towards Obama nowadays mirror those the Tea Party expressed less than two years ago. The Obama poster with the Joker make-up being the most apt (I didn't get it back then - I just thought it was a "whiteface". Now I know)
I'd like to caveat my own statement from above.
All that Mya has said about jingoism is so obviously true, that the truth of Bin Laden's death becomes unimportant by comparison.
Which, I guess, is why the White House didn't care enough to provide proof. At this point, 11 years on, just proclaiming he's dead is more than enough to rile up the masses.
re:your first statement: Osama Bin Laden is dead.
Are we to take that at face value?
With the rush to dump the body and all? (at sea, no less)
Some photos could have been nice, maybe a DNA test or three (cause they shot him in the face)
Shouldn't we place some qualifiers or caveats on that first statement before we know more? Like "according to [such and such] Osama Bin Laden is dead". I mean, not everything that comes out of the White House is God's honest truth.
Once the Jew got his rightful place as a White Man (ie. was accepted as a peer by other Whites), the Jew effortlessly turned his back on the downtrodden and brown. "I'm on board! Pull up the life line!"
Jewish Objectivism at its finest.
(well, Jewish Objectivism is sort of redundant. Objectivism was Jewish from inception)
I'd say the very idea of an "employee spoke out of turn" is damaging.
My assumptions (based on the oh-so-Israeli misspelling of Riedmatten's name) is that she expressed a view in what she thought was an off-the-record conversation, and this was used for spin. A view that only makes sense in a very narrow legalistic conversation, and useless when taken out of context.
Any request for clarifications from the Red Cross makes her statements (that there is no humanitarian crisis per se) official and therefore adds more fodder to the spin machine.
That image is iconic.
The fact that you would attribute it to satire on the part of the art department speaks volumes of that image's potency to illuminate.
Within a certain context it would be considered anti-Zionist. And in Philip's case it makes him gag. But within the political climate of today it simply reinforces Oren's point - using today's images and operating within today's context (if not only).
When one cannot be sure if a statement is satirical or not - it probably isn't passing judgmentental - it simply is. That image just states an agreed-upon truth.
I wouldn't make too much of David Simon not mentioning Palestine. I think he's taking the long route here - as is evident in all the television he's made in the past decade.
I'd say David Simon is trying to speak to a larger issue - that of Jews relinquishing their responsibility to the downtrodden people(s) of the world.
It feels as if once the Jews were finally "accepted" as equals into the White Race, they forgot their humble origins and the racial prosecution our forefathers endured. I think David Simon is speaking to that.
Equating the plight of the American underprivileged to a slow-motion holocaust, isn't David Simon dismissing Palestine. It's David Simon trying to affect local change - as I believe is mandated by our times.
If he succeeds in restoring a true feeling of social responsibility to the Jews in America and liberate the word Holocaust into the larger non-Jewish discourse - those changes in attitude will doubtlessly affect how Jews regard and discuss the Zionist project in Palestine/Israel too.
Yeah. Pretty much.
Sorry. But I've just read GuiltyFeat's comments and I have to agree with his assessments (though perhaps not with his politics) - no settler will go to war with any other Israelis. And no Israeli will go to war with a settler. (Israeli being synonymous with Jewish in this context).
Any possible civil war will not be within the Jewish community. Violence will only occur against Arabs/Palestinians. Or if push comes to shove against a minority of "leftists" like me (though honestly I'm not too worried about that either).
We all know our parts in this game.
yeah. it's a pseudonym - one I invented two decades ago whilst still in the army. Though I've peppered my comments with enough identifiable information to make the pseudonym superfluous for any security-minded folk. I do mean what I write.
Yes, indeed.
There's not going to be an inter-Israeli Jewish civil war. The army will not split. Nor will any settlements be evacuated. Any order to evacuate the settlements will be met by a refusal of at least half the army, with the tacit agreement of the commanding rank.
There is no 2-state solution. The Israeli Right has seen to that.
The only reason Israel is pretending to be against a 2-state solution is because that's the form international pressure against Israel is taking these days. Also it's good for inner-Israeli propaganda.
Even if international recognition goes through, AIPAC will eventually agree to some form of arrangement with this new Palestinian "state" - that will keep all security arrangements in the hands of the Israeli regime. This will allow Israel the fig leaf of "solving" the conflict - allowing Palestinians a state - while maintaining Jewish superiority. ie. no democracy.
Rooting for a two-state solution (at this point in time) plays right into the hands of those who don't want to see democracy for the people living in Israel/Palestine.
um, yeah
@Ani Ishmael (the first post):
I still prefer the Thai workers theory for the Itamar murders, than IDF's "two teenagers did its".
IDF's Central Command General was quoted on the day of the murders that the private security company's (non-)actions were highly unusual and that the Military Police will have to check the "reasonableness" of the private firm's response.
Needless to say, IDF has issued no further comments on any investigation or on the reasonableness of the security firm's dithering for 30 minutes before calling the IDF (ie. AFTER the murders).
It might not be Thai workers, but it does seem that security was unreasonably lax. People are welcome to connect the dots any way they wish.
This might come off as a semantic quibble but I think it goes to the heart of this debate. To strategy.
While I agree with the assessment that the debate about BDS cannot (and should not) stay intra-Jewish, this says nothing about Ben-Ami and J-Street's position.
Ben-Ami wants to form a Jewish position/voice within the larger BDS debate. JStreet's goal is to consolidate Jewish power in America and Israel, and usurp AIPAC as that singular Jewish voice.
Ben-Ami's conversation is intra-Jewish. JStreet's debate is with the other players - an open one.
One can address JStreet's positions from the "outside" - the larger open debate. One cannot tell Ben-Ami how to move Jewish lobby power away from AIPAC - not without keeping JStreet strictly Jewish.
Your argument that one needs to find a pre-Zionist text referring to the Jews as a nation plays right into the hands of Zionists who ask to see pre-Zionist references to a Palestinian people.
Jews regard themselves as a nation today. One can extract the historical roots of Jewish nationality but one can't deny its existence. It's real now. As real as the Palestinian nation.
If you're looking for the roots of the "one nation" of Jews, you need look no further than the millenia-old continuation of Jewish religion and culture. It's safe to say Jews collectively saw themselves as belonging to the biblical "chosen people" in the pre-nationalist eras. This idea of being a "chosen people" and "light onto the Goyim" crosses ethnic boundries, continents, religiosity and secularism. The retention of Jewish language and traditions in all these disparate countries, empires and regimes, across two-millenia (14th and 18th centuries included) at least hints at a "oneness" the Jews feel amongst themselves and their covenant/brith with each other (or a common God). Zionism simply labeled this as Jewish nationalism when the idea of nationalism was about to die out. And now we're stuck with it.
We should be saying how inadequate nationalism is in facing today's problems. Dismantling the historical roots of Jews as a cross-national and cross-ethnic people is futile.
Ellen and Theo - what you're doing is a form of semantic quibbling. Is it a race? is it a religion? an ethnic group? what of Ethiopians? etc etc. These questions each have their place except when trying to talk of Jews as a group.
There's a group of people who consider themselves part of the same group - the Jewish people - each for his/her own reasons and with different definitions for this group. But they each, more or less, recognize the same people as belonging to the same group. People outside this group (with their own definitions/lack thereof) also recognize the same people and the same group.
Personally, I think of the Jews as a gang.
The gang that cut off a bit of my penis so I could never leave the gang/escape. My definition is neither an ethnic definition nor a religion one - but I'm still talking of same group of people.
Jews think of themselves as ethnically or nationally or historically or religiously or culturally connected - even if some of these connections escape their strictest definitions.
I think Ben-Ami's reasoning is quite frank. His lobby is about representing Jewish interest in Israel, and forming an alternative to the major lobby currently representing Jewish interest in Israel - AIPAC.
BDS is trying to form a solution. BDS is both Arab and Jewish (and of course, non-Arab and non-Jewish). J-Street would like to form/find a Jewish answer to BDS. An answer that can be contrasted with AIPAC's Jewish answer to BDS. That sounds like part of the solution too.
Nothing racist there - this is an ethnic discussion at its core, and as such groups form to find/represent these communal interests. It all feels very much above-board.
No conspiracy.
I voiced my own PERSONAL disbelief of these sequence of carefully-planned events (and all of them were carefully planned - with the perpetrators evading capture!) were made by Arabs.
Arabs have NOTHING to gain from these events strategically. I expressed that.
Itamar, explosion in Jerusalem, Mar-Khemis, Arrigoni... someone's burning the Reichstag and making it look like Communists did it.
Personally, I don't buy into this narrative ONE bit.
Mossad is making up for lost reputation abroad with strategic operations inside Israel/Palestine proper.
That's a really sad story. All of it.
I'm a wee bit younger than Zionism too. But I don't owe Zionism anything. I pay my taxes. That's where it ends.
Hebrew is mine.
Hebrew is quite a lot older than Zionism - as is the word Shidduch.
Hebrew is also a spoken language now - doing it's best to disentangle itself from the Academia Le'Lashon's horrible and debilitating grasp.
I've no doubt the word Cushi (I somehow prefer that spelling now. more neutral :P ) is used to insult Cushim. In the same way the word Arab is used as an insult. Or, if you will, the way Jew might be insulting to a Jew in a minority setting. My point is that both Aravi and Cushi are descriptive out of a specific context.
And in as much as I see myself having the right to define (or at least influence) the context I'm in - I'd say it's our duty to pull this word back into mainstream Israeli Hebrew and not be apologetic about it.
Allowing this trend from the 80's - that Cushi is not politically correct - to remain unchallenged is a sure way to keep the racism hidden and therefore alive. Those people who came out to protest did so because they are quite able to tell themselves it's NOT about Cushim. "I'm color blind" implies the "Black Panther" guy in that video. And as a punchline they'd tell you "We'd NEVER call them Cushim. That's racist" while protesting them.
Cushim need to go the same way the Frenkim, Yeke Potz, Romani Ganav, Parsi Kamtzan and all the other Israeli ethnicities went to get social acceptance - through whatever verbal grinder/gauntlet Israeli society has devised so the implied insult was no longer deemed insulting.
Your mileage may vary, obviously. Both the setting you grew up in and I'd assume the people you know would shape a different mentality and outlook. I wouldn't try to push the word Cushi down anyone's throats. I'd probably refrain from using the word Cushi if an actual Cushi told me it offends him. Subjects of race are not easy.
That's the feeling I had too. Growing up, talking about someone's race/ethnicity was allowed. It comes up even nowadays in conversation quite often. Even joking about it and ridiculing someone's ethnic/cultural attributes (or lack-thereof) carries meaning in Israel - and not a bad one (!)
I remember for a while in the 90's calling someone Russian was considered faux pas. That's changed completely in the past decade. With Bucharim, Uzbekim, Kavkazim no longer trying to hide behind the "Russian" label they had when they first arrived here.
I think that's the path ethnic groups make into "acceptance" in Israeli society. Normalizing the word Cooshie (cushi?) is an important step towards that. We use that word anyway when we talk about a black person's race.
Aravi and Palestini should be normalized too into Israeli spoken Hebrew. But that's a pipe dream.
My initial comment wasn't ironic. It was a spontaneous reaction to that man's exuberance. It just felt right when this post still had 0 comments.
I'm quite happy to have had this conversation. I don't think I mis-read you. I found your questions quite appropriate and was truly pleased for the opportunity answering them allowed me in presenting (and understanding) myself.
I think the subject of language and redrawing what is and isn't appropriate speech in a cross-language cross-cultural discussion about race and racism is a worthy one to have. And an empowering one too.
Thank you all :D
Fair enough.
Obviously Israeli temperament doesn't come off quite the same way in different context. Also one was a spontaneous outburst, while the latter evolved from this discussion.
But I'd say I'm temperamental by Israeli standards too, so that's that. Here's hoping the King's horses will catch me in time.
Ironically I find Max's rabble-rousing Jewbonic sentiments (I just read his About page) to mirror my own "agenda". Funny how he dismissed the possibility of me being upper-class liberal quite offhandedly. Mirrors, mirrors.
And here's Philip Pullman, whom I stole the "right to be offended" line from (with great apologies for the loss of eloquence):
link to youtube.com
I live (and grew up) in an immigrant society. One that allows amongst Jews the use of ethnic epithets like Ashkenazi, Maroccai, Iraqi, Teimani(Yemenite), Misri(Egyptian), Sfaradi, Russi as proper words. This is acceptable and even neccessary because it conveys a lot of cultural meaning in our society.
This same society also castigates other (equally meaningful) ethnic epithets as racist - Cooshie, Aravi (Arab).
I can say I'm going down to the Russian to buy smokes. But if I say I'm going to the Arab to eat, people look at me funny.
In polite Hebrew conversation:
Iraqi (meaning Jewish) - neutral.
Arab (meaning non-Jewish) - rude.
The irony.
That's the long answer - the one that assumes I had an agenda when I wrote that initial comment.
The short answer is I defend my right to speak and use language as I please. Everyone else has an equal right to be offended by my words if they so wish.
Nigger is not equivalent to Cooshie.
Cooshie is a biblical word and it's descriptive of race. Its roots are in ancient Egyptian - far different (and richer) cultural roots than the word Nigger. Cush is Ham(Son of Noah)'s eldest; brother of Cnaan.
Hebrew Wikipedia has it as politically incorrect term only in the last two decades of the previous century (coinciding with Ethiopian Aliya to Israel ...hmmmm). I'd say that's a fairly recent trend in Hebrew tradition. And one worth fighting against.
The effects of Cooshie being hijacked by PC-culture as a racist epithet can be seen in that video. Those protesters feel its less racist to call black people Murderers and Rapists, then to call them Cooshim.
Hebrew NewSpeak in action.
Cooshie is very much not a racist term. It's the correct Jewish word for dark-skinned Sudanese (and Africans in general). It's a biblical term and an honorable one at that. I dare you to find any racism in my comment.
Last I looked this site was about the war of ideas within Jewish culture and the middle east. The idea I bring to this war is that American political correctness can stay on that side of the Atlantic, thank you very much. Report what you will. I stand behind my comment and the language employed.
As for your questions about my upbringing/origins:
My social-economic upbringing was (East European immigrated) Ashkenazi Israeli middle-class. My current social status is such that I live in south Tel-Aviv amongst many Cooshie neighbours - on Chlenov St.
My English is from Jamaica, where I lived as a teenager twenty years ago. Coincidentally, that's where I learned how absurd American political correctness was. I learned that blacks are blacks no matter what you call them. And words are words. Nigger is a word. So is Cooshie. They're only racist if they're used to form a racist proposition.
Your reply is a case in point - you're so blinded by my use of non-PC words that you failed to read the clear intent of my comment - which was to cheer that little man standing bravely in a crowd of close-minded angry people and telling them off so eloquently.
So in closing, American PC is a form of Orwellian NewSpeak - where certain words are forbidden for political reasons. Nigger, for example, has been stolen by American PC-culture to a point where Mark Twain is being edited (!!!!)
I don't want this thought-fascism to take over my language and culture. Cooshie is proper Hebrew and it's descriptive. I say it stays.
Oh snap I love that little Cooshie facing all those fascists off and teaching them some Zionist history. HA!
You go, my little black Israeli brother!
Meretz is a Zionist party. It's very much in the Israeli mainstream as far as positions go (they supported Cast Lead in the beginning, etc. etc)
Their problem with the West Bank is that it has never been annexed. Therefore the settlements there ARE illegal according to their perspective - but not the rest of Israel.
The Golan Heights were formally annexed, therefore the Golan Heights are legally part of Israel. Therefore they would not call for anyone to boycott Golan Height products anymore then they would call for anyone to boycott Tel-Aviv products.
Were the Knesset to annex the West Bank, Meretz would not call for a boycott of West Bank products either. That would be a desirable outcome for many from the Zionist left. They would then shift to talking about human/civil rights for the annexed Palestinian population.
Bill Maher is an Islamophobe in atheist's-clothing.
This article gives Bill Maher way too much credit with apologetics like "Maher, oblivious to the..." or "Maher doesn't know enough to name the falsehoods" in the first two paragraphs. Bullshit! Maher knows!
Bill Maher has made a career out of knowing more about religion than those he interviews. He prides himself on critical thinking and logic. He makes cracks about Christians and Jews and debates the merits with them - but somehow when it comes to dirty Arabs, he really lets it rip and makes broad statements about how Arabs are just a bunch of Barbarians.
I bet it's his Jewish upbringing, which he tried to play down in his movie Religiolous - saying he only found out he was Jewish late in life. right...
Israeli cable company HOT started airing Comedy Central in Israel this year. While I was excited to see Stewart saying he has not spoken out against the settlements a few weeks back, this one makes me kind of sad.
As an Israeli, watching this, all I see is that the offer is not valid in the West Bank or Gaza. That's it. It's just a statement of fact. It's not a critique. It's not satire. It just is. Almost tautological.
Stewart and Oliver express a position on other American interventions in the Middle East. They open the debate, poke holes. But they close the door on Gaza, the West Bank and Israel/Palestine as a whole. The Israeli audience can rest easy.
First of all, not all settlers would be complicit in a conspiracy. The private security firm was a preemptive maneuver against transparency and accountability - to both the public and the army officials. Later the firm's private status will also help against judicial inquiry.
Secondly, there's no need for an actual conspiracy. Every Israeli knows their part. All that was needed during Cast Lead was a lack of orders or prohibitions. The massacres took care of themselves.
All that was needed this time around was a lax security setting - a delay here, a blind eye there. Everyone knew their part, so everything took care of itself. Even the army just gave anonymous lip-service to investigating the 30 minute delay. No official statement. Todya, thousands showed up at the funeral looking somber. They were waiting for this.
Everyone also knows not to ask any stupid questions in Israel. We've been conditioned not to talk about certain things since for ever (*ahem* Vaanunu *ahem*) - not within earshot, anyway.
From the same article:
link to nrg.co.il
"Senior officer" in Israeli media usually means THE senior officer.
This has all the making of a massive cover-up. With the IDF also trying to cover for the fact that they are not in control at all. The settlers are - and their private security firms.
"We will investigate this subject and find out if it was reasonable."
That's legalese for 'It's highly irregular, but we're looking into ways to cover our asses legally'.
This is some serious shit.
The online Israeli news today are all showing the thousands at the funeral. Somber-like. The bodies closer to the cameras are covered with black cloth with Hebrew verses on them - reminiscent of Muslim shahids/martyrs. This is highly irregular!
Only three bodies are covered with the white Talit for the "normal" photo ops.
The proximity to March 15 - the upcoming Palestinian day of uprising/union/rage - is unlikely to be coincidental.
According to the conversations I've had with run-of-the-mill secular right-wing and nationalist colleagues on facebook, I'd say everyone knows their parts and talking-points and are doing their bit to buy these guys time.
It's a 'team effort' - much like all Israelis did during Cast Lead to shut down public dissent.
Here's Ariel's Mayor, Ron Nachman, saying "I'm not responsible for the phalanges on our side, nor on that side". Implicitly admitting he knows there are armed Jewish militias operating under his nose in the West Bank.
link to ynet.co.il
(Hebrew)
These Jewish phalanges have been rampaging all Saturday, and we can expect to see them become bolder and more violent very soon.
It's all a front so that the "Price Tags" pogroms will become legitimate in Israeli public opinion.
I've been following this closely since last night.
Here's a piece on nrg-Maariv (Hebrew). In it the Shabak and police say "there were major faults in the private security firm's conduct". At 22:00 the "smart security fence" around Itamar alerted an intruder. Upon arrival at the scene the security firm's patrol found no one and decided NOT to inform the army about the intrusion for another 30 minutes.
link to nrg.co.il
That's how those other guys did it too... undoing the cultural, academic and social achievements of the Germans that provided the prestige that permitted creation of their nationalist-empire.
Thank you, Avi.
But B'Tselem reports (especially PDF's with pictures of sad Arabs on the cover) do not go a long way when discussing with Israelis. Israelis view it as biased and slanted. And with such a recriminatory title - Void of Responsibility - I couldn't get any of my colleagues to even look at it.
The arguments that ensue below - with fuster making mince meat of the numbers - is a prime example why it's useless.
I was looking for an MSM article - consice. clear. readable.
You know, for kids...
Does anyone have a link one can use to substantiate this claim?
Preferably from a non-controversial source or from the MSM.
It would really come in handy if I had one.
No, seriously!
Can we talk about our own little Fukushima's earthquake readiness?
I'm ready...
It is a PR stunt.
As an Israeli, I'm not impressed. I know that when the earthquake hits Israel (as our Ministry of Infrastructure told us with our own tax-money - "it's only a matter of time"), neither my government fire and rescue services nor the IDF's Home Front Command will be able to offer me and my family any assistance.
So no one is fooled into believing the GoI cares about anything but itself, anyway.
However, I would like to know if our own little Fukushima can withstand even a smaller quake.
As I understand it, it was built with 60-year-old technology (which was only good for 30 years back then) rather surreptitiously and with no public oversight.
Israel's Ministry of Infrastructures recently ran this ad (more precisely, right after Israel's non-response to the Carmel fires):
link to youtube.com
Loose translation:
"A strong earthquake in Israel is just a matter of time. Strengthening your building is important - but our website tells you it's a private, not government, concern.
Earthquake - Don't let it catch you unawares."
I believe Israeli satire is dead.
Last time we had political satire in Israel was during the Oslo years - early to mid 90's - with the Hamishiya. That group's meandering into depressive self-indulgent TV shows, aptly named "The Bourgeois, is symptomatic of this.
Naturally, Jon Stewart had to toe the Zionist line if Comedy Central were going to broadcast in Israel. From the left, CC provides the lame satire of Jon Stewart. And from the right - the biting satire of South Park. That's the MSM's notion of politically balanced. Jon Stewart is as hypocritical as anything coming out the MSM.
Having said all that, I think it's significant to see what young American Jews (Stewart's natural constituency) manage to sneak past American MSM, Israeli censorship, the upcoming anti-BDS legislation etc, and straight into young Israelis' living rooms. Personally, I'd love to see more of this.
This may have been a small opening on Stewart's part but it means American Jews can, and should, take him to task about his admitted silence on West Bank settlements. He was basically begging them to.
And Israelis need to see the Americans taking Jon Stewart to task on their TVs - inside their satire-free comfort zone.
Israel's cable TV has started carrying Comedy Central in the past couple of months. That means that Israeli on-the-fence-left-leaning youth watch his show.
Stewart does toe the Zionist line all the way. But now he's getting a regular TV (not internet - like I was) following in Israel. Breaking form, like he just did, means something.
Let's hope he grows some balls back and does some more of this.
heh, "security issues"
Shorthand Zio-speak for "someone might try to arrest our speaker"?
I'm dying to see the Israeli papers' spin on this in a day or three.
Ben-Dror Yemini always has such enlightening things to say about these things.
Ha!
That way everybody wins. Soldier gets to have his story and his trial covered worldwide - instant Hasbara karma.
My guess, US will not arrest him, no matter who he turns out to be.
Yeah, I remember. That doesn't in any way guarantee that the Egyptians will emerge with a strong constitution and a first amendment clause.
The army and its power structure have remained unscathed. They're basically at the mercy of the American MIP. I'm not sure American Zionists will be happy to see a true constitutional democracy arise in Egypt.
I wrote this in the other Weiner thread - but I'm fast coming to believe the only reason Weiner was sent to this debate was to "test the waters" for future Zionist talking points. I actually think this one (Egypt being Islamic) was a failed talking point which we won't be seeing anywhere other than on the Fox side of the debate.
Weiner seemed obviously surprised at the unanimous and immediate negative reaction from the crowd. He lost his game face for a second there. He backtracked really fast once he'd realized how far he'd stepped out of his progressive persona. Almost to the point of saying he's sorry.
He does, however, raise an important point - will we see a first amendment in the Egyptian constitution?
Egypt is obviously going to be setting the tone for the region's changes, reforms and revolutions. In all probability Egypt will emerge as the most liberal in the region, and with more inalienable rights and freedoms than its neighbours. Sort of like America was to the democracies of the world post WWII, but on a local level. All other regimes trying to emulate the Egyptian model but getting away with less secure constitutions - Israel/Palastine included.
So the question of Egypt's First Amendment is paramount. If Egypt fails to secure a viable, strong and inalienable freedom of speech clause - Libya, Israel and Jordan will surely have no incentives to do better.
So maybe Weiner's "Oh really? We'll see..." reaction when he lost his progressive mask is something to take seriously after all. He probably knows what strings the American Zionists are pulling from the White House better than we do.
It's continuing in as much as it has not been resolved. I think that's a semantic quibble - and fair game in a debate. Left as an opening by the other side to pursue if they so wish.
Doing so would have allowed Weiner to show how Israel went above and beyond what the UN decided, while Lebanon enjoyed both worlds - gaining from UN mistakes and Israeli concessions. Brian did not take the bait.
If anything, Weiner's remark left the impression that Israel's northern border isn't resolved either. Alas, this is yet another shameful truth to come out of this debate.
There's Rager village in the north - which is half on the Israeli side and half in Lebanon. Except the Israeli side is actually annexed Syrian land. The Lebanese regard this as occupied land, and the Syrians won't say its theirs.
Also when the "blue line" - the international border with Lebanon, as it's called in Israel - was drawn by the UN according to historic maps in 2000 after Israel's hasty withdrawal from south Lebanon, the Lebanese had some contentions about said maps' accuracy. Israel acquiesced on all Lebanese points - ie. allowed those encroachments to happen. Israel had similar objections to the UN line in other place but those stayed in place. So these are the encroachments Weiner had in mind.
Israel still flies its planes over Lebanon. And I think maybe goes into Lebanon's territorial waters - though I might be wrong on the later.
I must agree with ToivoS here.
The phrase "facts on the ground" has been echoing whenever settlements were discussed in Israel - in the media or political debates.
It always seemed like a fool's errand to a leftist like me. They'd either have to be pulled down or be left under Palestinian control. So I never paid the phrase "facts on the ground" its due attention. But the blatant disregard for Arabs' humanity and rights that is so prevalent today in Israel, coupled with the oh-so-surprising silence from the rest of the Western world - shows we were the fools.
This is the endgame. Weiner knows it and so do his Zionists puppeteers. I believe he was sent to this debate for the express purpose of floating the "that's not a controversial thing to say" comment. To sort of test the water about the Jordan River border (which obviously took everyone by surprise), but also to make this talking-point a "fact on the ground" for future debates.
When the Jordan River border becomes common Zionist currency - and it will raise controversy - the Zionists will point back to this debate between progressives and claim that even back then it was not a controversial thing to say. "Cohen and Baird merely raised an eyebrow" they'll say "they didn't shoot Weiner down".
You can see this "testing the water" attitude when he tries to sell the "Egypt will become an Isalmist state" talking point. He was pretty sure that would be an easy sell and actually asks the audience if they won't reconsider before moving on to sell some other Zionist wares.
I think he was sent there to see how far the envelope can still be pushed and in which direction. And no one pushed back on the Jordan River border idea - everyone was just taken aback. I even regard Weiner's body language and note-taking differently, now that I think of it. He came to spy on true progressives. He came to do his acting class homework.