-
-
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says … 30
- Mohammed Assaf, singing sensation out of Gaza refugee camp, torches … 11
- Activists call for a SodaStream boycott at the 2013 Cannes … 3
- Video: Palestinian demonstrators break a hole in the wall during … 3
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 37
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 3
- Exile and the Prophetic: Disappearing Massad, disappearing Palestine 8
- Lapid says ‘Israelis want peace and security and Palestinians want … 16
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 784
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 314
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 145
- San Francisco bus ads condemn Israeli apartheid: backlash begins 121
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 106
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 100
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 91
-
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 96
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 88
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 79
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 72
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani 62
- More on the Church of Scotland’s controversial report on occupation 60
-
- RT @MhmdGaza: @anniefofani Just read your article at Mondoweiss abt Wala's visit to Jerusalem. same here,I should be in Jerusalem in July :…, 18 hours ago
- Activists call for a SodaStream boycott at the 2013 Cannes Film Festival http://t.co/7Dc8qlw7um, 18 hours ago
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite history: They fled ‘of their own free will’ http://t.co/IiL1P0hW5p, 20 hours ago
- Video: Palestinian demonstrators break a hole in the wall during protest commemorating the Nakba http://t.co/cWsoOsAoFy, 20 hours ago
- Lapid says ‘Israelis want peace and security and Palestinians want peace and justice’ http://t.co/rGAQJVloa8, 20 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ forum on Nakba (71)
- German Lefty: @ tree Your paragraph above does say that they should accept it. Can’t you see that? Well, I can see...
- tree: Of course, it’s up to the victims of the Nakba to decide what they want to discuss with whom and when. I am...
- Taxi: German Lefty, You’re repeating yourself ad nauseum and it’s not helping your case at all cuz you...
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem (40)
- DICKERSON3870: P.S. Glass: A Portrait of Philip in Twelve Parts: Bonus Material, 2007, NR, 180 minutes The bonus...
- DICKERSON3870: Some of his music has an almost trance-inducing quality to it. Philip Glass – Tirol Concerto...
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite history: They fled ‘of their own free will’ (37)
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says Haaretz — but ‘NYT’ treats it as gospel (30)
- Taxi: Looking down at the corpse of a murdered boy and spitting and calling him a liar. Real classy move ziobots!...
- Mohammed Assaf, singing sensation out of Gaza refugee camp, torches Arab Idol competition (11)
- seafoid: What I love about that video is the reception he gets from the 4 judges. He is no 6th grade refugee from...
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ forum on Nakba (71)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
David K, I was thinking the same thing - even thinking of writing a post about it
Amen, Donald. It's another case of employing great resources to make an absurd PR point that even if believed, should be treated as insignificant.
I absolutely agree with Hostage that the issue makes little difference. The hasbara line that Palestinians fled voluntarily is not only factually unsupportable - it is entirely irrelevant. Palestinians fled for the same reason that civilian refugees always flee from wars; they are afraid that if they stay they will die. Why should Palestinians lose certain refugee rights because some fled before they were forced at gunpoint to do so? Could they not anticipate the danger of remaining in a war zone, especially one in which other civilians like them had been massacred?
The speciousness of this hasbara is plainly apparent. What was the supposed motive for "Arab leaders" to tell Palestinians to flee so that they could return triumphant? This wasn't a phone booth or toilet stall where one had to leave for another to enter. The supposedly invading five, or six, or seven Arab armies did not require the flight of civilians before they could move.
It was par-for-the-course silly hasbara about an illusory distinction between fleeing "voluntarily" and fleeing at the point of a gun. But like a lot of silly hasbara, it spread like a virus, convincing the predisposed, and repeated a million times over.
It is interesting to see how and when this hasbara evolved, but I recall seeing an eyewitness account from IF Stone in 1948 stating that the flight of Palestinians was an inexplicable surprise to him. I have no doubt of his sincerity, especially since he later was a pioneer in exposing the vapidity of the whole thing, but his initial account led me to believe that the voluntary flight BS started way back in 1948. There is other evidence of this in the article. "We begged them to stay and join with us in creating a Jewish State, but they foolishly followed the orders of their leaders." Yeah, right. At any rate, it seems that B-G gave the matter renewed attention in the JFK years.
Citizen, I completely agree with you
Mental illness? I'm not convinced. And Dershowitz has skills - that's why I write about him so much. I think he remains very influential. His charisma fills lecture halls and events. He is a very dynamic speaker, and perhaps most dynamic when he is thundering a complete lie with great conviction and outrage at his opponent. In his famous debate with Finkelstein, I thought he scored some good rhetorical points. I saw him debate with Scott Horton, a very smart, decent guy, and thought he clearly won the debate even though I agreed with Horton. If he suffers from some mental illness, which is highly subjective anyway, it hasn't diminished his popularity and influence. That is why I spend a lot of time on his lies - another reason is that they are so ridiculously plentiful that there is a never-ending supply of material.
Shmuel, your speculation on Dershowitz's thought processes is quite plausible. When he explodes like this, which he does often, he may believe every word he is saying, regardless of the abundant evidence to the contrary.
But on balance, I think he knows he is lying. He so consistently and repeatedly lies, in ways that bend and stretch the truth that require intent and deliberation, that he is probably doing so here as well. Note how in his 2011 attack, in which Tutu is clearly the focus of his ire, he throws in the South African Govt and the ANC along with Tutu as supporters of these various regimes. He clearly is aware that Tutu himself cannot be charged with these transgressions, and so he adds other parties who can, even though Tutu explicitly broke with the ANC on some of these issues. Not only guilt by association, but guilt by repudiated association.
Also, while he falsely claimed that Tutu never criticizes China, Dersh hedged his bets a bit with "rarely" Zimbabwe, so that he could answer critics who demonstrated such criticisms - "oh they are much rarer than his condemnations of Israel" he would say. Of course in the end it does not matter. The falsity of his accusations against Tutu, and Carter, and Finkelstein, and Goldstone and Travers and Mearsheimer & Walt and lots of other people cannot reasonably be doubted.
Even if I'm right, your two theories - hearing only criticism of Israel and automatically associating such critics with evil - surely describe the thought processes of many others, and possibly Dershowitz on those rare occasions when he is self-deluded rather than deliberately lying.
I am in agreement, RoHa. I have always defended Dershowitz on this point, that his career as a criminal defense attorney (which I am as well) should not be confused with his odious opinions and outright lies as a pundit on Israel and Palestine. Johnny Cochran and Barry Scheck did more to win that case, and neither did anything wrong. They represented their client vigorously and within the boundaries of professional behavior. Scheck in particular is clearly a hero, being responsible for the release of many many innocent people convicted of serious crimes.
If there is any villain in the OJ saga, it is Mark Fuhrman, the lead detective who botched the evidence collection and even worse, was caught in a big lie on the witness stand. He claimed he had not used the word "nigger," and the defense presented an audiotape of him using that word numerous times in an interview with a book publisher. This probably did as much to win OJ an acquittal than anything else. After the trial, he was prosecuted for perjury, pled guilty, kicked off the force, and turned his attention to Greenwich CT, where he wrote a book "solving" a 25-year old murder of a teenage girl. He identified the murderer as Michael Skakel, a Kennedy cousin, and the DA was convinced enough to prosecute him on what I (and many others) think is quite flimsy evidence. Skakel was convicted and is serving decades behind bars.
In any event, Dershowitz's career is not a reasonable ground to condemn him. It's certainly not necessary, considering his multitude of other sins.
Wish granted, though not in person. Here is an email exchange between the two - link to ggsidedocs.blogspot.com.br
Greenwald wrote about this exchange, and the larger issues involved, here - link to guardian.co.uk
Hostage, I don't know of anyone else could have brought this history to our attention. I had noticed your argument previously, but before that was unaware that this "guarantee" of equality was required by the UN rather than just a hollow promise that Israel's founders never intended to keep anyway. Thanks!
Two points. First, the promise of equality in Israel's Declaration of Independence has been violated in a way that even Beinart and Dershowitz would agree for all but one year of Israel's existence. From 1948 to 1966, the Palestinians who resided in Israel lived under martial law. There was not even a semblance of equality. In 1966, Israel lifted martial law, but a year later, it assumed rule over millions of non-citizen Palestinians that it has never relinquished. So between 1966 and 1967, Israel made its best attempt to provide equality for Jews and non-Jews. The other 64 years of its existence, no attempt at all was made. Of course, people of common sense know that even in the best of worlds, the Jewish State cannot provide true equality or anything close to it. Beinart acknowledges this, and says he can live with the compromise to his liberal principles (big of him); Dershowitz insists that Ben-Gurion's promise of equality has been completely fulfilled.
Second, in my opinion, there is a greater prospect of civil war in the two-state solution. There are hundreds of thousands of settlers, and a large portion of them would have to be either removed to within the Green Line or agree to be bound by Palestinian jurisdiction and lose the protection of the IDF. While many are economic settlers who could be induced to change their residence, many are well-armed ideological settlers who will fight if the IDF tries to relocate them, or fight the Palestinian authorities who attempt to force them to live under Palestine law. Either way, it is a prescription for civil war. A 1ss may not be a walk in the park, but the parties could do their best to negotiate complete freedom of religion and security guarantees for all.
yes, lysias, very funny. Another signatory was a Morgenthau. I assume most of the rest were fairly well known at the time.
the traditional Jewish opposition to Zionism has been revived, and we're not going away.
Another appropriate opportunity to cite the fascinating 1919 petition to Wilson, printed in the NYTimes, from dozens of prominent Jews opposing Zionism (commenter MRW has repeatedly linked to this).
link to home2.btconnect.com
The concerns raised by these Jewish Americans in 1919 were both wise and prescient, though if uttered today, would be condemned today as extremist and antisemitic.
tree, you're absolutely right. Israel always seems to make proposals that sound good superficially but are designed to be rejected. This is an early version of that tactic.
Sure, kyle. David Korn, Stalemate: The War of Attrition etc. at 14-15. I haven't checked that book myself but would be interested to see what he wrote and who his source was.
kyle, Morris does say that the offer was transmitted to and rejected by Egypt and Syria, though I've seen your account more often. The decision to offer land for peace, if made at all, was done in secret, and in my opinion, the whole story should be taken with a grain of salt. There simply is no reason to believe anyone on this point about what was done or not done behind the scenes.
Dershowitz was a consultant on that movie, and although I thought it was quite good (thanks to Jeremy Irons), you could see Dersh's fingerprints on the movie. Although he won a reversal of Klaus's conviction and a new trial, that new trial was won by an excellent trial attorney named Tom Puccio. The movie portrays Dersh's appeal as being so successful that any idiot could have won the retrial. In other words, he took credit for that too.
Marc, I did not go into the usual hasbara that we hear about Israel fighting a defensive war in 1967, etc. I was struck by these unique assertions made that I've never seen made by anyone else. You certainly are right that there is ample evidence that Israel accepted the partition plan with the aim of eventually conquering the entire territory.
Terri, thanks for bringing this thoughtful analysis to our attention. I recall that at the time of the resolution, I joined with the prevailing view that it was craven and illegitimate act by ignorant fools. But in the back of my mind, I was aware that if I were challenged to defend why Zionism was not racist, I would have a difficult time. I have only read this excerpted section but when I have more time, I am especially interested in the full analysis of "Zionism's Defense" in the original.
I would add that the example the author used of two Palestinian Christian villages, Birem and Ikrit, that were ethnically cleansed in 1948. The 1972 Munich Olympics operation was named after these villages.
Interesting dynamics in the Ben-Artzi family, of which Sara Netanyahu is a member. One of her brothers is Matanya, whose son, Jonathan Ben-Artzi, is one of the country's most famous refuseniks. Jonathan has served many months in jail for refusing to serve in the IDF, rejecting the personal entreaties of his PM Uncle. I believe he enjoys the support of his parents, but it seems Matanya has very different views from his siblings Sara and Hagai.
With respect to Hagai's statement, while it is morally repulsive, it seems entirely consistent with Zionist values. I'm sure that many "liberal Zionists" would be offended by his overt racism, but doesn't he have a point in saying that the Jewish State should not honor someone who intermarried? When my brother married someone not Jewish, our most religious cousin declined to attend, writing on the RSVP card: "We do not attend marriages between Jews and non-Jews, because they destroy the uniqueness and holiness of our people." The arrogance and racism of this sentiment is plain to see, but his world view is not only tolerated in Israel, it is a fundamental core belief underlying the state. I'm sure many liberal Israelis and Zionists would disagree with that, but they have to grapple with internal contradictions more than people like Hagai Ben-Artzi, who are more comfortably consistent in their views, repulsive though they are. If there is an inherent conflict between intermarriage and Zionist values, the problem is not with intermarriage.
Phil, one correction. I think that Chase said that none of the documents leaked by Manning were Top Secret, while all of Ellsberg's were. I'm fairly sure it's true that Manning's were either unclassified or classified Secret.
Also, Chase, whose presentation was brilliant, did not mention another difference with Ellsberg, which is that the government's gross misconduct against him caused the federal judge presiding over his case to dismiss it. Manning will not be so lucky in the military courts, and the horrible conditions he had to endure over the first year or so of his incarceration will give him little or no benefit.
giladg, thank you and whoever else is included in your "we" and "us" for setting the record straight. In the nick of time, I might add, because I was just about to believe Ellis's "Arab selective memory" and his lies and distortions. I guess I'll believe yours instead.
Thank you, Marc Ellis, for dissenting from the liberal consensus about land swaps. I think that there is an even more fundamental problem. The land swaps must be "mutually agreeable," which superficially sounds perfectly reasonable, but in practice, is not. The status quo, while not perfect for Israelis, is certainly quite livable, as they have all the power. It is intolerable for the Palestinians, who have had to endure 46 years of foreign military control over their lives that has ranged from humiliating to cruel, sadistic and murderous. When it comes time to negotiate over the land swaps, Israelis have little incentive to be agreeable - their alternative of the status quo is just fine. But Palestinians will be desperate to come to an agreement, and will be in a much worse bargaining position. This will not be negotiation among equals. It is a recipe for failure or at best, an exceedingly unfair "mutual" agreement.
Since Israel has illegally acquired control of the whole area, and illegally moved its citizens into the territories, it should be given an "incentive" to minimize the extent of its thievery. Rather than a 1-1 land swap of territory, there should be a 2 to 1 ratio. For every acre of WB territory it wants to incorporate into Israel, it should have to forfeit two acres to a Palestinian State. That would help considerably, if this swap plan is at all feasible, although it still would not solve the problem of swapping arable land for twice as much desert.
But I don't think any swap is in the cards or should be. The situation is too far gone for resolution by partition. And of course any two-state solution would not solve the problem that Palestinian citizens of Israeli can never be equal citizens in the Jewish State.
Finally, even this extremely dubious 1-1 mutually agreeable land swap idea is flatly rejected by the Israeli government, which insists that the 1949-67 lines NOT be the starting point for negotiations. They won't even consider, much less sign on to this fig leaf proposal.
Brilliant and very thorough analysis, Phan. The smear machine is always hard at work, and has been aiming for Falk's scalp for quite some time. Said, Ashrawi, anyone named Barghouti, Chomsky, Finkelstein, Tutu, Travers, Carter, Mearsheimer & Walt, Goldstone - there is no shortage to their list of targets, and absolutely no tactic is beneath their non-existent dignity. But as you can see, it takes a lot of time and research to fully expose their methods.
Basically the only "safe" position to take is that we should never debate whether our military adventurism might result in very unpleasant blowback. We have the authority to react to inflict horrific violence against other countries on the usually bogus premise that those countries are aiding attacks against us, but it is not even permissible to question whether any of our victims might respond with a tiny fraction of that violence. Anyone who so much as suggests that we are creating more terrorists than we are killing will be branded a terrorist-lover/defender/excuser/enabler.
Wow, Dan, we are very far apart on that point. I'm quite surprised that you would concede a right of return of Jews who really could prove their ancestry back to the B.C. era. That's an awful lot of eggs to place in the Shlomo Sand basket. Through the miracle of comment search, I found what I wrote on the subject three years ago and will just repeat it:
"If Sand is all wrong, and the Israeli narrative of a worldwide group of Jewish people who share a common ancestry originating in the Holy Land is 100% true, that still provides no justification for the Zionist enterprise of creating a Jewsh State in the 20th century. In order to create their state on their “ancient homeland,” Jews had to dispossess and subjugate non-Jewish people who have lived there for centuries. It was an immoral plan from the start, and it has been carried out immorally as well.
Placing so much emphasis on Sand’s thesis implies that he has presented a significant reason for opposing Jewish domination over non-Jews in Israel/Palestine. That in turn implicitly concedes that if Sand is wrong, Israel has won a moral victory. Sand’s historical account, even if brilliant, will never be universally accepted, and those who disagree with it can cite their counter-analysis as proof that the Jewish State is a reasonable present-day entity given millenia of Jewish history. The much larger point is that the Zionist scheme was inherently flawed because of the presence of an indigenous population. The deep feelings harbored in the hearts of the Jewish people to return to “their” land should not have trumped the Palestinians’ right to full and equal lives, and that is true regardless of whether those Jewish feelings were grounded in fiction or fact."
On the less important semantic point of use of the word "diaspora," I have used the word regularly without thinking about its implications and did not even notice the issue in Sam Bahour's use until you pointed it out. As I said, it is an interesting point, but I certainly don't think Sam meant to imply any genuine lineage nor do I. And at the risk of being called anti-semantic, I do think that even if your comment prompted me to re-think my own use of the word diaspora, it is a minor point in comparison to Sam's overall essay.
Thank you, Sam, for that excellent essay. I am somewhat ambivalent about whether Jews have more of an obligation to address Israel/Palestine issues. What if a Jewish person is more interested in Central America, or abortion, or football? Is he/she any more or less to blame for ignoring I/P than anyone else? Why should being Jewish require us to have a special interest in this particular issue?
However, on the question of right of return, I do think there is an additional burden on Jews. We enjoy, and have the right to insist on, a birthright of full and equal citizenship in the land of our birth, and surely this is something every person on Earth should have. But Israel offers us a second birthright of first-class citizenship in a foreign land. How can we accept that second birthright when it so clearly deprives Palestinians, both citizens and non-citizens of Israel, of their first birthright that we believe should be inalienable to everyone in the world? It is not enough merely to decline to exercise that second birthright, as the vast majority of us will do. I think the situation calls for public renunciation - "no thanks."
That's an interesting point, Dan, but I think you're being unfair to Sam for two reasons. First, while the origin of the word diaspora means people dispersed from a homeland, the phrase Jewish diaspora is now more commonly used just to describe Jews living outside of Israel throughout the world. Second, if the Jews of today really are descendants of people driven out of the Holy Land 2-3000 years ago, they would constitute a diaspora in the original sense of the word, but not a people who would have a legitimate right of return to supplant those who have been living there the past millennium or so. I know there is a lot of controversy over whether that lineage is true, but even if it is assumed, such link does not provide moral grounds for a right of "return" in 2013, or 1948 or 1895 for that matter.
Strangely, miriam, there's a kernel of truth in your comment. There is no equivalence between the Boston and Mavi Marmara victims. The former were simply victims, like the people working in the World Trade Center or on board the planes. The latter were heroes, like the first responders who ran into the burning towers to save people. (I guess they were looking for trouble as well.) The flotilla participants were bravely risking an encounter with the Israeli military in order to bring purely non-military material to the people of Gaza, who were the victims of Israel's shockingly cruel policy of siege and deprivation. But at least you got the part right about there being a distinction.
I agree, Amar, and I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.
After France was liberated from the Nazis, the French executed literally thousands of French collaborators. On the other hand, after Israel's 2000 withdrawal from southern Lebanon after two decades of occupation, Lebanon (and Hezbollah) treated collaborators in the "South Lebanon Army" with leniency in the spirit of reconciliation.
I know a young person who went on a birthright trip (and escaped without indoctrination) who told me that the trip leader told the following joke. There are minefields in Israel where there are signs posted in three languages. In Hebrew and English, it says "Caution. Minefield. Do not enter." In Arabic, it says "Welcome." The joke got a very poor reception, as the birthright tourists realized immediately what the leader had somehow temporarily forgot - that the driver was a Palestinian.
I must admit a personal tendency to tell and enjoy macabre, insensitive, inappropriate jokes, mostly ethnic in variety. Some I find offensive. To me, there is an inexact line that divides those who tell such jokes with no ill will, and those who are genuinely racist or indifferent. An IDF soldier publicly telling this particular joke about celebrating Arab deaths is clearly over the line.
What horseshit, miriam. A real "gotcha" moment. Congratulations. Phil draws an equivalence between Palestinians and chickens! And to prove your point, you cite an equally dishonest article in the Telegraph.
As for the charge of paternalism, do you really think that Palestinians in Gaza would be more supportive of your and Brendan O'Neill's views than those of Alice Walker and Phil Weiss? Do you really think that if Israel ever allowed one of these ships to reach Gaza, it would be met with stones thrown by Palestinians out of anger at being compared to chickens or baby seals? Do you really feel that Palestinians would be appreciative of your concern for their feelings?
Of course there's a difference, W, which is why I said: "I sense the potential for criticism that I am drawing an equivalence between Palestinians and farm animals, and I really hope nobody goes there. My point is that it’s human nature to blithely accept privileges" I've never been one to draw an equivalence between any animals and humans, but I do try to minimize or at least reduce the suffering I cause animals.
Donald, there's no question that sanctimony can be alienating. A lot of it is in the "delivery." Interestingly, my daughter recently told me that while she never gives people grief for eating meat, some give her grief for not. Her very choice of being a veggie is considered a moral accusation that she never makes.
As for me, I'm really a pescetarian, which I rationalize this way: farm animals are raised in horribly cruel conditions, while wild-caught fish have normal lives until the day they are caught. See? People can rationalize anything.
More generally, we in the "developed" world rationalize living lives of luxury, even if we drive a Honda rather than a Mercedes, simply because of our fortunate birth, and feel bad but do very little to help people whose life expectancy is in the 40's or even 30's.
Phil, the analogy between your guide's views on eating animals and your views on Israel is very perceptive and even convincing. To take it a little further, most of us eat meat by giving very little thought to the cruelty required to put it on our table; and most Jews accept their second birthright of the safety valve of automatic citizenship in Israel by giving very little thought to the cruel indifference and contempt for Palestinians that is required to give us that option. btw, I sense the potential for criticism that I am drawing an equivalence between Palestinians and farm animals, and I really hope nobody goes there. My point is that it's human nature to blithely accept privileges, whether eating meat or assuming ethic-based superiority over others, without recognizing that our choices often have victims.
As for forgoing meat, my oldest child became veggie at age 10 when she realized that the chicken on her plate was the same as the animal at the petting zoo, and had been killed to feed her. My youngest followed suit, and gradually the rest of us did as well. I find that very promising. Some things appear crystal clear to children, and are harder for adults to see after many years of rationalizing. Vegetarians are still a small minority, but are growing enough so that veggie options at restaurants, and all-veggie restaurants, are exploding in number. The same phenomenon is evident with younger people leading the amazing recent transformation in poll numbers on same-sex marriage. I see the same happening on Israel. Younger people are more apt to see the horrible unfairness of one people ruling over another and less inclined to accept any of the lame rationalizations offered to defend it.
RJL, you talk about the "ferocious hatred held by the majority of [Palestinians] towards Jews, for centuries" as if it is common knowledge. To the contrary, I have always heard that relations between Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians were reasonably good until the Zionist plan to create a Jewish State with large-scale Jewish immigration from Europe became widely known. Are you unable to think of any reason why the native Palestinians, even the Jewish ones but certainly the Christians and Muslims, might have opposed such a scheme, other than Jew-hatred? And you do realize that the Zionist plan treated both Christians and Muslims equally, that is, as unfortunate impediments to a Jewish State.
You also talk about the difference between Israel and "South African style democracy, one predicated on no vengeance to the former ruling minority (the ANC made it clear they didn’t want white flight)." Actually, South African whites dreaded the end of apartheid because they were afraid of vengeance from blacks, who comprised more than 80% of the population. And I'm quite sure there was a great deal of hatred among many blacks. When apartheid ended, whites were relieved when leaders such as Mandela counseled reconciliation rather than vengeance, but whites had no guarantees of that beforehand.
It seems to me that Israeli Jews are in a much stronger position than South African whites were. If they give up their position of supremacy and domination in favor of equality, they still will be about half the population rather than less than 20%. They are in the best position now to negotiate guarantees of their safety and security, but the price they must pay is acceptance of equality. Israeli Jews will never know permanent peace and security as long as they insist on supremacy over non-Jews. You talk about the one-state solution as if it were a pipe dream that could never be realized because of irrational Jew hatred, when in fact peace will never be achieved as long as one people insists on the right to rule over another. That's the real pipe dream.
Pam Geller, when she first heard of cancellation, tells the Jewish Press - link to jewishpress.com:
After thinking about it a little while, Pam tells the Jewish Week something completely different:
So first, the shul had to respond the threats posed by the "mob march" and protect the little children attending Sunday School from the "thugs." Then, on second thought, the shul acted in a "particularly cowardly" way. What happened in the interim to change Pam's mind? Probably she realized that she could get more mileage out of accusing the shul of cowardice than accusing the potential demonstrators of threatening children. Or maybe she just says anything that pops into her head without giving a thought to whether she's making sense.
Can you imagine a UK Palestinian group seeking to ban any pro-Israel language or activity on the ground that an affinity to full and equal rights in their homeland is an intrinsic part of their identity as Palestinians, and that support for Israel necessarily denies such rights? They'd have a much better case than these jokers, but still would be laughed out of court. It's nice to see this judge arriving at such a common sense decision, but it's also lucky - judges make really dumb decisions all the time, and who knows what another one would have ruled.
Of course I agree that Shoebridge, Moselmane and Voltz are the heroes of this story, and that Phelps is the principal villain. However, a lot is made of Phelps's apparent lie about meeting with the mayor of Bethlehem. He was being somewhat dishonest, but it wasn't as bald-faced a lie as it appears. Here's the more complete transcript:
So Phelps apparently did not lie about whether he met the Mayor. He was, however, dishonest in a different sense. Voltz criticized the January 2013 tour of legislators for not meeting with the mayor, and Phelps replied, I met with him. It turns out, though, that Voltz's criticism was absolutely accurate - no one on the tour met with the mayor - and that Phelps was being devious when he said he met with him. He was referring to an earlier visit, in July of last year, when the previous mayor was still in office.
I hate to even partially defend the whining, sniveling jackass Phelps, but cutting off the transcript after "It is a woman, so I doubt you met with him" does give the wrong impression.
This is indeed great news. Ever since I discovered Hayes a few months ago, I've watched his show with great interest. He is a brilliant host, and thrives on the back-and-forth of multiple viewpoints on a very wide variety of topics. With the two-hour format, he always has lengthy analysis of each issue. My guess is that his format will change a good deal in prime time and I hope it does not reduce his effectiveness. He does not often discuss Middle East issues, but does not seem afraid to do so, and his instincts appear quite good. He recently had an excellent monologue on the Brooklyn College BDS flap.
This no doubt is a candidate for the worst parental judgment I have ever seen. Scott's theory that the parents were celebrating that "the Americans now feel as we do" is perfectly reasonable, but speculative - who knows what they were or were not thinking. What is quite real is that Israeli leaders, including Sharon, immediately used that line in the aftermath of 9/11. "Now you know what we've been experiencing for years."
Also, I vividly recollect seeing that day a news report on TV that Israel was claiming evidence that Iraq was behind the attack. (I have not found anything online to confirm my memory.) It was obvious that day that Israel was trying to goad us into attacking Iraq, and I'm not quite sure why it took 18 months for us to comply.
Look at the lengths to which these critics have to stretch to complain about this mock eviction notice, which is a wholly non-threatening reminder that tens of thousands of people have been dealing with the real thing for decades.
Sara Kantor: “We feel bad responding to something that is so outside the spectrum of what we are willing to engage in.” It's unclear whether she and Hillel are unwilling to engage in house demolitions, or unwilling to engage in debate about house demolitions. But she can't feel too bad about responding, because she has decided to do just that.
She goes on: “The issue is that it no longer becomes a question of dialogue—it simply becomes rhetoric and demonizes an entire nation and people.” Of course, it is rhetoric, but if she wants to defend the necessity of house demolitions, she is free to to do so and make it dialogue. And does she really think that criticism of house demolitions "demonizes" Israel and the Jewish people, so that opponents should shut up about it? Does criticism of drone attacks "demonize" the US? Does criticism of "terrorism" demonize Palestinians? Actually, it often does, but does Kantor want to concede that?
As for the ADL: “This tactic is designed to silence and intimidate pro-Israel advocates at Harvard and campuses around the country. . . This is an example of how anti-Israel activism on campus can cross the line by causing supporters to feel isolated and intimidated.” How does that work? Exactly how are college students who support Israel silenced and isolated and intimidated? Kantor wasn't. Are there other college students who might be cowed into silence by this condemnation of house demolitions? Is the ADL searching for a single such student who will express such fear? How does this compare with the fear and intimidation experienced by millions of Palestinians who live under a regime that claims authority to not only demolish anyone's home and steal their land, but imprison and even kill any person at whim?
This is a university. Isn't debate supposed to be a good thing? If they want to defend demolitions as something necessary to protect the lives of Israelis from terrorism, go right ahead. Student activists for Palestinian rights will respond with actual arguments (God forbid - "rhetoric"!) and won't whine, "Help! There's a debate going on around here."
Ibrahim, leave it to you, a longtime Hasbara watcher, to provide some context. I remember well the line about house-to-house searches in Jenin and the terrible toll in IDF life ( I believe all 23 soldiers dies when one house was booby-trapped), all because they were too concerned with Palestinian life to bomb from the air. Dersh not only used this line in his book, he continues to do so. I saw him recently, either in his debate with Susan Abulhawa or in person at Fordham Law School, where he talked about how Israel had the perfect right to bomb Jenin from the air, but was too concerned with civilian casualties, resulting in the loss of 23 soldiers.
But until you mentioned it, I had not connected the conflict between that line and the hide-behind-civilians line that became so prevalent in 2006. The worst single incident in that assault was the bombing of a residential building in Qana in which 29 people, mostly children, were killed. Dersh went on at great length in a subsequent book about how Hezbollah was congratulating itself over this great fortunate PR event, because the poor Israelis had fired on nearby terrorists and missed and accidentally struck the building. Meanwhile, Israeli spokespersons had difficulty deciding on an excuse: was it inaccurate aim, or did they strike the building on purpose because they thought terrorists not civilians were inside? Who cares, when you have effective speakers like Dershowitz lying on your behalf.
Thanks for the history lesson, Toivo. I have been wondering how long this claim has been made, and suspected it must have been tried out before 2006, but that is the first time I can remember it being widely used and believed. I also recall that when the 2008-2009 Israeli attack on Gaza began, I was initially surprised that this excuse that had proven so valuable in Lebanon in 2006 was not being used. However, after a few days, sure enough, I started hearing it everywhere.
bk I would say you missed the point but you actually missed two. First is my point that Dershowitz fabricated this claim out of whole cloth. In the course of making his larger argument in defense against the pinkwashing charge, he put forth this absurdity, genuinely hoping that people would believe it. The second point is Schulman's. I don't think she would have any issue with Israel's gay community having a parade. She warns against the effort to co-opt worldwide gay support for Israel and to place its supposedly progressive attitude above freedom for Palestinians. She also objects to actual alliances made between Islamophobic movements and gay organizations.
Great investigative work, Phan. This whole story is quite funny, with Pam (I was in on the joke) Geller being the funniest part of it. Of course, the spreading of false information in similar fashion is not always as harmlessly amusing, as in the BDS exclusion of Jews and Friends of Hamas stories. But it's nice to sit back and laugh at this one.
Btw, best line in the pathetic video at the end: "How much more American can you get than the Rolling Stones?"
The next time anyone accuses a critic of Israel of anti-semitism, this video should be cited in rebuttal. Can there be any surer way to incite anti-semitism?
This is a brilliant dissection of the movie. I had not even caught the multiple errors in the five-minute prologue, but thought it was far too little too early to overcome the awful stereotypes in the remainder of the movie. Stupidly inaccurate also? I heard that Affleck has declined calls for him to replace Kerry in the Senate, but maybe he is burnishing his future image as a politician who "appreciates the service" of our troops, diplomatic corps and CIA keeping us all safe (with their destructive behavior all over the world).
Sugarman was a remarkable film, with an amazing story about an amazing man. I'm not surprised at all that it won - months ago, I left the theater thinking it would. I didn't see Gatekeepers but Cameras was a great movie and ultimately much more important than the personal story told in Sugarman. Let's all thank the LA authorities who detained Burnat and gave his movie considerable additional publicity it deserves
I don't believe so, MRW. Abrams was convicted of misdemeanors not felonies, and even so he was pardoned by George I, which means a complete erasure of his criminal record. He's a complete asshole, not a felon. Though you could argue that he committed felonies for which he was not convicted. . .
This is a great point. Even while Israel was incessantly squawking about the home-made rockets propelled from Gaza into Israel, that did cause substantial and genuine fear, Israel was being far more destructive in Gaza before its 2008-2009 assault. I recall that in just two days in March, 2008, Israel killed 120 Palestinians. I think Larry Derfner noted that in those years before the full-scale assault, the kill ratio was about 50:1 (more like 100:1 during the assault). The word "calm" is almost always used in this Israel-centric manner.
bob, I had never seen that. Very significant. One thing I would note is that least year's best foreign film was A Separation, which not only was a truly great movie, it depicted Iranian society as complex, with familiar themes of good and evil, truth and layers of deceit, class conflict, but ultimately run by the rule of law. In other words, these ordinary Iranians were far less killable than those in Argo.
Scott, I didn't see much nuance there. Even if it accurately depicted some events of 1979, the movie highlighted the understandable anti-American feelings among a people whose democratic election had been sabotaged in 1953, and tyrannical ruler had been supported for a quarter-century, by the US. The movie, however, was made at a time when there is serious discussion about whether the US "must" bomb this country to prevent the "fanatics" depicted from obtaining nukes. I don't think the passage of 34 years from the movie's events will be significant to too many viewers. Of course, it is impossible to measure to what degree Argo contributed to the poll results as opposed to all the other factors, but if you viewed the film from the perspective of what should we do now with these people, I think it was very pro-intervention, whether or not Affleck or anyone else intended it to be so. And while I was quite impressed with the five-minute prologue of 1953-79 history, and understand that it was inserted to give some balance and context, I don't think it succeeded.