Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 6228 (since 2009-07-31 03:28:07)


Donald Johnson is a regular commenter on this site, as "Donald."

Showing comments 6228 - 6201

  • 'Another Jew!' Speakers at 'Klinghoffer' rally blame Jews for promoting anti-Semitism
    • "Still, you could make the case that if The Death of Klinghoffer caricatures anyone, it’s Palestinians, not Jews"

      I have no firsthand knowledge of the opera, but suspect this is true. The very choice of topic suggests it. Why, if one wishes to write an opera about the Palestinians, would the central focus be on the brutal murder of an American Jew by Palestinian terrorists? Perhaps the answer (again, I haven't seen the opera) is that the work really isn't about the Palestinians---they are only interesting (to the opera) because their suffering led some of them to commit terrible crimes against Westerners.

      I have some sympathy for the Klinghoffer daughters--if I were them I would resent the fact that my father's murder was used in this way. They have every right to complain. Whatever one thinks of the I/P conflict (and obviously I think the Palestinians are the main victims and the Israelis the oppressors), Klinghoffer's murder was inexcusable. Palestinians, it seems to me, might resent the fact that the one time a famous opera is written that involves their history it centers on the murder of an American Jew and not on the murder of some innocent Palestinian.

  • Israel's Dead Soul: Steven Salaita's critical scholarship explains his dismissal from the University of Illinois
    • "Salaita seems to have attended the same School of Complicated Utterance as some other cultural theorists have. He’s at his best when he puts his books on the shelf and just complains about awful people in plain words."

      That's very well put--it's why I have little interest in the more academic theorizing sort of leftist.

  • The Center for Jewish Life is stifling free speech at Princeton University
    • "A.Hirsi @ Brandeis recently comes to mind}"

      Comes to your mind. Hirsi was told she could speak at Brandeis, but not as a commencement speaker. I think it's sad that anyone wants to listen to her, but there was no attempt at censorship--colleges don't necessarily want to have a famous bigot speaking at their commencement ceremonies, as it seems to imply an endorsement. Would it be okay if Gilad Atzmon (who I despise as much as Hirsi) were invited to speak at Brandeis's next commencement. How about David Duke? Should the Nazis who wanted to march in Skokie Illinois many years ago have been invited to speak at the University of Chicago commencement?

      Your comparison is ridiculous, but it is a sad commentary that people nowadays think that they are defending "free speech" when saying that a noted Islamophobe has a right to speak at a graduation ceremony. Sorry, but no.

  • Has the 'NYT' editorial board finally decided to tell the truth about the conflict? (No)
    • One thing the editorial doesn't mention--along with the deprivation the blockade also was enforced by having the IDF shoot at fishermen and at farmers and others who approached the boundary too closely. And the buffer zone (or kill zone) that Israel imposed is inside Gaza, which is yet another demonstration that the occupation of Gaza never ended.

      The editorial does state that Israel has the right not to be attacked from Gaza, but strangely omits mentioning violence going the other way during "peacetime".

    • This is the first time I've ever seen the NYT editorialists admit the blockade inflicted terrible suffering on Gazans. I think they've tacitly supported it all along, but were shamed into this admission because their own reporters (whatever their flaws) repeatedly wrote how the people in Gaza loathed the blockade and wanted it lifted. But the NYT will never come right out and say that Westerners like themselves happily supported the hurting of innocent people as a means of pressure on Hamas.

      Though in fact they still feel that way, as demonstrated by this editorial. It's more important to them that Hamas not receive any credit if the blockade is lifted than it is to have the blockade lifted.

  • Andrew Sullivan should stop giving a pass to Sam Harris and Bill Maher's bigotry
    • Though again, having said all these harsh things Sullivan deserves credit for printing some pretty tough criticisms of his own position on his blog. He has definitely come a long way from where he was in 2001 (and before). Most days he is definitely worth reading.. I subscribe to his blog and will probably renew this coming year. But occasionally he writes something that reminds me of what he used to be like.

    • "i think it’s unfair and frankly rude. “at bottom”, or, iow, basically..reduces sullivan to what? what does “born in Britain and living in the US” even mean in terms of his ideas. "

      I don't think it's unfair and I'd say it again and couldn't care less about rudeness to Sullivan, given the enormous amount of despicable crap he has written over his career. I like him better now, but there's still vestiges of the old Sully still present.. Maybe you're thinking of the attack on Shipman as a WASP and that I'm doing the same thing to Sullivan. The difference here is that Shipman doesn't deserve such an attack, but Sullivan does though I think he is changing for the better (while still having a long way to go). Sullivan is friends with the British historian Ferguson (who is married to Hirsi Ali), who wrote sympathetic accounts of British imperialism and who in the early 00's seemed to think that America was supposed to pick up the mantle of British imperialism and go forth and "civilize" the world, with bombs if need be. It was supposedly our role after WWII, when Britain lost its Empire and the US became the leader of the "free world" and if anything, the fall of the Soviet empire increased thinking along those grandiose lines. I think a lot of US foreign policy types and those who hang around them (i.e., journalists and writers) think in those terms. This is why so much of the mainstream lined up with Bush in support of the invasion of Iraq.

      If you read magazines like "The New Republic" (which Sullivan used to edit) or "Commentary" or "National Review" or the foreign policy pieces in the Sunday NYT magazine or the editorial page or any other place where the "intellectuals" who write about foreign policy like to publish deep thoughts for their subscribers, you'd pick up on the fact that these people think they are the civilized ones who get to judge the rest of the world. Their own virtue is taken for granted. That's why they can judge Hamas actions by one standard, and the actions of Israel and the US by another. By definition, Israel and the US have good intentions, though they may make mistakes, but Hamas is evil personified. This attitude isn't limited to the I/P conflict--if you have spent a couple of decades or more reading the magazines I just mentioned, you'd see this as a common theme. And in many cases it's coupled with a bit of nostalgia towards the old colonial empires--I used to see this in the neocon magazine "Commentary", for instance.

      So yeah, Sullivan and Harris and Maher all see themselves as civilized Westerners existing on a higher plane than the people they judge. That's what I'm talking about, and yes, if Sullivan had been born in Egypt or Syria or Russia or India or somewhere else, I suspect his views would be very different. He might still be a jerk, but his notions of who is unquestionably civilized and who isn't would be different.

    • "And I remain unconvinced that western atrocities rival those perpetrated by religious extremists. I think we are several leagues ahead of them. "

      I take your point, though I suspect that if ISIS had some planes and 1 ton bombs at its disposal it would happily use them. Anyway, it would be a great step forward if people like Sullivan would go so far as to admit that suicide bombings and beheadings are no worse than the preferred Western methods of killing innocents. (On that list I would also include harsh sanctions of the sort that were imposed on Iraq, which probably killed hundreds of thousands.)

  • Tablet types Rev. Shipman as elite, anti-semitic WASP
    • Darn the lack of editing. I was going to add that the article also illustrates precisely why liberal Protestants have been so reluctant to criticize Israeli human rights violations. They started out wishing to atone for centuries of Christian anti-semitism, but this has morphed into an unwillingness to criticize Israel for fear of being called "anti-semitic". And again, Oppenheimer makes himself part of the story by admitting that he and his anonymous friend see liberal Protestants who are critical of Israel as anti-semites.

    • I agree that it is a good interview and Oppenheimer allows Shipman to say what he wants and doesn't try to make him look bad. But Oppenheimer went off the rails in the paragraphs that Phil excerpted. It's not a case where one has to say the entire interview is terrible or alternatively, say that the bad parts aren't bad because the rest of the piece is good.

    • Incidentally, read some of the comments below the Tablet article. Fascinatingly stupid stuff--Oppenheimer is a bigot, but an extremely mild one compared to the commenters. And these are the people who are certain that Shipman is a monster.

    • Others have covered most of what I would have said , but here's something else I think people have missed. Quoting Oppenheimer quoting his anti-Zionist Jewish friend--

      "How can you tell which ones, which minority, are anti-Semites?” And he said, “Well, that’s easy.” He said, “It’s the liberal Protestants. The Jews aren’t anti-Semitic, even if they’re called self-loathing. And the Muslims aren’t anti-Semitic, because they get us.” He said they understand everything about us, as we understand everything about them. "

      The condescending stereotyping BS goes in all directions. First, the only sort of prejudice to watch out for is anti-Semitism. That's what one is graded on. Maybe some anti-Zionist Jews or liberal Protestants still harbor some anti-Muslim prejudices--after all, some white abolitionists in the 19th century were still racist. But no, that issue never occurs to him. And maybe some Muslim anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic? Apparently not, because Jews and Muslims completely understand each other. I'm pretty sure I've heard some Israeli right-wingers say that, usually in the context of justifying some act of Israeli violence, but it's the same sweeping BS. Merely by virtue of being a Muslim or a Jew, you are immune to anti-semitism (and the other forms of prejudice don't bear mentioning). Muslim anti-Zionists completely understand Jews and Jewish anti-Zionists (or Jews in general?) completely understand Muslims. Maybe it's in their genes.

      But liberal Protestants? Stupid people, dumb as posts, and anti-semitic nitwits because they were born to privilege, unlike the Muslims and Jews who as underdogs completely understand each other.

      I'd suggest writing to Margaret Sullivan at the NYT and asking whether it's problematic having a religion reporter there who, when being frank, reveals his own sweeping prejudices. At the very least, shouldn't he be grilled the way Shipman has been grilled? And while I think Shipman should have phrased his letter differently, it is clear that he meant well. Oppenheimer has pretty much endorsed the bigotry of his friend.

  • If you stand up for Palestine in America, 'you're the devil,' Junot Diaz says
    • "Because they would then have to move out of the country where they came from – and so would most white Americans.
      Native Americans have become a political tool by people who don’t really care about them but who use them to bludgeon people who care even less. "

      I assume you're sufficiently self-aware to realize that your own post reads exactly that way. You live here, you're not moving, etc... To me you sound like you're trolling. Congrats--it's working.

      Anyway, the idea that white people need to move back to where they came from or that Israeli Jews need to move out of Israel is stupid--it's what rightwingers say, whether they are defending Israel or defending white privilege and I wonder why you think it is clever to echo them. The point is to achieve equality, not bring about some new form of ethnic cleansing.

  • Ilan Pappé on Israel’s 'post-Zionist moment' and the triumph of 'neo-Zionism'
    • When I think of the term "post Zionist" I think of Tom Segev and his history of the Mandate period, "One Palestine, Complete". The impression I get is of a man who is simply writing the history of the Zionists and the Palestinians, trying to be objective (I thought it fell short in some ways) and looking at the issue almost from the viewpoint of someone outside. It had its appeal when it might have seemed like there was going to be a solution acceptable to both sides, but of course it didn't turn out that way.

  • Liberal Zionist group Zonszein once worked for paints her as a 'radical' because she likes democracy
    • The Scheindlin piece is partly critical and partly supportive--she says that Israeli Jews generally do have space to dissent, but that's less true of Israeli Palestinians.

      I didn't agree with this--

      "Jumping to the convenient accusation that Israel as a state conspires to silence dissent, Efron argues in a point I take to heart, ignores the fact that anger against the Left during the war came largely from regular people. It’s an easy deflection of self-criticism: maybe the Left should think about why it has failed to make its case more convincingly about what’s wrong with Israeli policy."

      One of the modern day myths about democracy is that somehow democratic decision making automatically sprinkles magical ethical fairy dust on whatever decisions are reached, so that dissenters are at fault for not making their case. But (using my favorite analogy), white racist Southerners in the 1950's had a democratic system (if you were white) and they didn't reach correct ethical decisions regarding how blacks were to be treated. And people who dissented were sometimes murdered. The South changed due to outside pressure and not because peaceful dissent working entirely inside the society suddenly made racists realize that they were wrong.

      It's perfectly possible--in fact, it happens all the time--that one can have a system which is democratic for some, and which the voting majority deliberately and knowingly chooses policies which oppress others. This goes all the way back to classical Greece.

      I'm a little sick of hearing "Israel is a democracy" as a defense. They've democratically chosen to have an apartheid-like system in the West Bank, to keep the Gazans in a vast prison, and to commit war crimes. Three cheers for democratic decision making, I guess.

  • 'Ethnic cleansing for a better world' -- Richard Cohen says Palestinians brought the Nakba on themselves
    • I wonder what sort of reviews this book will get in the MSM? Will they ignore it entirely? The NYT ignored Max Blumenthal while praising Shavit's book to the skies, presumably because Max B wrote about Israeli racism in very blunt terms. Now Richard Cohen exposes his own racism as an Israel supporter. It's going to be interesting to see if the book gets noticed, or if people avert their eyes and hope it just goes away.

    • I'm glad that there are columnists like Richard Cohen, Thomas Friedman and David Brooks around. From time to time they come right out and say they are in favor of war crimes. Obviously the Beltway crowd and their Israeli counterparts think this way, but most of the time people have enough sense not to be too open about it. But now and then you have a Madelaine Albright saying that a lot of dead Iraqi children are worth it, or a Brooks advocating brutal measures by American troops, or Friedman praising war crimes (too many examples to list) or a Cohen endorsing a massive crime against humanity. It's useful to have someone lifting the veil and showing how little difference there is between some ISIS thug and their Western counterparts.

  • NYT's opening to a 'fringe voice' excites rage from Israeli army, journalism, business leaders
    • "The battle is taking place now inside the walls of elite institutions; many people are talking about American-Israeli writer Mairav Zonszein’s op-ed piece at the New York Times,"

      I'd like to be a fly on the wall there and hear what is being said. There was that piece (mostly good, with limitations) on how American rabbis walk on tiptoes when discussing Israel. I meant to write Sullivan about the problems with the antisemitism in Europe article--the article was good in some ways, but it also at times conflated criticism of Israel with antisemitism or allowed people quoted in the article to do that.

      This article was sort of the Max Blumenthal book "Goliath" in microcosm. AFAIK the NYT refused to mention that book, but maybe some working there realize that Israel is swinging to the right and it does no good to pretend otherwise.

  • Burke and Lincoln would have hated the special relationship
    • And for those who can't read the NYT online, I've included a few paragraphs from this bit of classic Brooks, flattering the West, pretending that nice guys like himself and his readers can't fully comprehend evil, and then recommending that we commit evil. Plus the Friedman unit appearance.

      My point is that Brooks has always been like this and a great many Americans in the pundit/politician category think like this. And we weren't corrupted by Israel--rather, Israeli corruption fits rather seamlessly with the sort of self-worship and BS that Brooks shows here. What sort of freaking lunatic could seriously type that claptrap about Americans given our own history? Well, the sort of lunatic that regularly gets a job as a pundit or goes into politics.

      "The fact is, we Americans do not like staring into the face of evil. It is in our progressive and optimistic nature to believe that human beings are basically good, or at least rational. When we stare into a cave of horrors, whether it is in Somalia, Beirut or Tikrit, we see a tangled morass we don't understand. Our instinct is to get out as quickly as possible.

      It's not that we can't accept casualties. History shows that Americans are willing to make sacrifices. The real doubts come when we see ourselves inflicting them. What will happen to the national mood when the news programs start broadcasting images of the brutal measures our own troops will have to adopt? Inevitably, there will be atrocities that will cause many good-hearted people to defect from the cause. They will be tempted to have us retreat into the paradise of our own innocence.

      Somehow, over the next six months, until the Iraqis are capable of their own defense, the Bush administration is going to have to remind us again and again that Iraq is the Battle of Midway in the war on terror, the crucial turning point where either we will crush the terrorists' spirit or they will crush ours."

    • I looked it up after all. Here's the Brooks column from November 2003-

      a burden too heavy to put down

      Notable for one of the early appearances of the Friedman unit (the next six months will be crucial in determining what happens in Iraq), it also contains Brooks advising Americans not to retreat into the paradise of our own innocence just because our troops have to take brutal measures and might commit some atrocities. Yeah, that's our thoughtful David.

    • Good post except for this--

      "In the Brooks case, we have one of the most thoughtful columnists in the U.S., who styles himself a Burkean conservative"

      Brooks is a pundit playing at being thoughtful. He's an idiot who is mostly concerned that the elite stay in the saddle and the common folk keep their place. Come to think of it, according to Corey Robin that's what conservatism has mostly been about all along, going all the way back to Burke. I wouldn't know, but it's certainly true of Brooks.

      I won't look it up, but in late 2003 (before Abu Ghraib broke), Brooks wrote a piece for the NYT essentially saying that US troops might have to commit war crimes to win the war in Iraq.

  • Obama says Muslims bear responsibility to counter radical Islam (so are Jews responsible for Israeli violence?)
    • I can't believe I'm defending Rivera, but he's right--anti-semitism is a bigger problem because of Israeli actions. The same is true of Islamophobia--there's obviously much more of it in the US after 9/11 and every time an Muslim fanatic does something terrible it probably reinforces bigotry against Muslims. MW is quoting him because of all the people who labeled Shipman a bigot.

      I don't think humans fall neatly into the two categories of "bigot" and "non-bigot". Well, some are solidly in the "bigot" category, but the rest of us can harbor unconscious bigoted feelings of one sort or another without realizing it, and there are also degrees of bigotry. If people were purely logical, the bad actions of some members of ethnic group A would not increase bigotry against group A in general, but if people were purely logical there wouldn't be bigotry in the first place.

    • That's as close as Obama has ever come to condemning Israeli violence, but if we are going to parse this phrase to death, no, he doesn't quite say it. "Rockets are fired" is part of a tradition among American politicians (including Obama) of condemning the "rain of rockets" that fall on Israel. He's never mentioned the Palestinian civilians in Gaza killed by Israel during "truces".

      The phrase about Palestinian children leaves open who is responsible--you've got plenty of people who agree Palestinian children died, and then they go on to blame it entirely on Hamas. We've got one self-described "liberal" Zionist commenter who does that at this blog. The US claims that Israel has the right to defend itself (a dubious proposition when Israel is the bully in this conflict) and never says that about the Palestinians. So in that context Palestinian rocket fire is automatically seen as terrorism, whereas Palestinian children who die are victims of a tragedy, but not necessarily a crime.

      That said, this is about as far as any US official will go these days in possibly criticizing Israeli violence, and it takes hundreds of Palestinian children to get Obama to go even this far.

    • My comment got cut off. Anyway, I meant to add something. Frommer also says at the beginning that the internet was a "swamp of hatred" during the summer, and this apparently means in part the outrage about Gaza. So yeah, real acts of anti-semitism are being conflated with moral outrage about Gaza.

    • The article is worth reading and makes a convincing case that anti-semitism in Europe is a real problem. But it also in places conflates anger at Israel with anti-semitism and segues smoothly from one to the other. Here's an example--

      "And since the start of the conflict in Gaza this summer, many describe social media, especially Facebook, as a swamp of hatred.

      “I have friends who are never political and they are posting things about Gaza every day,” said Ms. Frommer, the employee of the nonprofit organization. “It seems like an obsession. Is your obsession because you want to save children, or because you have a problem with Jews?”

      In a city so devoted to politics, the issue of Israel can seem unavoidable to some Jews, even those who strive to be apolitical or tend to be critical of Israeli policy. Ms. Frommer grew up in Brussels, but then left for college in Britain, followed by a long stint working in Cambodia. When she returned to Brussels four years ago, she was struck by how much more polarized life seemed. Her Jewish friends were sticking closer together as office chatter now sometimes bore a sharper edge.

      This summer, one of her Belgian colleagues repeatedly mentioned the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “He would often try to bring up the subject when I tried not to,” she said. “Then the subject would shift from Israel to Jews. Then it was, ‘Were there really six million Jews killed in the Second World War?’ ”

      Nor was the comment isolated. There have been signs that anti-Jewish sentiment transcended the immediate backlash against the Gaza war. In Hungary, the rise of the far-right Jobbik party has brought concerns that anti-Semitic views are gaining mainstream traction."


      So that Belgium guy is an anti-semite, assuming that the person is accurately conveying his comments, but that first paragraph implies that if you were outraged about Gaza this past summer then it was an "obsession" and Frommer (not the author of the piece, but someone who is quoted within it) seems to be implying that it is a very suspicious one. They are being tagged as possible anti-semites and then the implied accusation is backed up with an anecdote about a Belgium man who seems to be a

    • "I actually agree with Obama that it is dumb to see it as a major cause of conflict in the region. Israel isn’t causing ISIS to wreak havoc on religious minorities in Syria or in Iraq."

      I agree with the gist of what you say here in your comment--I don't want to agree with every word because I'd have to be much more familiar with the societies than I am. But yes, it's true that you can't blame everything wrong in some given part of the world on Western imperialism or Israeli machinations or whatever. I don't think Israel can be blamed for most of what is wrong in the Middle East.

      But the Middle East is not unique--we focus on it now because of Israel and because of oil, but plenty of other places in the world have problems as serious either now or in the very recent past. As recently as the 80's people in the US sometimes claimed Latin America was and always would be a nest of dictatorships, either leftwing or rightwing, and the US, or so the claim went, was largely free from blame. Supposedly it was their Spanish Catholic colonial heritage (or Portuguese I suppose in the case of Brazil). Sub-Saharan Africa seemed to be a permanent basket case--people defended apartheid South Africa on the grounds that other places in the region were worse (similar to how Israel is defended) and they also pointed out that Western colonialism couldn't be the only reason for this. And there are still massive problems in Africa. Then there is Sri Lanka, whose recent civil war ended with massive atrocities and currently Burma (or last I heard) is persecuting its Muslims. India has had violence between Muslims and Hindus. China is economically successful right now, but has horrible pollution problems and we'll see how well they manage to deal with them under a dictatorial system. Europe, of course, was one of the most screwed up places on the planet (I'm using technical sociological terminology) in the first half of the 20th century, but is doing much better now.

      I agree that in all the above cases the problems were not solely due to Western interference--in some cases that's at best a small contributing factor. The precise degree to which the West can be blamed is going to vary from case to case and people will never entirely agree.

    • Now if there were an edit feature, I would edit that to say that I don't agree with the NYT and that there is something racist about people implying that moral outrage over Gaza must be in part the result of anti-semitism. As though no one could possibly care so much otherwise.

    • I read the NYT piece and have to reread it, but I wouldn't say that it downplayed the role of Israel's actions in causing antisemitism--rather, it implied that concern over Israeli atrocities might be fuelled by anti-semitism. Israel's crimes are just the excuse, or that's how some of it read to me.

    • Page: 62
    • Whatever Obama planned to do after 2016, he just blew his chances for a chaplaincy at Yale--unless of course there are double standards for what one can say about various religions. Perish the thought.

  • Russell Tribunal finds evidence of incitement to genocide, crimes against humanity in Gaza
    • "t has zero semblance of credibility with ordinary folk (though as I have said earlier it DOES provide a platform for important testimonies to be heard)"

      I think that's probably right. I have a beat up old copy of the first Russell Tribunal on Vietnam--found it in a used bookstore. As you say, it provided a platform for important testimonies about what was happening in Vietnam and when I've read portions of the book, I read the testimonies, never the verdicts.

      I suppose one could say that the Russell Tribunal plays the same role that human rights groups play, but the problem there is that the human rights groups try to be impartial and put out reports on the human rights violations of all parties in a given conflict. I don't think the Russell Tribunal does this. The one I have on Vietnam is about the crimes of the US and it is a good source of info on that, but again, I only care about the testimonies, not about the "verdicts" that I've never bothered to read.

  • What Max Blumenthal saw in Gaza
    • "What an exceedingly dumb and irresponsible thing to do…and then talked about it...wrote about it."

      I can't tell if you're joking or outraged and if the latter, what the outrage is directed at. Someone else pointed out that Max shouldn't have revealed his method.

    • "by this display of mind-numbing stupidity at the Daily Beast:"

      I thought of that too. The depressing thing is that the article was presented as one critical of Israel, yet it still contributed to this picture of Gaza as a place where a Jew would be killed on sight.

      There was also a story in a very local paper where I live about some kid (high school or college--I forget) who visited the West Bank during the Gaza slaughter and how she learned from her experience, but was scared about the possibility someone would find out she was Jewish. The impression given was that the instant that was known her life wouldn't be worth a cent.

  • Homegrown jihadis and the limits of the Israel lobby
    • "I don’t think that either the existence of this power or its connection with money leads us to think that Israeli influence is, for its part, less than we might have supposed."

      Too vague. I can't tell what you think you are refuting. I get the impression that some people think that the Israel Lobby controls almost all aspects of our policy in the Middle East.
      I think the Israel Lobby has a stranglehold on our policy towards Israel. It has tremendous influence on our Middle East policy. But the Saudis are responsible for funding the Sunni terrorist groups. Everyone knows that Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship with links to our enemies and nobody praises them the way Israel is praised, yet in practice they seem as untouchable as Israel.

    • "onald, i don’t think yves (who is that anyway?) makes an argument for a ‘saudi lobby’, in fact he says Our most important geopolitical interest has been and continues to be oil. US corporations simply could not function if they did not have access to cheap oil. and “there is no prenup in place”. i think what’s clear is that the US and SA have the same interests which is why the US doesn’t sanction SA for funding the isis, which would clearly be the fastest way to shut them down. the US supports SA, a dictatorship because it suits their interests. "

      Minor point first. Yves Smith is a woman who runs the "Naked Capitalism" blog--I read it from time to time. Very interesting on economic issues.

      I agree with what you say in the portion I just quoted (other than Yves's gender) and maybe "Saudi Lobby" isn't the right way to put it. But what you say goes along with Chomsky's view of the world--the US often supports thugs and dictators because of economic interests, and not the economic interests of ordinary people, but the economic interests of the powerful.

      Israel is a more complicated case, because of the Israel Lobby. In that case I think Chomsky is partly right, partly wrong.

    • That's typical tribalist reasoning, Palikari--you think that Israel can't be guilty of massive crimes because of who they are and who their victims are. So because they are "Western" and "democratic", this automatically bestows some sort of moral immunity on them, though what it means is that the majority of the Israeli voting population has democratically installed a government that commits war crimes.

      A lot of Americans have this same misconception about our own war crimes--somehow the fact that a country has elections is supposed to wash away its sins. It's hard to understand how anyone could believe this, but there you are, believing it about Israel.

    • Damn the lack of editing. I'd change that last sentence to "almost nobody idolizes Saudi Arabia or talks about what a wonderful human rights record it has--in fact, there's quite a lot of criticism of this, yet they still get away with murder."

    • I think the truth lies somewhere in-between people who downplay the Israel Lobby and the Mondoweiss party line (in the comments at least) that the Lobby dominates US policy in the Mideast. There's a Saudi lobby too--


      If you click on the link, the first part is Yves Smith commenting and the rest is Matt Stoller. Stoller himself doesn't contrast the Israel Lobby with the Saudi Lobby, but Yves does. And I think this is a rather obvious point--a country with a vast amount of oil and a vast amount of wealth rather obviously has influence on US policy.

      The funny thing is that unlike Israel almost nobody in public actually defends Saudi Arabia, yet they still get away with murder.

  • Naive? At a Jewish spiritual retreat center, I insist on talking about Gaza
    • "So by hoping and praying for our soldier’s safety and for the innocent civilians on both sides – I was manifesting “blood madness”?? What kind of Orwellian, upside-down , “logic” is that? "

      Speaking of Orwellian upside down logic, when you claim to care for civilians and then absolve the Israeli military of all blame for the civilians it kills and put it all on Hamas, that might be blood madness. I wouldn't know--never heard the term before. But I feel safe in calling it self-serving vicious hypocrisy.

    • The reason these people can be so unquestioningly self-righteous in their racism is because they live in a cocoon--not only their co-religionists, but the larger American society lets them get away with it. Nearly all American politicians echo what they say about the Palestinians and virtually all American politicians condemn Palestinian terrorism, but not Israeli war crimes.

      I've often compared American supporters of Israel to white southern racists that I knew growing up, but there's a difference--by the 1970's mainstream American society had turned against explicit Jim Crow attitudes and white racists knew that their views were no longer acceptable in polite society. Not that racism had ended by any means, but it wasn't respectable any more and people had to express it using code words. The people in this article are still living in a world where they aren't challenged--or rather, they probably think the piddling little criticisms of Israel that they might see in the NYT are "anti-Israel", but they don't really hear anything serious from anyone they think they have to respect. White racists in the 1970's were on the defensive. These people are more like white racists in the early part of the 20th century, when white racism was the default assumption among whites.

  • On the use of provocative analogies (Nazism, fascism)
    • From the link Shmuel provided--

      "In 1948 - again we must remember the context - the United States, which played a very prominent role in the drafting of the convention, was concerned that a practice that was wide-spread at that time in the United States, lynching of African Americans, would be subject to the Genocide Convention. They were very nervous that it might be exploited by people who wanted to say, “You see, genocide not only took place in Nazi Germany, but it’s taking place in the United States because African Americans are being lynched in the South”."

      From the definition of genocide cited above--

      "Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
      (a) Killing members of the group;
      (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
      (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;"

      So by the legal definition that people wish to use, the US was guilty of genocide during the Jim Crow era. And that phrase "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group" seems wide enough to encompass any serious level of discrimination, including what the US is doing now to black men, who are sometimes killed by police in rather suspicious circumstances and who populate jails in rather extraordinary numbers in part because of drug laws that seem aimed at blacks.

      Again, I think this is a distraction. Israel is guilty of apartheid, war crimes and arguably crimes against humanity (which I think means massacres of civilians.) The accusation of genocide has tremendous force precisely because people associate it with the greatest crimes of the 20th century--the Holocaust, the slaughter of the Armenians, Rwanda, Cambodia, Stalin's famine in the Ukraine and maybe a few others. If one extends it, then it applies to any country with ethnic strife where civilians are deliberately killed. Palestinian terrorists are also guilty of genocide by that standard. If people want the word to mean this, then that's what it will mean, but then people will probably also want a word that separates out the most extreme cases like the Holocaust, the Ukrainian famine and the others where the government tried to wipe out a very large fraction (or even 100 percent) of the target group.

      And that's my last comment on this.

    • "And you want to contend that wiping out, at least as a polity, if not completely, groups of humans other groups of humans (or even individuals, tech is powerful) see as “other” or less than human is not a part of history,"

      No. I just think the use of the term "genocide" is distracting, because outside the range of people who are already convinced it's going to lead to people asking "Do you really mean to compare what the Israelis do to the Holocaust?" And I'll answer no. I'd rather be asked "Do you really mean to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa?" Because then I can answer "yes and if anything, Israel might be worse."

      Anyway, that's all I'll say on this, as I'm now part of the distraction.

      Shmuel--thanks for the link.

    • Slater said that Israel is sinking into fascism and has no right to self-defense against the Palestinians. In the American context those are shocking assertions and yet obviously correct. If people use the term "genocide" because it fits the legal definition, then every government with discriminatory policies against an ethnic or religious group is guilty of genocide. Jim Crow was genocide. For that matter, our drug policies and mass imprisonment of black men today is genocide. If people want to use this term in that fashion they can, but then we need a new term for what happened to the Armenians and the Tasmanians and the Jews under Hitler and Cambodians and the Tutsi in Rwanda and so forth.

      Or we can just stick to the utterly shocking assertions which are irrefutable, which is that Israel is guilty of apartheid, is sinking into fascism, recently committed massive war crimes in Gaza and in many ways is acting like the Nazis did in France or the Soviets did in Hungary during the 50's.

    • I knew this would happen--Slater argues that in many respects the Nazi comparison is valid. For instance, he says that Israel has no right to self-defense in the current circumstances, any more than Nazi Germany had a right to self-defense against the French resistance, even if the resistance had been able to fire rockets at Germany. But Slater quarrels with the term "genocide" and correctly points out that Israel's crimes are not in the same league with the Holocaust and so rather than note the points where they agree with him, some Mondoweissers jump on that.

      The legal definition of genocide is much broader than the one that is used by most people--most people who use the word "genocide" are thinking of the Holocaust or Cambodia under Pol Pot or Rwanda or some circumstance where the killers are apparently trying to kill as many people who are members of group X as they possibly can. That's why "genocide" in popular speech is the worst crime a government can commit. The legal definition would include any form of repression against members of a group by a government. By that definition, Iran is guilty of genocide against the Bahai. Is Iran's treatment of the Bahai in the same league as what Germany did to the Jews? No.

      If we use the legal definition of genocide that you cite then there is a need for a new and harsher term to describe the crimes of Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Rwanda, which is what most people think of when they use the term "genocide".

  • Yale Jewish center to hold 'intellectual' panel on storm over ousted priest's comments-- without inviting the priest
    • From the Yale article--

      "Personal opinions expressed publicly by the former interim chaplain of the Episcopal Church at Yale have been a source of concern and pain for many, both within and outside of our campus community,” the university chaplain writes in a statement.

      Yale Religious Ministries, the umbrella group of which Shipman was a member, “is committed to fostering respect and mutual understanding among people of different faiths and cultures,” Kugler continues. “Our primary focus now is to move forward with renewed and reanimated resolve to nurture a truly welcoming and supportive community for faculty, staff, and students of all faiths.”


      There must be a special course in seminaries where people learn to churn out this kind of mush. It means nothing, except that she doesn't want anyone upset. Or nobody that could cause problems. Palestinians don't matter--part of the point of controversies like this is to make sure that nobody spends too much time worrying about their feelings.

      In a sane world where people didn't play "gotcha" politics, once Shipman pointed out that he didn't mean to say that antisemitism was in any way justified that would have been the end of it. Any lingering doubt about what he meant to say would have been erased. But that's not how the game is played. Once a person on the "wrong" side can be portrayed as a bigot, the label sticks. In our culture, that's how you "win" debates and wield power. You talk about your "pain" and this gives you the moral high ground.

      The fact is that people talk about how terrorism by Palestinians leads to anti-Palestinian feelings on the part of Israelis all the time--it's practically a truism on the Israeli side that the suicide bombings of the Second Intifada killed off the Israeli peace camp (such as it was). The implication is that Israelis have swung further towards bigotry and contempt for Palestinian rights because of Palestinian terrorism. No doubt that is partly correct. It doesn't excuse the Israelis, but there's surely some connection there. Yet if someone points out that Israeli crimes might lead to an increase in anti-semitism, which is also a stupid and immoral reaction, the person pointing this out is an anti-semite merely for noticing what is obvious.

  • J Street can't tie Israel's latest 'illegal land grab' to cutting US aid
  • Three ways Palestinians can hold Israel accountable for Gaza war crimes
    • "it will open the way for investigations into Hamas’ crimes"

      Fine with me. But only Israel's vastly greater crimes are treated with the appropriate severity.

  • Front-page 'NYT' piece on foreign influence on D.C. thinktanks leaves out Israel
    • I haven't read the piece yet, but when I do and have the time, I'll write Margaret Sullivan about this. Others should do the same, if you have time. She seems pretty reasonable and open about NYT flaws most of the time.

  • Hamas is ISIS for dummies
  • Richard Cohen says he married Israel and has been faithful during ups and downs
    • "Why not that guy who wrote a big book about Israel last year? He probably has something to say about this. "

      You guys are thinking of Max B, but guess who else wrote a book on Israel last year? It wouldn't surprise me if they got Avi Shavit to review it. Birds of a feather.

    • "The Jews were expelled from Judea in the first century."

      That's a myth, according to Charles Manekin over at "The Magnes Zionist". Yes, the Romans crushed a rebellion, but no, they didn't expel all the Jews. It's quite possible that some Palestinians are descended from 1st Century Jews. And anyway, if you go 2000 years, virtually everyone in the region (who didn't migrate there recently from thousands of miles away) probably share common ancestors from that time period.

  • Elizabeth Warren says killing Palestinian civilians is 'the last thing Israel wants'
    • She's a politician and she wants to win elections. That's all that is needed to explain her position on Gaza. The overwhelming majority of Congress takes the same stance--as detailed in the latest New Yorker and in various other places (including here), the Lobby scares politicians to death.

      It's always possible she actually believes this crap, and there are probably some politicians who do, but since she seems smart, it's more likely she's afraid of watching a lot of donor money head to future opponents.

      Whether she has Presidential ambitions is not something you can judge from this, since again, virtually all of Congress behaves the same way. As narcissistic as politicians can be, they can't all be picturing themselves in the White House.

  • 'New Yorker' limits its expose of Israel lobby to AIPAC
    • The article had its imperfections--no mention of JVP (unless I'm forgetting) and yeah, in general the anti-Zionists and non-Zionists are still out in the cold. But it was mostly good.

      One good part that I don't see people mentioning--the author seems to be implying that Judge Goldstone retracted his conclusion that Israel targeted civilians because of pressure from his community. She quotes a former representative who actually visited Gaza after Cast Lead and says, in the article, that what he saw pretty much confirmed what he read in the Goldstone Report. He said he actually read the whole report, saying that most of the people who condemned it hadn't read it and hadn't visited Gaza.

      It's fine to have high standards and yes, the New Yorker hasn't come far enough, but this was a superb article, given the audience. It's not like most Americans are glued to their computer screens reading Mondoweiss, The Electronic Intifada or Richard Silverstein's blog, or reading books by either Israeli revisionist historians or some of the Palestinian historians.

  • Gaza goyim jailbreak
    • "the problem is that they are “two-state fakers,” people who claim to support the two-state solution but oppose the pressure on the Israeli government necessary to bring it about."

      Without getting into the 1SS vs 2SS question (it's for Palestinians to decide what they want to push for), this statement about most alleged 2SS supporters is correct. If anything, Naiman is too kind to the people he is talking about. Their support for a 2SS is probably nothing more than a moral fig leaf, something they use to justify support for Israel while doing precisely nothing to help the Palestinians--in practice, they claim to oppose the settlements, but oppose doing anything to pressure Israel to stop them, and then they turn around and support Israel for massacring Palestinian civilians. And to top it off, they then blame Hamas for the civilians that Israel has killed.

  • Our new look
    • Someone else said this too--the type is too small. I can read it, but it's on the edge of what is readable. On a kindle I'd immediately enlarge the type.

      You can cut and paste and there is a highlight, but it's a faint yellow.

      I think the worst thing is that the articles for the last few days are no longer easily visible, all lined up so one can pick up one that I might have not read.

    • Not the faintest notion why this is supposed to be better. It's different. I'll get used to it.

      As others have pointed out, the edit feature is missing. That's a step backwards.

  • Hillary Clinton just lost the White House in Gaza -- same way she lost it in Iraq the last time
    • "Israel is the “primary problem of the region”– you can’t run away or blame it on others."

      Israel is the primary problem for Palestinians and in the long run, even for Israelis if they don't come to their senses. I'm not clear on how Israel is the primary problem for people in Iraq or Syria or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or various other places.

    • "The predictions that liberal Zionists and JVP will become a major story in the media is ridiculous, that this is going to take place in the matter of the 24 months until the Democratic convention. Optimism plays a role in helping people, but these predictions are outre. "

      I think you're probably right.

      "But at the end of the year, there should be an accounting. What were his predictions and how many came true?"

      No need for that, IMO at least. Phil runs a great blog with a great many useful and interesting posts, but he's always been a bit of cheerleader who lets his optimism run away with him when he makes predictions. Or that's my impression.

  • As Salaita's case becomes a cause, U of Illinois issues declarations on 'civility'
    • "that should bar people like Dershowitz and his like-minded rabid zionist self-appointed censors then. Or most of the economics faculty. Not to mention the philosophy and arts, and the politics department."

      Add to this the climate scientists, the environmental studies people in general, physicists and engineers who fall on one side or the other of the nuclear power issue, scientists who intervene in debates about the effectiveness of this or that weapons system, etc….

      People who teach evolution and advocate for teaching it in public schools without having to give equal time to creationists should also keep their mouths shut, by JeffB's standard. There's a lot of intemperate language and behavior on that subject. There's are fairly well known biology professors like PZ Myers and James Coyne (I think) who go beyond defending evolution and attack religion in general. Myers once somehow obtained a consecrated Host from a Catholic Church and desecrated it. (I don't remember the details). I don't care for that sort of behavior, but should he be fired? Lots of people out there who are ripe for firing if the JeffB principle takes hold and I don't doubt a lot of people wish to see professors muzzled on all sorts of issues.

  • Waging resource warfare on Palestine
    • "that Israel should be praised for supplying Gaza with electricity, and that without obedience, Gaza’s power should be cut. This argument implicates the obligations of Israel as occupying power under International law, but it is also heavily guided by myths about the occupation."

      I've even seen that argument in the NYT--not in op ed pieces, but in the news section.
      The rebuttal is pretty simple. Israel and Egypt keep the people of Gaza in a vast open air prison. They are under a blockade. If they didn't allow for some goods and basic necessities (including electricity) to enter, they wouldn't be running a prison camp. They'd be running a death camp.

      We don't praise countries that have large numbers of political prisoners for not starving them to death. There are nearly 2 million political prisoners in Gaza.

  • In Photos: Thousands pack Rafah streets for funeral of top Hamas commanders
  • Democratic Party leader echoes Netanyahu's new theme: Hamas equals ISIS
    • This process isn’t pretty but it how nation states are born, and what allows for genuine self determination of peoples."

      Well, at least you're being honest, except for that glowing phrase "genuine self determination of peoples". Most of history is full of slaughters and atrocities conducted in the name of some BS ideology (self-determination of peoples is a modern one, I guess). But you realize that that doesn't really fit the usual narrative of Israel as a wonderful democracy which does its best to avoid civilian casualties and has the best of intentions and so on and so forth. You've lumped Israel in with ISIS and the several bloodlettings between the Hutu and the Tutsi (btw, you're one of the first people since I read Chomsky who seemed to realize that the Rwanda genocide of 1994 wasn't the only massacre between the two groups.)

  • Despite ravages of war, Gaza supports armed resistance to lift the siege
    • " i follow your link and he’s ragging on MW again. "

      I just read the tweet. What an incredibly stupid and childish thing to say.
      He picks one post (which I didn't think important either) and talks as though that represented the Mondoweiss output on the Gaza slaughter. It's why I can't take MJ seriously on anything, even when he says things I agree with. He just doesn't seem reliable when he talks about things where I can check up on him.

  • Salaita’s stellar teaching record exposes political motivation behind his firing
    • " So in theory the letter’s contradictions seems to indicate he’s supposed to be working before his appoint is formally approved. "

      That issue is covered by Corey Robin and others at Crooked Timber. Apparently it's a fairly common procedure with academia. It's obviously a stupid way to proceed, as the current situation demonstrates, no matter which side of the issue one takes. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that a university has opened itself up to a big fat lawsuit if it tells someone he will be teaching some courses in September, the person quits his job, moves 1000 miles, only to be told that the university rubber stampers have decided not to rubber stamp the appointment. The time for the college bureaucrats to interfere with hiring decisions (on good or bad grounds) should have been long before.

  • 'Lesson: The Jews will defend themselves even if it means killing children'
    • "Zio-supremacists seem content to strive to be just a little bit better than the worst. Their philosophy appears to be something along the line of “Sure, I could be a law-abiding citizen, but murderers exist so I might as well be a rapist.”"

      I think you've got something there. Most defenses of Israeli behavior rely heavily on that sort of reasoning. I think I'd summarize most of them as follows--

      1. We try to avoid civilian deaths. (As evidenced mainly by the fact that they could have killed even more if they wished).

      2. Someone else is worse.

      3. Therefore, criticism of Israeli war crimes is invalid.

  • Air strikes and rocket fire resume as Gaza negotiations collapse
    • Um no. They say at least that many killed and that the data is preliminary.

    • I've seen this online, but can't recall where. It seems a little whacky. Maybe some dissident group wanted to try this, or maybe the Israelis have tortured enough prisoners to build up a false story.

      From your link there's this--

      "Police, soldiers and security personnel uncovered more than $175,000 during the arrests and found 24 rifles, six revolvers, seven rocket launchers and huge amounts of rifle cartridges and bullets."

      Not exactly the sort of arsenal I'd expect if one wanted to overthrow a government, not even a pseudo-government like the PA. One could probably take some shots at settlers.

  • Ceasefire comes to a close -- Mohammed Assaf's 'Raise Your Head High'
    • "I think of myself as a sincere friend of the Palestinian people, and I’ve certainly never dehumanized them"

      You're not a sincere friend--you put all the blame for the killing of civilians on Hamas, which means you justify Israeli killing of Palestinians. What you are is a classic shooting and crying type. You want to think well of yourself and your ideology, so you look for every excuse to explain away the worst crimes of your own side.

      The blog had a commenter like you a few years ago who professed peace and love and friendship, but could always be counted on to rationalize away Israeli war crimes in exactly the same manner you do. At first one thinks that maybe the person just hasn't thought things through, but eventually it becomes clear what's going on. The "shooters and criers" are as hard to reach as members of the Israeli right. Maybe more so.

  • HAMAS made me do it!
    • "In Gaza, as I’m sure you know, there are no remaining settlements,"

      But the occupation continues, unless you think that living in a vast prison is the end of the occupation.

      "What you consider “ruthless” is actually a criminal, terrorist strategy."

      In this case I was referring to Hamas firing from within its population, something that guerrilla groups have often done. Suicide bombing against civilians is a criminal terrorist strategy and also ruthless. Guerrilla groups often employ terrorist tactics as well--the Zionist militias all used them.

      And Israel from its very founding and before has followed a criminal terrorist strategy, to use your preferred terminology.

      "What’s depressing, in my view, is people who may think of themselves as “leftists”, making excuses for, and even supporting , Hamas terrorists."

      How sad you must feel, seeing people on the other side making the same sorts of rationalizations you use yourself for your own favorite murderers. In the case of Hamas, as bad as their past has been and as dubious as some of their ruthless tactics are (I'm happy to accept the conclusions of whatever human rights groups manage to investigate both sides), they look a lot better than Israel does. The Israelis have this charming notion that they have the right to impose collective punishment on an entire group of people, shoot their farmers and fishermen and loosen or tighten restrictions as they see fit. They treat every single person in Gaza as a criminal. So why be surprised if some people in Gaza resist in ways that are not legal? They're already being punished, guilty and innocent alike.

      Do I like Hamas? No. I'd be delighted to see both Hamas and Israel's leaders in prison after being tried for their respective crimes. But the world doesn't work that way. And people have tried nonviolent resistance to the blockade and it didn't work. The Israel-supporting West doesn't give a damn about Palestinians unless they shoot at Israelis--that's a lesson both the West and Israel (including so-called lefties like yourself) have taught them. So Hamas is the opposition the Israelis have created for themselves. Try treating the Palestinians like human beings and maybe you'd have nicer opponents.

    • "It is not always wrong, surely, to respond to a crime by an action that would have been criminal in the absence of provocation. That’s when the rule of proportion kicks in."

      Yes. I suppose one has to point out the obvious in this case. So it would normally be criminal for Israel to blow someone up in Gaza, but if that person had just fired a rocket at some Israeli town, it wouldn't be criminal. It would be criminal to blow up a hospital that was near the location from which the rocket was fired.

    • Guerrilla groups commonly have ruthless attitudes. So do governments. What government would encourage settlements in an occupied military area, knowing they will be the target of terrorists, unless they figure that the terrorist attacks will work in their favor as propaganda? The Israelis sometimes claim they need the WB for strategic depth--they then try to fill it with their own civilians. Reasonable moral people would recognize that what the Israelis do to Palestinians in both the WB and Gaza during "ceasefires" amounts to a series of war crimes. And that the Israelis understand this will provoke violence in response, which can then be used to rationalize massive war crimes by the Israelis. There is nothing you can say about the Hamas firing rockets from populated areas which doesn't apply much more strongly to Israel's own behavior. No government which truly cared about the long term survival of its own civilians would do what Israel does--other considerations come first, and if Israeli civilians die, it's just more grist for the propaganda mill.

      As for Gaza, "reasonable, moral people" would condemn both the guerrillas that do this, and the government which responds by blowing up civilians with indiscriminate firepower. Reasonable people wouldn't think that one war crime is an excuse for another. Unreasonable and immoral people use the crimes of one side to justify the larger crimes of the side they support.

      It says in your self-description, Jon S, that you're a member of the Israeli left. What a depressing thought.

  • Witnessing Gaza
    • "Are you sure that you read the entire essay?"

      Yes. It sounded much like the sort of dreck that Eli Wiesel might write on this subject.

      "As to the huge number of civilian casualties, including the children – their blood is on Hamas’ hands."

      That was his real point and yours and it is utterly immoral. "Rabbi" Sacks is a hypocrite and an apologist for war crimes. There's nothing new about this--apologists for America's behavior in Vietnam (specifically the free fire zones) made identical arguments there, and I imagine the Russian apologists for the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan made similar arguments about how the Soviets responded to the mujahideen (who were not boy scouts in their behavior either).

      So yes, I read that claim that we all have to work together and by itself that was fine--but the other theme in the article, the reason you like it so much, is that he also absolves Israel of any blame for its own sins. We all work together to end hatred and we do this by condemning Muslims and Christians for their sins, and by absolving Israel when it kills hundreds of children. Sorry, but that's not what honest moral leadership looks like. That's a man trying to make himself feel good and blame everyone else for the sins of the side he favors. Sure, he wants peace and reconciliation, but only if he doesn't have to be honest with himself. I wonder if the good rabbi is married? Does he take that approach if he has an argument with his wife? Does he tell her that he wants reconciliation and they both have to work at it, and oh, by the way, it's her fault he raised his voice and in fact any notion that he himself might be to blame is just an example of her irrational hostility towards him.

      I'm fairly sure Hamas leaders (who in recent years say they are willing to live with Jews) would make exactly the same argument with respect to their suicide bombing campaign in the Second Intifada. Perhaps "Rabbi" Sacks and the Hamas leadership could get together around a campfire and swap rationalizations.

    • Sacks had the opportunity to point out that Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all capable of violence and intolerance in the name of their respective faiths and how all three groups need to examine themselves, but instead he made it all about how the horrible Muslims and Christians are constantly blaming Israel when Israel kills people. It's just days since Israel killed hundreds of Palestinian children and for him, the problem here is anti-semitism. I wonder if you and he are capable of understanding how nauseating this is.

  • Israel and its advocates have a new target in sight: Head of UN inquiry William Schabas
    • "The story has 26 paragraphs. Only three of the paragraphs actually list potential Israeli war crimes, and what the charges are. The rest of them are either attacks on Schabas or special pleadings from Israeli officials justifying what they did and claiming that they already started their own investigation."

      The Kershner story was mostly a process story--the infamous "he said, she said" type where journalist merely reports that this person says X and this other person says "not X" and is too lazy to provide enough facts to enable the reader to tell who is telling the truth. It's something a reporter will do if the reporter is lazy or is afraid of seeming to take a side or worse, if the reporter actually wants to mislead the reader into thinking a question is genuinely controversial when the evidence clearly supports one side.

      And even as a process story Kershner slants it. So Goldstone is given a name and his retraction and his stated reason (the Israelis investigated themselves and convinced Goldstone he was wrong) is given. The fact that he was under tremendous pressure is not mentioned. The fact that his colleagues didn't agree with his retraction is mentioned, but in one sentence. Their names are not given and their reasons are left unstated. They don't matter.

      On the bombing and shelling of Rafah after the Israeli soldier was allegedly captured, , no estimate of the number of Palestinians killed is given, and Kershner misleads her readers by saying it was an attempt to retrieve the Israeli soldier, when in fact it was more likely an attempt to kill him rather than leave him as a prisoner.

      From here on this is what one should expect from the NYT. The Israelis are going all out to devise excuses for everything they just did, and the NYT will dutifully report them all. The point will be to leave in the minds of their readers the notion that this is an unresolved issue--one side says X and the other not X and there's no way to tell who is telling the truth. I somehow doubt they ever are this sympathetic to, say, Syrian government denials of war crimes. Nor will they give a sympathetic hearing to Hamas arguments if the commission finds them guilty of war crimes.

  • Israel's foundation in a 'terroristic campaign of expulsion, ethnic cleansing and murder' is the 'deep wound in that part of the world' -- Sullivan
    • "Yes many Zionists are liberal but Harris is not just “the liberal genteel sort of person”. That is trying to spare Zionism. Harris is on record sharing his wet dream about a nuclear first strike. Harris’s views are tribal, they are Zionist if you look at his sources, not classic liberal."

      I'm not trying to spare Zionism and agree it is tribal in nature. I also think Harris is a tribalist, but there are "liberals" who invoked their liberalism as an excuse for massive violence, as in Vietnam.

      My impression (I haven't read enough) is that there has always been this tension in mainstream liberalism, going back to the 19th century, where you have liberals who mix their liberal ideals with some form of racist or tribalist thinking and you end up with people like Harris. There were liberal colonialists back in the bad old days, people who supported violence against the supposedly uncivilized barbarians in the name of liberal ideals. Harris is part of a long perverse tradition.

    • "Sullivan: Well, I think we’re probably starting to go in circles now. But I think it is good that we can have a civil conversation about these things.
      Harris: I agree. And I’m very grateful you took the time to do this, Andrew. It makes me very happy that we can have exchanges like this.

      Sullivan: Any time, Sam. Any time.
      Still members of the same club, aren't they? Would Sullivan have this conversation with David Duke? Duke could no doubt point to horrible black men like Idi Amin, or cite example after example of atrocities in post-colonial Africa. Would anyone think Duke had something interesting to say about any of this?

      Would Sullivan have this sort of "civil conversation" with a proud anti-Semite? More to the point, would he have a civil conversation with someone who wholeheartedly supports Hamas? Would he even have a civil conversation with someone who supports some of Hamas's actions with reservations? It's nice that he sees that Israel is responsible for making Palestinians hate them, but he's still playing the same old game where people like Harris are still fundamentally civilized people with whom one can have a discussion, but Hamas is beyond the pale. But Harris is just the liberal genteel sort of person who would support almost any level of war crime, so long as he thinks an Islamist is at the other end. He's a secular equivalent of the person who wrote the Hamas charter. Sullivan is fine with people like this, because he was one of them a few years ago and he still feels a kinship.

  • With friends like these...
    • Billmon was kind of a legendary blogger back in the early or mid 00's. My favorite while he was around. Tweets often tend to be over the top, but didn't a deputy speaker say something genocidal recently?

    • I went back and edited it while the option was still available. Didn't think of that until after I posted the thing you responded to.

    • I gotta amend my number. I said 52 percent--must have subconsciously subtracted 48 from 52. Weird.

    • "Nearly half of Israelis wanted to give Obama the Ebola virus for his birthday Aug. 4."

      That's not actually a fair conclusion, unless they did a scientific poll. If it's just a voluntary online thing, then you are likely to attract a disproportionate number of idiots and of course it also doesn't mean they would all really do it. It does show that 48 percent of the respondents are idiots.

      Though it wouldn't surprise me if a random sample of the Israeli population with this range of options would give similar results. But it shows what we already knew,that the vast majority of Israelis supported the Gaza war and resented Kerry for even suggesting that maybe the blockade should be lifted. The overwhelming support for the Gaza War, the election of rightwing fascists, and stupid comments like those of "peace advocate" Amos Oz are the disturbing thing to me.

  • Despite potential groundswell, Congress reluctant to recognize Palestinian rights
    • Was it here or somewhere else that I read that Congressional staffers were appalled at the recent passing of the money for Iron Dome? Supposedly even some staffers who worked for a Republican senator were disgusted. It was supposed to be nothing but a raw demonstration of AIPAC's clout, to get Congress to show unwavering support for Israel.

      I'm probably citing some story that appeared here--been reading so much lately I'm losing track.

  • How many Israeli civilians have been attacked from the Gaza tunnels? Any?
    • "You really need to learn more about the history of Hamas. Suicide bombings... "

      If you mean me, I already mentioned that. You know, the part that said they did suicide bombing that killed hundreds of civilians. Should I have said it several times? But you ought to ask yourself why they didn't try to send suicide bombers through the tunnels at the beginning, before the Israelis knew about them. Or I'm asking. Is there any evidence that they tried anything like that this time? I've heard nothing.

    • Well, no, it means we don't know for sure what they might have done with them. Again, repeating what I just said, why wouldn't Hamas have opened the hostilities by sending a wave of suicide attackers out of those tunnels to the nearest population centers? Is there any evidence that they tried to do this? Wouldn't that have been the best time to strike, before the Israelis knew there were so many tunnels?

      I'm not putting it past them to do such a thing--they did employ the suicide bombing tactic during the Second Intifada that killed hundreds of civilians. But in this case, they seem to have used the tunnels for military purposes, to strike back hard at the IDF, while the rockets were used to terrify the Israeli civilian population.

    • If Hamas wanted to use the tunnels to attack civilians, wouldn't the best moment to do this be near the beginning, when the Israelis weren't aware of how extensive the tunnel network was ? Why wait until they found out?

  • Steven Salaita case recalls blacklisting of Pete Seeger and Paul Robeson
    • I wrote an email on his behalf, but I wish he exercised better judgment in his comments. If this controversy does hit the mainstream press, I can well imagine the sort of coverage those comments will get. Yes, there's a context and it's sarcasm and so forth. And the press is so great at conveying context.

    • No reason to feel irony. If a rightwing Israeli were not hired for political reasons, it would be just as outrageous from the academic freedom standpoint. You don't seem to understand the issues, either of the academic boycott or what happened here.

  • After Gaza
    • My take is that I would need to know much more before I could reach a firm conclusion. Could Israel be supporting jihadi groups to take the pressure off itself? Sure. It did something like this when it initially supported Hamas, to weaken the leftist nationalist Palestinian groups. Enemy of my enemy and all that.

    • Aren't people here opposed to ISIS? Don't we say that they and their buddies in Syria are genocidal? And if something has to have an Israel connection to be really bad, then haven't some said that Israel supports ISIS? (I have no idea if that's true, but Israel probably does benefit from having ISIS around to cause chaos in countries that might otherwise be Israel's foes.) How is it that bombing ISIS means we are at war for Israel?

      So what's the problem with people labeling ISIS as genocidal? The fact that most of those same people are hypocrites on Israel and Gaza is no reason why they should not label actions by ISIS as genocide if they fit the definition.

  • Even Wieseltier is upset by 'indifference in Jewish world' to Gaza slaughter and wholehearted Israeli support for it
    • "Enough of your ‘universal whataboutery” as self or site appointed historical moral oracle at MW"

      I don't care what you think about me. The Israelis, as bad as they are, are basically doing the same sorts of things that Americans have done. The historical analogies work in our favor, if you are in favor of Palestinian rights. If you have some other agenda, maybe not. American liberals easily understand what was wrong about the free fire zone tactics used in Vietnam--now just get them to see the same thing is going on in Gaza. That's been the problem--progressive except for Palestine. But some are starting to see the similarities.

      The same is true of the Jim Crow analogy. Get people to understand the connection between how white America used to act and the defensive apologetics of white Southerners and the way Israel acts and the defensive apologetics of the Lobby and again, people who disapprove of the one will disapprove of the other. It's how I got to see what was wrong with Israel and its defenders--it all seemed so familiar.

    • I was hoping Phil would link to this NYT Book Review piece by Neil Sheehan written in 1971. The only caveat I'd have is that the numbers for the civilian dead in the war are way too low. But otherwise it's a fascinating look at how slowly US reporters were to recognize war crimes right in front of their face, as Sheehan says about himself. But some of them did get there in the end. I wonder if we're seeing that stage with Israel in Gaza? As with Vietnam, people have come to the realization very slowly. At the NYT editorial board they still aren't there.

      war crimes in Vietnam

      All the issues in Vietnam are pretty much the same as they are in Gaza. People didn't use the human shields term, but the argument was the same. In the incident Sheehan himself wrote about, a few snipers in some fishing villages drew so much fire from US forces that the villages were destroyed and hundreds of villagers killed. Back then Sheehan might have agreed that the VC should not have fired from the villages, but he also realized (eventually) that the US response was so disproportionate that it was a war crime.

  • On being accused of anti-semitism by well meaning liberals
    • You seem to have written a comment containing nothing that resembled an argument, demanding that others dance to your tune. Not going to happen, Gene.

  • My friends say I'm being too nice to Hamas
    • " you have no grounds to criticize those you, and it is you, whom you are slaughtering. Black people are also often less than liberal, what you gonna do, criticize away you repellent self satisfied jerk."

      What a load of bull. I don't want your approval. Tell lies because of collective guilt. Be a politically correct little lefty who never says anything critical of the resistance because my tax dollars help Israel. Yeah, boy, that's really what everyone should be striving for.

    • IB--I admire your stance, but you've got more patience than me, I guess. But you're probably right.

    • "he laid down his life not for a particular belief, but simply for the right to go about examining the ideas of other people, thinking about them, and asking his interlocutors to do the same.” "

      A little high-falutin'. Sometimes people have blindspots and use their intellectual abilities to rationalize them. Your friends might be wonderful human beings in other respects and no sarcasm intended, but they've got a pretty big blindspot on this subject. Probably we all have blindspots of some sort. This subject is theirs.

      Not that Hamas can't be criticized--it can, and should be. But your friends are defensive of Israel and seem more upset that Israel is getting bad PR for killing hundreds of children and want the blame all placed on Hamas. Maybe you should just talk to them about other subjects. I have a friend like that--we do politics once in a while. He says nothing one couldn't pick up from Fox News and nothing I say gets through to him. I suppose we both like to bicker occasionally, but there's no point to it.

    • "but if each one of us wasn’t able to to express the views and feelings of Jews in general, how will anybody know what Jews think? Are we to be without a voice? And if we could speak only for ourselves, who would represent ‘the Jews’?"

      Damn that's clever. Funny too.

    • Did you think Roland holds the views he laid out here?

    • I'd be curious if your friends could spell out your arguments as well and as fairly as you have presented theirs. In my experience I don't think very many defenders of Israel could make the case on the other side.

  • 'NYT' is furiously rewriting history of Gaza conflict
    • "What did Michael Oren say about Al Qaeda in Syria? That if he had to chose, he works prefer AQ won because the other dude is pro Iranian."

      I haven't followed that part of things. It doesn't surprise me that he'd think it, but I am surprised he would say it out loud.

    • "Stephen Zunes pointed out this hypocrisy the other day on a podcast. HRW, Amensty, and the UN (namely Navi Pillay), are irrefutable when comes to Syria et al, but anti western, Hamas loving, Israeli haters when it comes to Israel."

      Yeah exactly. It's been like that forever.

    • "Well your picture of yourself is not the picture others have you…lol"

      A dig, no doubt, but not sure how it made sense. If one is trying to make a solid case to people who read the NYT that it is biased on this subject, you have to acknowledge that they printed stories about Palestinian suffering that really did convey what was happening. You then have to point out that their analytic pieces started dragging in arguments from the Israelis that are easily refuted by human rights groups that condemn both sides (and so aren't solidly in the pro-Palestinian camp), but they left out some of the arguments. You then point out that the editorials are so biased the writers hardly seem to have been reading the articles in their own paper.

      This isn't how I always write, especially after having read one of their awful editorials, but if I were going to make a case to someone who wasn't reading much beyond the NYT, that's what I'd do. Pointing to something Senator Fullbright said in 1963 probably will have them scratching their heads.

    • Only an idiot takes testimony acquired under torture as "proof". In fact, that's often the point of torture--not to acquire real information, but to make people say what you want them to say.

      sheerafrenkel article

    • I prefer to type things out. I picture myself making the case for NYT bias to people who don't follow the issue closely, but read the NYT and see moving stories about Palestinian suffering. If you just say "Oh it's all pro-Israel crap", it just makes one sound like an ideologue not paying attention to the details. Maybe that works for some.

      Also, no, I don't think it's some foreign conspiracy. There are people in the US, many of them non-Jews, who are psychologically conditioned to think that Israel can't be the real bad guy, it's gotta be Hamas or the Arabs or anyone other than an Israeli. And besides, the NYT has had a rotten record on writing about human rights that goes back to the Philippine American War (or so I vaguely recall--it's been years since I read about that). Establishment types are inherently stupid on some issues precisely because they are powerful. The system that gave them success must be fundamentally okay, or they wouldn't be where they are.

    • I think the NYT storyline is essentially this--

      1. It's awful how much suffering the Palestinian civilians experienced. So much of the firsthand reporting is really good--Tyler Hicks on the kids at the beach, Anne Barnard speaking to a Palestinian therapist about what Palestinians are going through. The individual reporters are no doubt sincere here, but it also conveys the message that the NYT as an institution cares about ordinary Palestinians and honestly reports their suffering. (The trick is how to put all the blame on Hamas.)

      2. The analysis pieces are mixed, but intended to give the Israelis plausible deniability. Some good stuff in there and they try to be fair, but they give a lot of attention to Israeli points of view which are clearly denial of responsibility. On any other human rights issue in the world, the NYT would give Amnesty International and HRW credence over the denials of a government. HRW was slow getting there, but they've pretty clearly stated that Israel is guilty of war crimes, along with Hamas. HRW believes its lying eyes over Israeli denials. The NYT accepts without question their view of Hamas, but treats Israeli denials as part of a legitimate debate.

      3. And then when we ascend to the heights of Mt. Sinai, where the NYT editorial board is busy chiseling the Truth as they see it on tablets of stone, maybe Israel was a bit careless with their firepower, hard to say, kind of unfortunate, but Hamas is pure evil, no doubt about that. And the blockade is something that can be lifted in exchange for weakening Hamas. Because the lives of ordinary Palestinians, unlike the lives of ordinary Israelis, are to be used as bargaining chips.

  • Palestinian refugees displaced again as they flee Islamic State in Iraq
    • " I will never forget that it was Amnesty International, who spread the “throwing babies out of incubators” story instead of uncovering the lie."

      I remember that, and put it down to the fact that there is no organization or group of people that always gets it right. The Saddam regime did a lot of awful things, but not that particular awful thing, which was a PR invention. I don't jump to the conclusion that Amnesty International is a pawn of Western imperialism. Human Rights Watch is biased in a pro-Western way , but criticism of them by lefties is also exaggerated. The fact is that if AI and HRW were pawns of the West they do an exceedingly bad job covering up the crimes of Western countries. They did a devastatingly effective job exposing Reagan Administration lies in Central America in the 80's (or rather, one of HRW's predecessor groups America's Watch did). HRW (or rather, Middle East Watch) did a very thorough report on America's air tactics in the Gulf War. HRW has done a good job documenting Israel's crimes--the only flaw here is they often use the term "may be a war crime" about things which obviously are war crimes, but they get there in the end. (And yes, I've seen what Finkelstein and As'ad AbuKhalil say about them.) Amnesty International has called for an arms embargo on both sides. I'm for that, though the key word there is "both".

      And of course AI isn't an antiwar organization as such. They report on the violations of the laws of war, but their mission isn't to take sides. In practice, if one side is committing most of the violations it will be clear if one reads their reports.

      Overall, even with their flaws I trust AI and HRW more than I trust people on the allegedly antiwar left to be accurate and to try to get the facts right, because they have the idea at least of trying to report all the information they have on atrocities of all sides. They'll get it wrong sometimes, but that's the ideal I want in a human rights organization--I wouldn't trust an explicitly anti-Western imperialist organization much more than I'd trust, say, the mainstream press. The BS just comes in different forms. People on the anti-imperial left have our own political agendas, our own reasons for emphasizing this atrocity and de-emphasizing that one, for believing one source and not another. If that didn't lead to us being unreliable and wrong sometimes we wouldn't be human. And people on the antiwar left aren't actually antiwar as such in many cases--just anti-Western war. It's fine to concentrate on the crimes we as citizens are most responsible for, and in fact obligatory, but invariably some people on the antiwar left start taking sides and cheering for one side in a conflict and downplaying or denying their crimes. It happens in every single conflict where people on the anti-imperialist left are involved in protesting.

      In this case, merely from reading the AI and HRW reports it's clear that ISIS is worse. And the idea that AI is deliberately trying to incite sectarian war in Iraq is something I'd need a hell of a lot more evidence for than what you provide in that last couple of paragraphs. Getting it wrong--yes, that's possible. Deliberately inciting sectarian war--wildly unlikely.

    • I don't know about this--

      "spreading largely unfounded rumors of unjust of oppression of Sunnis by Maliki-led Shia"

      Depends on what you mean, I guess. "Largely unfounded" could mean exaggerated, but not entirely false.

      Amnesty and other human rights groups seem to have ample evidence of human rights violations by both sides, though ISIS is worse.

      link to amnesty international

      revenge killings of sunni detainees

      war crimes committed in the battle for mosul

      So does HRW


  • Gaza war gives rise to new Jewish group targeting Jewish institutions that support occupation
    • "I’m happy to have jewish folks start wholly ineffective, sectarian peace groups, I just don’t see why it needs to be congratulated, publicized and so on. I’d be even happier if these same folks could just join existing Palestine solidarity groups and, you know, blend in,"

      I'm not very clear on what makes a person identify himself or herself as Jewish. Sometimes it's religion, sometimes a cultural thing or just who their parents were. Anyway, people who identify as Jewish might very well be ashamed and outraged that their religion (or cultural heritage or whatever) is used to support war crimes. So some form groups to speak out against it. It seems perfectly natural to me. Liberal Christians do or did the same sorts of things to fight the Christian Right. They didn't necessarily join other already existing groups on the same issue. This isn't some nefarious sectarian plot--it's just common human behavior. Part of the motivation would be to convince other Christians that we should be siding with the poor and not with the rich or whatever the social justice issue happened to be.

      There's nothing stopping these people from joining other groups, and some might, but they might think they have more chance to reach other Jews with a Jewish group, or being human with only a certain amount of time in the day, they might just participate in one. Now if they try to shove the Palestinians out of the picture, so that only Jews are allowed to talk about the issue, then yes, that would be ugly.

      J Street, as I recall, showed its true colors fairly soon. Or the leadership did. I vaguely recall reading (maybe at this blog) that some of the rank and file were not in line with the leaders, but if I were them, I would move on to some other group, Jewish or not, if I cared about the Palestinians.

    • "And Donald, you’re sort of a Tom for groups like this. You’re always there to defend these groups, that are by definition sectarian given their titles."

      Yep. The heated reaction to this seems stupid and intolerant to me. No, not anti-Semitic. Just self-righteous crap. Everyone has to think just like you. They can't identify with a community on the basis of religion or whatever. I don't know what it means to be Jewish and don't really care, but it's no skin off my nose if it means something to others.

      "These groups make me think – and I know I’m not alone here – that it’s as important for the only voices of criticism to be jewish as it is stopping the US/Israeli destruction of Palestine. And I think that’s horseshit."

      You're probably not alone. And it's more arrogant BS on your part. Maybe some people do think that way and others don't, but you just assume the worst because you have a stick up your butt on this.

    • "I’m comfortable with being an asshole, "

      You could have stopped there. And no, it's not shocking or sectarian or anything else except helpful to have Jews organizing to push back against those in their community who give a blank check to Israeli war crimes.

  • Conflict Resolution 101: Talk to Hamas
    • On the post itself, I agree with Medea Benjamin and Jimmy Carter that we should recognize Hamas. We went through the same utter nonsense back in the 70's when the US refused to talk to the PLO, though there was a back channel of sorts through a CIA guy named Robert Ames, the subject of a new book by Kai Bird. Andrew Young had to resign from the Carter Administration because he secretly met with a PLO guy at the UN and the Israelis leaked it. Anyway, it was a stupid policy then and it's a stupid policy now.

      One reason for it is that even semi- sensible people on this subject like Andrew Sullivan (hard to believe I just wrote that) still insist on pretending that Hamas is practically the same as ISIS. People go into fits if someone says Hamas has its pragmatists. Which is just more idiocy. American foreign policy is often moralizing, and moralizing on the wrong things.

    • Okay, we can shut the comments section down now. Tom Tomorrow has pretty well summarized the whole thing right here

  • What I said to the couple holding a banner with a swastika on it
    • Can't argue with that.

    • "Yes, see, that’s the thing about people who march around holding up swastikas, there usually so reasonable, open to opposing views, sweet folks"

      Yes, well, I was half-expecting a bad ending here, but it turns out these people weren't neo-Nazis, but people making the Zionist = Nazi equation, which I also don't think is a good one for winning over the ordinary person. But people who do that aren't Nazis themselves--that's the point.

    • Good post. I'm glad the couple took your suggestion well. It's easy to go for the jugular and forget we're supposed to be the side that favors peace and justice and equality and reconciliation and all that good stuff, and want to win people to that position.

  • The selected writings of Samantha Power
    • This isn't even half of it as far as the subject of Power's hypocrisy is concerned--her genocide book is mainly about US sins of omission and not the sins of commission. She was a darling in the mainstream because of this. Noam Chomsky, who wrote about our sins of commission, is not. There's no chapter about East Timor in her book (just a footnote) and no chapter on Guatemala. No chapter on the sanctions on Iraq. She explains why the mass murder of people for their political beliefs was not included in the legal definition of genocide (Stalin had objections for some reason, though as it happens he was guilty of the crime even as defined) but she has no chapter on one of the biggest genocides not defined as genocide in the 20th century--Suharto's slaughter of real and alleged communists, to the cheers of America and probably with assistance from the CIA.

  • 'NYT' gives Israelis the opportunity to shoot and explain (why not Hamas?)
    • "the real bizarro thing is the West has no problem with the indiscriminating bombing of civilian centers under the guise as a psychological weapon to break the enemy’s will to fight."

      That's true, though in recent decades there is usually some attempt at denial and doublethink. My favorite example of this is the Iraqi sanctions and the bombing during the Gulf War that preceded it. Barton Gellman interviewed various Pentagon people after the war and in a story published in the Washington Post in June 1991 (I think) he found people in the government who said that we had targeted civilian infrastructure so that we'd be able to use the suffering of civilians as leverage. The sanctions would make it difficult to repair the damage. Then all through the 90's, the official stance of the US government and its apologists was that the suffering of Iraqis was entirely the fault of Saddam. I think even Tom Friedman might have let the cat out of the bag in one or two columns (Friedman is so wedded to the opinions of the elite he thinks like them and sometimes doesn't realize how sociopathic his columns can be).

      Westerners, both those in government and those who reflexively support them, are masters of doublethink on this subject. They can deliberately choose to "punish" civilians and deny any responsibility for the results and I suspect that some of them actually believe their own rhetoric.

      I found the article. It's really a classic, in the sense that it lets you get an inside view of how these people think. Note the guy who thinks that civilians in Iraq are responsible for their government and therefore legitimate targets.

      Barton Gellman article on the Gulf War and sanctions

    • "The fact that this hypothetical seems so absurd, yet is an authentic mirror image to Israeli military policy, highlights what a bizarro world we live in."

      That's for sure. I see people at other blogs and everywhere saying that there is no doubt Hamas rockets are war crimes (and I'm fine with that, but they are pretty minor ones comparatively speaking), but whether Israel's actions are criminal depends on a detailed analysis and some say we can't know for sure until the dust settles. Even Human Rights Watch (which I find invaluable for the factual detail in their reports) is somewhat guilty of this, though they come to almost the right position in the end. ("Almost" because sometimes they still hedge things a bit, not being 100 percent certain that this or that Israeli action is a war crime.) It actually helps to be dishonest so far as Western public relations is concerned--Israel just has to deny ill intent and that's enough to make their criminality a matter of doubt in Western eyes.

      So everything would be solved if Hamas were given better weapons and used the same tactics as Israel. More civilian deaths, and no war crimes proven.

      Something I didn't comment on in the post--the criticism that Hamas uses civilians as human shields. Three things wrong. First, as people here know, the IDF has long used Palestinians as human shields. Second, if Hamas had built bomb shelters, Israel would probably target some of them on the grounds that they were command and control centers. They'd just use bigger bombs or earth penetrators or whatever. They were already blowing up homes and hospitals on that basis, so they'd go after bomb shelters. Third, what is the settlement policy except a vast network of human shields? Israel claims it needs the strategic depth, and then they fill that land with their own civilians. They value the settlement policy more than they value the lives of their own people who live there. The Wall won't stop attacks if there is a violent 3rd intifada.

    • That's my position, oldgeezer. If one is to choose violent resistance, resist the soldiers and don't fire rockets at civilians. One of the victims of the rocket fire was a Bedouin, if this matters. Of course, the Israelis didn't build them bomb shelters. Condemning the rocket fire for me is an afterthought--it's indiscriminate, but also a fraction of one percent of the civilian dead and a small fraction even of the Israeli dead, most of whom were soldiers. ("Were"--hoping this ceasefire holds.)

      On the other hand, if I were a Gazan I don't doubt I'd cheer the rockets as an act of defiance while under Israeli bombardment.

  • Israel, your brand is tanking
    • "Most people don’t care, and the people that don’t care don’t tend to figure in policymaking. But of the ones that do care, the overwhelming majority support Israel."

      Well, I think that's a roundabout way of saying that those who care in large numbers tend to come into this with a pre-conceived attitude of who the good guys are. And that's right--that's the Israel Lobby. People like me came into this thinking like almost everyone else, that Israel was the good guy. We changed when we found out more.

      "angry people who won’t even engage in dialogue with those it disagrees with, "

      For the most part the pro-Israel side has done its best to shut anti-Zionists or non-Zionists out of the debate, lumping them all in with anti-Semites. And it goes further than that. No rational supporter of the 2SS would have supported Netanyahu against Obama when Obama demanded that settlement expansion stop. But Congress sided with Netanyahu. That wasn't because they all came to the rational conclusion (most are educated, after all) that Netanyahu was right.

      But I agree that on the pro-Palestinian side people it'd be a mistake to stop listening to the other side altogether.

    • "Giving the correlation coefficients would also be helpful e.g. “strong correlation between educational achievement and support for Israel.”

      There was a poll showing that a week or two ago. I don't think it means much, or rather, it doesn't mean what hophmi wants it to mean. He wants this to mean that educated people support Israel because they understand the facts and can think critically--of course he wouldn't say that about people in some country where the media hadn't been overwhelmingly pro-Israel for generations.

      What would be interesting to find out is how much people actually know about the history of the conflict and the atrocities of all sides and where they stand knowing these things. I had a very well educated friend who used to spout the wisdom of the NYT editorial page on the I/P conflict--he wasn't reading the Israeli revisionist historians or Edward Said or really, anybody outside the mainstream. It would not have surprised me if he had seen "Exodus".

      There have also been studies showing that how people react to information about global warming depends not only on their educational background, but also their political leanings. So with liberals, the more education the more they think global warming is a threat. With conservatives, some studies show no correlation between education and beliefs about global warming and some actually show a negative correlation--the more educated they are, the less they believe global warming is a threat. I looked that up a week or two ago when this came up. That, of course, is a warning for us all, but at any rate, the polls hophmi refers to don't tell us much without further information.

    • "Well, the idea is that Israel’s liberal democratic values should suggest to you that maybe there’s a reason the occupation hasn’t ended"

      Yeah, it suggests that Israel's voters vote for politicians that favor the settlements.

  • Elie Wiesel plays the Holocaust trump card in Gaza
    • Obviously it's not his intent.

    • "I don’t buy the notion of Israel as god."


    • Yeah, I think it was a combination of a desire to play George Orwell and denounce the far left and incidentally boost his career to the highest point it could reach. He wanted to think he was a daring intellectual while telling the powerful in his own society exactly what they wanted to hear. It worked. I remember the Atlantic during the period immediately after 9/11 referring to him as an honest honorable man of the left. In other words, he spat on his former friends.

    • Time for another link to one of the last sensible columns Christopher Hitchens ever wrote--

      Wiesel words

  • Seven congresspeople go to Israel on AIPAC's dime-- and one gets defensive about it
    • "Israel needs more support more often than other US allies. It’s in a hostile region. But in general, Congress treats allies with more deference than it does the US. That’s basic enough. There’s a general assumption that they can handle their own affairs better than we can."

      That's not it. In other cases where human rights and US allies are involved, Congress tends to split. Take Central America in the 80's. People in Congress can be very critical of our allies. But in the case of Israel, it's a sacred cow, virtually untouchable. Obama tried to get Netanhayu to do something as mild as stop settlement expansion and Congress sided with Netanyahu. Obama said the negotiations should precede on the basis of the 67 borders and Harry Reid sided with Netanyahu. This is the Israel Lobby--it doesn't wield unlimited power on Middle East issues, but on questions directly involving Israel itself Congress generally dances to its tune.

    • Just wanted to add my appreciation for your comment here and those elsewhere, bandolero. Really smart, balanced, and well informed.

Showing comments 6228 - 6201