-
-
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges … 13
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel 13
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 31
- Exile and the prophetic: No dissenter is an island 2
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to … 13
- Demonizing Mandy Patinkin is a tough sell 24
- ‘If I had to choose between the wealth of the … 15
- Rightwing Israeli group gets tax-deductible funds from US foundation 7
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 674
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 311
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 202
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 145
- San Francisco bus ads condemn Israeli apartheid: backlash begins 120
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 101
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 100
-
- US Jews are so ‘polarized’ over Israel they can’t talk … 160
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 88
- Israeli right-wing flys off the deep end following Hawking boycott 78
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 75
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
- Church of Scotland backs away from boycott call in the … 62
-
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges but thrust is unchanged http://t.co/FCgbAw9vEO, 6 hours ago
- Exile and the prophetic: No dissenter is an island http://t.co/vnbRO0AgjV, 11 hours ago
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to be http://t.co/j9GvEIOYqI, 11 hours ago
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel http://t.co/oJT9HsoQcD, 11 hours ago
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack http://t.co/G5N0uJqOwT, 11 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack (31)
- Annie Robbins: wow MY ASSUMPTION IS that Isakson, Chambliss and AIPAC (and/or possibly the Israel Project) made a...
- Annie Robbins: ditto ;) thanks kathleen, for making that so easy!
- james1118: It’s totally incredible that US citizens would even consider to classify their own citizens as...
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel (13)
- Sumud: How to spot a ‘liberal zionist’ in a car. Blinker to the left, when time to move, turn to the right. Very...
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges but thrust is unchanged (13)
- W.Jones: But the new report adds the writing of Marc Ellis, the author and Mondoweiss contributor It sounds like...
- W.Jones: I do not understand- what happened to the flag in the Guardian’s photo on the topic:...
- American: seafoid says: May 18, 2013 at 4:44 pm This is a slap in the face to American Christian Zionists (but they...
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to be (13)
- CloakAndDagger: Antisemitism ended (declined) after the holocaust. Will the Israeli version of the “muslim...
- Exile and the prophetic: No dissenter is an island (2)
- Stephen Shenfield: Your first proposition (“When an individual can’t locate her resistance somewhere beyond...
- Exile and the Prophetic: Joseph Massad strikes again (11)
- libra: Professor Ellis: The rehabilitation of Nazism’s victims as white people” – that is, Jews. I can only...
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack (31)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
"You’re entitled to your opinion, but what you’re saying is that crying wolf and being a wolf are equally bad."
Actually, no. He's saying, I think, that people who make false accusations of anti-semitism are usually doing it to discredit critics of Israeli racism. And it is racist, because it means that nobody can defend Palestinian rights without coming under suspicion of being an anti-semite. The implication is that Palestinian rights simply don't matter and therefore if someone claims they do, they can only be motivated by hatred of Jews.
"a desire that I understand though I realize it is regressive and I caution those whose grandparents all died in beds to pause before they cast the first stone.)"
Morgenthau's plan would be worthy of Stalin or Mao--it really is on that level. It's not a rational plan--it's madness. Now as for vengeance, sure, but you could also say that about, say, the Khmer Rouge attitude towards "city people". They had some justification for feeling vengeful, since from their point of view the "city people" were allied with the US, which sent the B-52's against them and the B-52 bombing if continued would have been genocidal in itself.
The problem here is the usual one of double standards--genocidal rage on the part of Westerners is somehow seen as more understandable and less barbaric than when expressed by non-Westerners. I can understand why someone would react to Nazi genocide with a plan that would also have been genocidal, but then I also understand why victims of Western colonialism react with terrorism. Doesn't make it right in either case.
"weren’t you around during the vietnam war? if so, what did you think the protests and marches were all about?
I think the marches were largely composed of young people and far lefties who tend to be more idealistic. But many were also concerned about being drafted. Once American ground forces were being pulled out the antiwar protests started fading. How many people do you think you could get to protest the brutal sanctions on Iraq in the 90's? As hophmi correctly pointed out, not that many. Americans weren't dying, so it didn't matter that much. If the antiwar movement had truly been a mass majority movement of Americans who felt that it was wrong for us to kill innocent civilians, principled antiwar positions would be taken by mainstream politicians, not just fringe people like Dennis Kucinich. Someone like John Kerry swings to the right of his antiwar roots if he starts having serious political ambitions. And you'll notice that soon after the war ended the way the country started talking about Vietnam was mostly in terms of how it was bad for America. I mentioned Mark Shields in the earlier post because his position--he thinks the Iraq War was tragic because Americans died--is pretty representative of how the majority of Americans talk.
Anyway, there were huge protests in Israel after the Sabra/Shatila massacre. Fine, but that attitude didn't grow into anything.
Of course America is a big country and if you can get, say, 10 percent aroused over some moral issue then you can get big marches.
"oflmao!…….you must live under a rock…..there are 2 Americas..t"
I don't know--I think he had a point. Sure, Americans do criticize our government as you say, but with the majority it seems to be criticism of how our government doesn't do enough for Americans, or (if the criticism comes from conservatives) how it spends too much money, etc... When it comes to criticizing American war crimes, that sort of thing is much less popular.
For instance, some weeks ago I heard "liberal" commenter Mark Shields on the PBS Newshour talking about the ten year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. He spoke about it as an awful tragedy, but he only spoke about the Americans who died needlessly. And that's really common when people speak about American wars--in the mainstream, they usually criticize them from the point of view that they were harmful to Americans. It's much rarer to hear criticism of the horrors our government has inflicted on people elsewhere. That's what I think Hophmi is talking about.
"Most Jews, I predict, will avoid the issue of Israel before they will speak out on it. And that is human nature and also reflect the stands of most Americans. I don’t see Arabs speaking out in any organized way against human rights abuses in the Arab world or Muslims speaking out against the the destabilization of several countries by Islamic fundamentalist movements. You’re not going to get an anti-Zionist wave, just as you never got a pro-USSR wave and you never got an anti-War on Terror wave or even an end-to-Iraqi-sanctions wave. Most Americans do not criticize the United States in harsh terms. The best you can hope for is a shouting battle, which more and more defines American political debates, and you’ll most likely lose it, even if you gain a few easy European victories here and there."
Interesting paragraph. There are a couple of analogies that don't work (outside the Communist party why would anyone expect a pro-USSR wave?) and I don't know precisely what Muslims say about Muslim atrocities (I suspect we don't get an accurate or complete picture), but overall, yeah, you've got a point regarding human nature. Most people aren't comfortable criticizing their own country or tribe or co-religionists or whatever group they identify with, at least not if we are talking about war crimes and that sort of thing.
On liberal Zionists, I think the term actually encompasses a fairly wide range of views. Jerome Slater is a liberal Zionist, but he's extremely critical of Israel. But on the other hand there are plenty of people who call themselves liberal Zionists who mostly seem to say this in a perfunctory way--they don't support the settlements, but when all is said and done they obviously don't think Israel's crimes amount to much compared to Palestinian terrorism. If most "liberal Zionists" were like Slater we might see a serious attempt by the US to press for a 2SS along the 67 lines with adjustments that, if anything, favored the Palestinians. (I'm dodging the question of whether a 2SS is the right way to go--just talking about the preferences of various people.) But with the sorts of liberal Zionists who seem to have more influence the US has mostly acted as Israel's lawyer and that's one of the main reasons the "peace process" has gotten nowhere.
The PA already violates the rights of Palestinians under its control for the sake of Israel. I agree that the Palestinians should not use terrorist tactics for various reasons, both moral and pragmatic, but it's just disingenuous to pretend that the PA hasn't been cooperative with the Israelis on this--in fact, they go too far and suppress legitimate dissent. You almost never hear anyone in the West complain about that with the exception of some hypocrites on the Israeli side who want the PA to act as their police and then criticize them for doing what they want them to be doing. Ritzl made this point regarding Hamas--- it also applies to the PA. Even the civil war between the PA and Hamas was the result of a US/Israeli effort to derail the results of an election that Hamas won, and then Hamas was blamed for instigating the war that the US wanted. (The US didn't want Hamas to win, that's all.)
As for Ben Gurion, Ben Gurion himself was an ethnic cleanser. (Now I'm echoing a point made by Valency). There's not a whole lot of daylight between the Israeli "left" and the Israeli right on this point.
Thanks for the compliment Shingo--I don't quite get Miriam. I think she really is critical of the occupation, but this blog irritates her for various reasons.
"The only jews in the holy lands who are NOT colonialists are Palestinian jews. Other Arab, Iranian, and euro jews are colonialists – and that includes you and your family mister yonah."
If you're born in a country you're a native--all this crap about one's right to live or not live in a given land based on the ethnicity or behavior of your ancestors is precisely what is wrong with the Zionist side of the equation. It's no better if employed by the other side.
Some of us Americans are interested in the I/P conflict because we don't want the US endorsing one side in some stupid ugly ethnic conflict that has roots in 19th century racial theories. We like to think we're supporting equal rights for everyone regardless of their ethnicity, religion, or whatever bad things their parents or grandparents or great grandparents or relatives or co-religionists have done. If it's just choosing sides between two warring tribes, why should anyone else care?
Miriam, your position doesn't make any sense. I recall Chomsky in "The Fateful Triangle" took a page in his chapter on Sabra and Shatila to point out how barbaric and hypocritical many of Israel's critics were, and also some of Israel's allies, and I don't mind that because it's true. It's true that the US has a rotten human rights record.
But it's absurd to talk about the people here forcing Israel to do something, and that's what you're really talking about, because the big bully that is the US government ISN'T ON OUR SIDE. I capitalize that because you sound so delusional on this point. It's not a question of anti-Zionist America forcing a solution on Israel--in the real world, the one you seem to have forgotten in your little distraction, America acts as Israel's lawyer, Israel's supporter, we just can't do enough for the "only democracy in the Middle East" as they continue to practice apartheid and slow motion ethnic cleansing. You're more upset about the alleged power of people here than you are about what actually goes on. Why is that?
In the alternate bizarro universe that you live in, where the Islamophobic America that imprisons innocent Muslims for years in a tropical gulag in Cuba tries to force Israel into a democratic one state solution, yeah, maybe you'd have a point. In this universe you sound confused. Yes, if I were an Israeli Jew I'd worry about what might happen in a one state solution dominated by Palestinians if they follow a group like Hamas, but I'd probably be more worried about what some of my own people might do, because there already is a one state solution in practice and guess who is doing the oppressing? What is there about the record of Israel that makes you think that it would be the Palestinian side that would be the chief villain in some future ostensibly democratic 1SS? The Israeli side is at least as bigoted as the worst members of Hamas, and what's really scary is that they combine this with an utter certitude of their own victimization. Also, if a 1SS of a genuinely fair variety takes hold and then starts following apart, I strongly suspect the side with the heavier weaponry will be the ones who've been running the IDF--I think that if Israelis ever faced a genuine threat to their existence (as opposed to the ginned up version of a few rockets) they'd react in a way that would teach Asad a thing or two about ruthlessness.
"Taxi
I totally agree with you"
Troll alert.
"And another thing Mr. Ellis, up until 1967 there were no settlements on the West Bank. And this did not stop the Arab and Muslim, and the Palestinians, from waging war on the Jewish people. And now you say that settlements are the major stumbling block to peace? "
You guys are utterly clueless. Nothing sinks in. Ever hear of the term "Nakba"? Do you have any idea how stupid it sounds to talk as though the Palestinians had no grievances against Israel until 1967? Or how bigoted it is? And when Palestinians do fight against the Israelis for reasons that any normal human being ought to be able to understand, you term it "waging war on the Jewish people". Yeah, sure, only anti-semites object to being forced out of their own land.
By the way, you forgot to mention that the UN partition plan gave 55 percent to the Jewish state, and that even within those border nearly half the residents were Palestinians.
"Where have we heard this rhetoric earlier in history? Go figure."
Yeah, exactly. Any anti-semite might have said something similar 100 years ago.
"makes me wonder how many of the racist, I-first comments I see on various boards are coming from those US Israeli ‘expats’ instead of homegrown Jews."
No idea, though many people in the US are brought up on a whitewashed history of Israel. That includes many Christians too. Someone in my family referred to the Boston bombings the other day as "what the Israelis go through", a bit of propaganda she innocently picked up from the media or friends that is obviously put out there to make it seem like it's all us decent folk in the US and Israel in the same boat, suffering from the actions of irrational and evil terrorists. And Israel defenders whatever their origins all spout variations on the same theme--Israel is a bastion of Western civilization amongst the barbarians.
The ideology is widespread--it's why hophmi comes into certain threads and gloats how Americans who identify as pro-Israel far outnumber those who identify as pro-Palestinian. Of course nobody who wants a 2SS as the liberal Zionists profess to want should be happy about this situation, as it just means the Israelis won't feel pressure to bring about a 2SS. But then, support for a 2SS is largely a fig leaf for many people, something they say they want, while opposing any pressure on Israel that might bring it about. (All this aside from whether or not one thinks a 2SS is a good idea, a possible stepping stone to something better, or just a way of dodging the fundamental issue of equal human rights.)
"Romain Gary, The Roots of Heaven;"
Read that as an adolescent--my father had a lot of books on the shelves that I'd read at random. I should reread it--from what little I remember, probably a lot of it went over my head at the time.
"All that’s lacking is the utter sense of self-righteousness that accompanies it. "
Hmm, that probably wasn't clear. I meant that when Israel acts this way or when its supporters defend its behavior, I often get the sense that they actually believe their own words, as absurd as they may be. They aren't hypocrites, not consciously so--they're self-deceived.
"Israel is a Ponzi Scheme that is always grabbing more and then saying that anyone that has trouble with that is either anti-semitic or a terrorist. Then they grab more. It’s neverending
Israel’s whole idea of a ‘peace process’ is to circumvent, undermine, and invalidate international law, the Geneva Conventions, and numerous UN Resolutions. That’s it. They can’t win with the law so they have to go for the ‘negotiated solution’ – and they have their echo chamber in the US parrot that line and then use Palestinian resistance to such malarkey as justification to colonize even more"
That's one of the best summaries of their behavior I've ever seen. All that's lacking is the utter sense of self-righteousness that accompanies it. (And which one sees in their supporters.)
"Is the current anti-Jewish incitement promoted heavily in Gaza, and to a lesser but still toxic degree in the West Bank, not indicative of a racial, religious hatred that supercedes political problems? "
It never crosses your mind that decades of ethnic cleansing, war crimes and other forms of oppression might tend to increase the level of hatred.
"Anyone who tells you that is really interested in securing a Jewish state but does not say so."
I thought your post was superb, but then I've long thought that the analogy to how the US took the land from the Native Americans was the most historically accurate one. But this comment above is wrong--some people have supported the 2SS out of pragmatism. They might not think it is ideal, but at least has the support of international law.
I've come to the point where I don't see the argument from pragmatism as particularly compelling anymore, because we've heard this song and dance about the peace process and the 2SS for decades now, but some did hold it in good faith and maybe some still do.
"Israel is far from perfect, but no Arab state is remotely comparable. In Israel, minorities enjoy equal status before the law, strenuous strides are being taken to fight social discrimination and prejudice. By contrast, the Arab world’ s record for tolerance and pluralism is disastrous."
Sorry, but that's stupid. If you want to criticize the Arab world, fine, but don't cherrypick the facts to make Israel out to be something it isn't. It's not an state with a few flaws, it's a state that runs an apartheid system in the West Bank. You don't get to pretend that this is something that is outside of Israel, when in fact Israel/the West Bank already is a nightmarish form of the one state solution. It's been that way for decades and this has been entirely Israel's decision. Even without peace, nobody was forcing them to create settlements.
You want to talk about narcissism--there's nothing more narcissistic than an Israeli or an Israel supporter constantly trying to persuade everyone that their beloved idol is better than it really is.
On 1SS vs. 2SS, I don't see any solution on the horizon anymore. In the past I've supported the 2SS somewhat begrudgingly not because I give a crap about saving the "Jewish state" or Muslim states or Christian states or any such nonsense, but because I believed the argument that at least the 2SS was achievable. I'm not sure anything is achievable--as Glatzer points out, settler colonial states have a certain history and it doesn't include acknowledging sins and making restitution unless forced into it. Who is going to force Israel to do anything with the US acting as their lawyer, pressuring the Palestinians to cave in on their own demands and listen sympathetically to Israel's? If it weren't for the fact that the US is culpable, I'd say we just write the whole mess off--let the Israelis live out their 19th century settler colonialist "we're the civilized ones among the barbarian" fantasies and see where that gets them.
Great interview on both sides, Phil. Good questions asked and very good responses.
On the NYT itself, yeah, they or some fraction of the paper deserves a lot of credit for publishing it, but I don't recall any editorial or op ed piece following up. And as Ben says, most of the media simply ignored it. There was a window of about a week, then the next NYT Sunday Magazine issue comes out, and the story is stale. All the usual "intellectuals" in the media (on NPR and elsewhere) had to do was ignore it for that week and they were home free.
"Honestly, it irks me that this so-called “study” is being shown the light of day here. "
That's going a little too far. If you click on the summary of the study, they themselves say that their casualty figure (for civilians alone it's 137,000) is a very conservative estimate. I'm irritated by it too, because the MSM (and even Phil) will glom onto the figure they give (225,000 total) as the estimate and just ignore the fine print about how it is a very conservative estimate. And invariably this seems to happen when America is responsible for the death toll, though many years later, when it is no longer politically relevant, we may start to see the higher numbers given in the press when they do historical retrospectives. Or maybe not.
I wouldn't go to the other end either and cite the Lancet figures as gospel. They may be right or they may not be. The epidemiological community is split and yes, I'm well aware that some endorsed it, while others do not. That's typical in science and there's no easy way to tell who is right, which is why many people adopt the method of assuming whatever figure supports their political views. What is clear is that the Iraq Body Count figure is probably much too low.
But anyway, irritating as these number games are, this study is critical of America's wars.
225,000 is a very conservative estimate. Even if you toss out the Johns Hopkins study in 2006 (published in the Lancet) which said 600,000 violent deaths in Iraq and if you ignore the ORB poll which found about 1 million deaths a year later and just restricted oneself to the study published in the NEJM (the Iraq Family Health Survey) covering the period up to early 2006, you still have between 100 and 225,000 violent deaths by that time, and that from a study where the survey team identified itself to its interviewees as working for the Iraq government. (Would you necessarily expect honest answers from people, knowing that the Iraqi government ran death squads?)
The 100-225,000 violent death figure is 2 to 4.5 times bigger than Iraq Body Count's number for that same time (early 2006), so since IBC claims over 100,000 dead civilians by now , the likely figure is probably at least 200,000 and maybe much much higher. In Iraq all by itself.
There was also a poll in 2007 which found 17 percent of Iraqi households had suffered at least one person "seriously harmed"--that would translate into at least 600,000 dead or wounded even if there was only one casualty in each of those households (in reality, significantly more, since if a death squad pays a visit or if family members are out in the streets together you're likely to have more than one person hurt or killed.)
Wikipedia actually has a fairly decent article on this--
Casualties of the Iraq War
"a character who recently wrote an article on this site comparing the plight of “caged” Palestinian’s to “caged” pigs"
That's a lie. If you want to rant against Phil, pick a legitimate point where he might be vulnerable--don't make things up. . The point about celebrities is a fair one. The pig issue wasn't. Phil was talking about how radical activists sometimes sound to people who aren't tuned into that particular issue. Even those who got into the animal rights issue in the thread underneath were careful to say they weren't comparing human rights issues to animal rights issues.
"This inquiry does what it claims to be against and that is link legitimate foreign policy debates with murderous lunatics who blow up children."
That's no way to talk about the US and Israeli governments. Oh, wait...
I agree, though, that Phil is wrong here on two levels--first, Americans simply don't do self-reflection very easily, or rather, the majority don't do it in any way that seems to have political significance. Did anyone notice how the bipartisan commission on US torture was a one day story? Here some utterly mainstream people conclude that the US was guilty of torture and rather than spark a national debate on what we do to investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice, no matter how high up the ladder it goes, the story just vanishes, in part because of the Boston bombing. But if not Boston, then something else. I don't think the US is the worst country in the world, but the gap between our national self-image and the reality is probably about as big as you'd find anywhere.
Second, it's just a bad idea to use Boston as an example--the focus should be placed directly on what we do wrong, and not first on the acts of two moral idiots who murder innocent people, hoping that this discussion will then segue into a discussion of our crimes. It never works that way.
Wishful thinking Phil. (You do that a lot--maybe it's a necessary part of being a full-time activist, to keep your own morale up.) Mainstream America (at least what the mainstream press allows us to see) simply doesn't do that sort of reflection. I wouldn't choose the Boston example anyway if I wanted to make the case.
Even on the Ivory Coast issue that article was very kind to poor old Lanny Davis. I don't see the point in those one page interviews the NYT Sunday Magazine carries. They are invariably superficial pieces of garbage. It's the NYT not even pretending to do serious journalism.
"Also, very hasbara 101 of you to use the bogus Native American Indian equivalence."
Which demonstrates the sheer moral idiocy of the hasbarists--they take an analogy that destroys their own moral position and think it validates it. I first heard the Native American analogy from Finkelstein in one of his books (actually, I think Chomsky used it first, but I can't recall exactly where). Finkelstein was pointing out that both Israel and the US are examples of white settler colonialist states. At some point in the past several years the hasbarists started using the old American crime as a justification for their crimes--I first saw Benny Morris doing this in his infamous interview several years ago. Now the racism and chutzpah of the hasbarists has born fruit--we now have pro-Palestinian people running away from an analogy that exposes the basic immorality of the case for Israel as a Jewish state.
The analogy breaks down in one respect--Native Americans are no longer forced to live on reservations. They have the right of return. I am cynical enough to suspect that if there were 300 million Native Americans holed up on 22 percent of the US, forced to stay there, quite a few white Americans would have opposed their right of return. But the demographics are different and so white racists don't find a Native American ROR quite so threatening.
So that "bogus Native American equivalence" as you put it is a comparison of how people of white European descent stole land and ethnically cleansed the original inhabitants in both America and Israel. The analogy actually even holds in the way that some white Americans used to respond to criticism of our crimes--they'd say "Do you think we should give the land back to the Indians and move back to Europe?" People like that think that human rights issues are a zero sum game. That's what hasbarists think--that's why they use the Native American analogy--they're so stupid they can't imagine how one could favor equal rights and peace for everyone. Ideology does that to otherwise intelligent people. If you can't see that, perhaps it's because the Native American analogy is inconvenient for your own position.
"You keep with the same attitude here, You know what is my position???
Did I mention it in the comment, if yes lets hear it (quote)"
You lumped everyone at this blog into the same category and you did it again to me, after I explicitly stated my position, that approaching human rights issues as a zero sum game is wrong. So I think it's safe to say you're either incapable of understanding variations among those who criticize Israel, or you do this insincerely.
"I don’t believe any court in any country would allow the stolen loot to be passed on to the criminal’s children"
You live in America, right? How much of this country was stolen? Most of it.
Anyway, there's two different issues--some or many or most Israelis might be living on land actually stolen from individual Palestinians, and no, they don't have the right to it. But that doesn't mean they don't have a right to live in the country they were born in. People aren't responsible for the crimes of their ancestors--they're responsible for their own crimes.
"Looks like Taxi is the only one that has the guts to say, what this blog is all about.
All other are just too chicken to speak up."
Ecru answered this. The truth is you badly want to believe this is the case, because then you think you don't have to face up to the immorality of your own side. It doesn't work that way--even if everyone here became your mirror image, you wouldn't look any prettier. We'd just look uglier.
The problem with both Taxi's position and yours is that human rights issues are not a zero sum game. You don't end oppression and ethnic cleansing with more acts of oppression and ethnic cleansing aimed in the other direction.
One of my problems with treating all Israelis as "Euro settlers" is that many of them were born there. It's their home. Their problem is that they don't acknowledge the rights of the people displaced.
"What is truly astounding to me when considering the hasbarist trolls that post here, is that they apparently don’t recognize what these false narratives say about Israel, and themselves. What admirable act, policy, nation, people or agenda needs to be constantly defended by lies and exaggerations?
Exactly. The most devastating case against Israel comes from listening to its defenders. You don't really have to read any anti-Zionist--you can get the basic facts from mainstream human rights groups (like HRW for current and relatively recent events) and for the past one could read Israeli writers like Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim and even Benny Morris in a non-racist mood. Then listen to what its defenders say (like that same Benny Morris when he's venting his spleen). It's so bad it's embarrassing.
Case closed.
"You would have to be a scientific idiot to swallow the ‘jet fuel fire brought down the towers’ story. "
I don't agree.
link
link
"The situation in the West Bank is different because they want their own state, right?"
The situation is different in the West Bank because there are two sets of people there and two sets of laws--in short, apartheid.
Most of what people say in defense of Israel is so stupid it's hard to believe people mean it, but I know they do. You're right that the situation inside the 67 lines is not "apartheid"--that word is generally used by Israel's critics to refer to the West Bank, because Israel maintains military control and allows its citizens to settle there, while Palestinians are not allowed to move back inside the 67 borders, though many come from there. Two standards for two peoples imposed at the point of a gun by the stronger party--that's why the apartheid comparison is apt. Deal with it.
Abe Bird--An attack on Iran's nuclear sites would likely kill or injure thousands or even tens of thousands of civilians. Not that you probably care. But I wouldn't expect Iran to just sit there and take it. One way or another, someone will pay. Not that any decent person would advocate such an attack in the first place, even if Iran couldn't retaliate.
link
"American sympathy with Palestinians – 4%
American sympathy with Israelis – 36%."
What's your source? Not that I have any reason to doubt it--the numbers seem plausible to me. But the reason they seem plausible is that I know what many Americans are like--ignorant and full of prejudice against Arabs and Muslims. Some of the ignorance is innocent, not the fault of the person at all. I mentioned a case of this in an earlier response--a good friend of mine, not my rightwing Christian Zionist friend, but a liberal Christian interested in social justice who once asked in all innocence "What's all this about Israel's right to exist?" She thought it was a funny-sounding phrase and had no idea why Palestinians might have any reason to question it. The Nakba is not a household word. There are, on the other hand, all sorts of pro-Israel cliches that many Americans have heard over and over again. That was some years ago, but I doubt it's very different for the vast majority of Americans, most of whom do not follow this issue much and if they do, they often parrot what they hear in the press. Someone in my family the other day said that the Israelis knew what the people of Boston were going through--again, a cliche that pops up every time there's a terrorist attack on Americans, but of course only a minority of Americans know anything about what Israel did to the Gazans or what it is like to live on the West Bank.
It seems to me that a genuinely concerned supporter of the 2SS would be appalled by the one-sided support given by the US to Israel, and if there is this lack of sympathy for Palestinians then in the long run that's going to be bad for both sides, unless you support the status quo and think it is sustainable and don't care about Palestinian human rights. So are you gloating about those poll stats you cite, or do you see the problem here?
"Shingo — IF…..IF! That is my point, if you accept the myths of ancient history and continuity into the present and combine that with the 20th century, yeah, why not a state?"
You don't seem to get this--even IF modern Jews are direct descendants of Israeli Jews 2000 years ago, it gives them no right to a state there now. Yeah, yeah, I know you reject the story. The rest of us reject your notion that if the story is true it validates the creation of Israel at the expense of people already living there in the present.
Awesome. In one sentence mondonut pretends that Westerners only praise the murder of one particular collaborator on one occasion and that because the Nazis were worse nobody should condemn Israel.
We all know the double standard exists. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Only a hypocrite would pretend it doesn't.
"And all you care to write about is why the media is not acting in a tolerant
PC manner.'
Oleg thinks that it's wrong to be concerned about bigotry and over-reactions after something like this. There are millions of Iraqi refugees who might want to have a word with him about this.
I know it was Forbes Israel that chose to write about this, and that says something about them, but why should we care without further information? If there are particular Jewish billionaires (like Adelson) who use their power to try and influence events on behalf of their rightwing pro-Israeli views, then yes, we should hear about it. And the same goes for any billionaire--they all have far more capacity to do things in the political arena than the average person and we need to know what they're up to.
But let's hear about individuals and what they've done--if there are a large number of people with the interests and behavior patterns of a Sheldon Adelson, then that fact will be made clear by approaching the subject on a case-by-case basis. Just counting up how many billionaires are Jewish doesn't tell us anything, except maybe about the peculiar obsessions of the counters (in this case, the Israeli Forbes editors.)
"What you keep forgetting is that bipartisan support for Israel, a foreign policy issue, reflects the public view"
I'd be interested in what this public of which you speak thinks it knows about Israel--I suspect most who are "pro-Israel" get their version of the facts from the pro-Israel POV. There's a reason why people who don't follow the hasbara line, whether it is Finkelstein or Hagel, are hounded and either fired or pressured into saying the "right" things.
Take, for instance, the phrase "recognize Israel's right to exist". I have a friend who several years ago was laughing at the phrase--she'd never heard of the Nakba and knew nothing about the Palestinian side of the issue or why they might object to "Israel's right to exist" if it meant that their expulsion was justified. That part of the story simply didn't exist for her. Not her fault. Unless you follow the story closely and look for the Palestinian point of view you're not going to hear it. That's very different from the gun debate. The average person could give both sides of that issue--the gun lobby has not had anywhere near the same success controlling the narrative. They win because their supporters tend to be much more passionate than people on the other side--single issue lobbies can sometimes win that way.
So yeah, arguably the Israel lobby, which can get its version of the story accepted by the mainstream, even when it is a highly distorted version, is more powerful than the gun lobby.
For once I agree with Oleg. There are times when Jewishness is relevant, like whenever someone expresses an opinion on Israel or the Palestinians obviously, but I just can't see anything to get excited about here. Why should anyone care whether Friedkin is Jewish? Catholicism, OTOH, is relevant--we're talking about the freaking movie "The Exorcist" and the woman who did the demon voice.
To me, Phil, you're really reaching hard on this one. There's tons of bias in the press, but this case isn't an example of anything except you finding a story where none exists. This is a waste of time.
I looked at Mayhem's link--all the usual nonsense you'd expect from a COMMENTARY writer, with even Peter Beinart lumped in as a self-hating Jew. Nuff said.
The comparison is outrageous even comparing a settler who hasn't personally engaged in violence with a Mondoweiss front pager. The settler is benefiting from a vicious and racist system. Mondoweiss writers are criticizing that system. I know it's common for people to see themselves as the happy middle between two extremes, but in this case one extreme is in favor of bigotry and prejudice and the other is in favor of human rights.
"If you want to assert that because of Israel’s behaviour in Palestine, jews are genetically disposed to steal from, bully, torture and kill other people (which strikes me as rather anti-semitic) then by all means, you are a race traitor Adam.
But we know that is garbage – zionists are the extremists, not you. So don’t take on board other peoples baggage."
That's what I was trying to say in a more longwinded way upthread.
In your shoes I'd probably be tempted to embrace the "traitor" label out of anger or contempt, but since I'm not in your shoes and can look at the subject as an outsider, I say "Don't do it. Don't let these idiots get to dictate who is a good Jew and who is a bad Jew." What these people at Noah's dinner party were doing is bad even for Judaism--they're saying that to be a good Jew, a member of the family, you can be the moral equivalent of a KKK activist, but you can't be someone who speaks out against racist crimes, if the racist crimes were committed in the name of Judaism. Which is a crock. And anti-semitic.
It's as if a white Southerner had said, circa 1965, that KKK members, while a little embarrassing, were part of the family, but any white southerner who joined up with the Freedom Riders was a traitor. Well, I was too young to join (and probably too chicken), but if that's what being a traitor meant, well obviously the decent person would want to be a traitor.
On the "people" vs. "People" thing, Noah is trying to claim that both sides are doing this--the "traitors" identify with whoever the politically correct victim of the day is, while the "extremists" (and those at that dinner table) identify with their ethnic group. But I don't think all "extremists" do this. Some identify with individual people as people, and so get upset when they see people being treated like animals. For myself, I don't particularly identify with Palestinians--it's just a fact that they are a group my tax dollars are being used to harm, and I have to listen to idiot American politicians talking about this like it's some kind of honor that we are allied with Israel while they do these things. We do enough oppressing on our own without having to subsidize and praise other morons.
"When is your site going to publicize the carnage in Syria, Iraq, parts of Africa-don’t forget Nigeria-which have zilcho to do with Israel or the Palestinians? "
The site does occasionally comment about Syria and Iraq. It's not a site about every conflict in the world that involves Muslims. Why should it be?
When are you going to condemn Israeli crimes against Palestinians instead of making excuses for them? This site, after all, is mainly about that subject and you're here for some reason.
"Interestingly, my daughter recently told me that while she never gives people grief for eating meat, some give her grief for not"
That's common. People don't like to be made to feel guilty and the mere fact that your daughter doesn't eat meat is enough to make others squirm even if she says nothing. That sort of reaction also seems to underly a lot of pro-Israel argumentation, or so I suspect.
Interesting that you took it that way, kalithea. It never hurts to question one's own behavior now and then and ask whether you're helping achieve one's goals or hurting them. But if one is morally perfect in every way then I agree, it just wastes time.
Good for your family, David. I'm not there yet. Also, we have a cat, which isn't going vegan. There are limitations on what one can do. Well, limitations on what a cat can do.
I thought Phil's post was great on various levels. Basically I think as you do, that all (everyone I know anyway) rationalizes some form of oppression or cruelty and no, neither am I equating animals to humans. But there is an underlying similarity in the mindset that says we can inflict cruelty if it benefits us and many of us tend to snarl and become defensively sarcastic when our own failings are pointed out. In that sense I can understand exactly where the uglier pro-Israel reactions come from.
On the other hand, we can also look at the activist as Phil did and wonder uneasily if sanctimoniousness is alienating. Now I'm just repeating Phil, just as in my first paragraph I was echoing you, so I'll stop.
"Not one person here lived in SA, while many close relatives of mine, and countless friends, have, and some still do. Sorry, I followed SA politics for many more years than some of you have been around. Bishop Tutu has always sided with the Palestinians, which doesn’t necessarily make him objective, and he really doesn’t see Israel from any factual perspective, only the rather subjective Palestinian view"
And that's the last you say about South Africa. You didn't respond to a single point any of us made. The "rather subjective Palestinian view" was hilarious, btw.
Coming from you, that means precisely nothing. Shingo and others have replied to your other points.
There's probably a lot of truth to that analysis, Miriam. But here's my question--what lessons from it would you apply to the I/P conflict, if any?
RJL, you sorta forgot some things. There was black-on-black civil war in South Africa in the townships, fought in vicious brutal fashion between the Inkatha party (with secret support from the government) and youths in the ANC. You remember necklacing, right? Or how Winnie Mandela endorsed it? Did you know the ANC tortured prisoners in its camps in Namibia? You're trying to make some sharp distinction between an allegedly morally perfect resistance movement in SA and the Palestinian resistance movement, but real life tends to be messier than propaganda tries to make it. The pro-apartheid supporters in the 80's made exactly the sorts of arguments Israel supporters make now and they had plenty of violence to point to when they did.
I don't have time, but there are some other similarities between then and now--for instance, that support for Inkatha echoes the divide and rule strategy the Israelis and the US have used against the Palestinians.
"Beyond this, as I've noted in the past, Ben-Ami's opposition to "negative pressure" only extends to his own tribe; Iranians, of course, don't get such a compassionate plea for positive reinforcement "
A pretty common attitude with many self-described liberals and not just on Israel--they are all for harsh sanctions that hurt innocent people in places like Iran, but can't conceive why anyone would want to sanction the US or Israel, given that innocent people would be hurt. Some innocent people count more than others, obviously. You can assassinate alleged bad guys with drones if they are foreigners--if they are American war criminals you just sigh and accept that we need to look forward and not back. We can't even have official investigations into their crimes. Unless it's a whistleblower like Bradley Manning--then you throw the book at them.
American liberals, or many of them, are a pretty sorry lot on human rights issues.
"However well-meaning in its intent, these campaigns are well on their way to silencing all critics of religion."
Fat chance. People have been criticizing fundamentalist Christianity for decades.
The problem here is not that someone is engaged in the perennial argument about whether or not belief in God is stupid, or whether this or that religion contains some beliefs that justify bad behavior. The problem is that Islamophobes single out Muslims in particular and talk about this group of 1 billion people as though they are all terrorists or potential terrorists.
It's simply a fact that people who are religious and claim to have certain beliefs in common often take very different ethical stands and behave in very different ways--some Christians, for instance, persecuted Jews while others would risk their lives to save them from their persecutors. Same religion, very different behavior. So if someone wanted to attack Christianity, as a matter of fairness he or she should acknowledge that Christians don't all behave the same and interpret their beliefs in very different ways. The same would apply to any other religion.
The problem I have with some of the self-styled rationalist attackers of religion is that they don't make these obvious distinctions. Fine, it's not racism. But it is bigotry and it can be every bit as dangerous as any other form of bigotry if taken to extremes. I wouldn't trust a nuclear armed nation of Sam Harris types any more than I would trust a nuclear armed nation of religious fanatics.
"Halbertal I* have never heard of before."
I first heard of him when he attacked the Goldstone Report. Jerry Magnes article on response to halbertal
I think it's legitimate to worry about what a 1SS would be like and to set lines regarding what one would or would not support, but only after making it quite clear that in no way whatsoever does this justify the actual state of affairs now.
The same could have been said about apartheid South Africa and in fact was--I frequently heard people warn back then that if blacks got the vote it would be "one man one vote one time". Of course Zimbabwe hasn't turned out that well. Algeria after the French left had a bad human rights record and fell into another civil war in the 90's. In no way did this justify white colonial rule.
If you and RJL are raising this issue out of a sincere desire to see a democratic 1SS then that's one thing, but it's pretty clear RJL isn't. I also think it's legitimate for 2SS supporters to say that they favor a 2SS because they are afraid a 1SS would degenerate into all-out sectarian war or some other horror, so long as the fear of this is not some racist excuse for saying that Muslims or Arabs can't be trusted to run a democracy. Israel is essentially running a 1SS right now--remind me again who is in charge?
From the article--
"My call was meant to be in the form of a heads up — that there could be problems,” Rev. Goodhue said. “She has the right to speak — and I am certainly not going to go — but I have to question whether it is appropriate for a house of worship to give her the microphone. … I tried to convey to the rabbi that I would be deeply offended if a church invited a hate monger to come."
Makes perfect sense. Suppose a church invited a well-known anti-semite to speak?
(I mean a real anti-semite, not someone critical of Israel or Zionism.) No one presumably would deny that anti-semites have free speech rights, but what sort of church would invite a person like that?
"Obama has essentially governed as a moderate Republican, a point he himself has made many times. "
Exactly. The tragedy of his Presidency (from his point of view) is that he's the only moderate Republican in Washington. He so clearly wants an alliance of centrist Republicans and right-leaning Democrats, so he can just dump the liberals and be praised for it by the centrist pundits, but the Republicans, so far, refuse to take yes for an answer.
Wow. I didn't realize until I read your post and then went back and read your earlier posts that MJ was so badly misrepresenting their content.
"My beloved friend, Phil, should either shut down all comments or preferably screen them for anti-Semitism, Islamohatred and other forms of bigotry."
He already does that, MJ. There was much more in the way of hate statements on both sides several years ago than now. I used to complain about it myself. Nowadays I sometimes see things that I don't like, but I go to "Open Zion" and see worse, as bad as anything you might have seen here a few years ago, but generally on the other side. If you shut down every site where someone said something insensitive, there wouldn't be many mainstream websites open to discussion on this subject. I think people just don't notice the implicit racism of so much of what people on the pro-Israel side say.
Where you draw the line is a tough call sometimes, or so I would imagine. But I've had arguments with pro-Israel types at other websites and people thought we were having a civil discussion. From my POV I was arguing with transparently racist jackasses.
"I can’t imagine saying there is “nothing terribly unique” about American slavery or Hiroshima or even Dresden. That kind of language is dismissive of peoples’ suffering."
I could imagine saying there is nothing terribly unique about some atrocity--it doesn't mean I don't think it's an atrocity. I've said that about Israel's policies--they seem fairly typical of settler colonial states. Which is to say I think they are disgusting and vile, but not terribly unique. Look at American treatment of the Native Americans in the 1800's. Look at Israel. Not terribly unique.
I just started reading his "Culture" novels last year-- I've read most of them now. I love them--as horrible as Banks's illness is, I have to admit that I'm also really upset that "The Hydrogen Sonata" might be the last in the series.
I think the Culture would probably avoid intervening in the I/P conflict, but they would definitely disapprove of Israel's behavior. Their attempts at intervening in the Chelgrian world didn't work out too well, so they'd be a bit gunshy regarding Israel. The people who planned the Iraq War would have done well to have read it. (The Culture also wouldn't have been too nice with the al Qaeda types either, but I don't know that Banks himself necessarily approves of everything his Minds do. Probably not, since they don't always agree with each other.)
I doubt that's true, but Muslim organizations are also spied upon and treated with suspicion and sometimes contempt in the US, even by some mainstream politicians,no doubt pandering to people like you. It's hard to believe, but Bush II was actually relatively liberal on this compared to later Republicans.
The civil libertarian argument is a difficult one for me--if people try to cancel the Gellars, then the same tactic is used against BDS advocates and it's tougher to complain except on the grounds that our position is morally right and theirs is morally wrong. Which is true, but not the point when it comes to free speech.
But if I were a member of the congregation I would be vehemently opposed to having a bigot like that speak where I worshipped. What message are they sending about what they stand for? Would they invite a KKK advocate?
The Persian Gulf monarchies are rather dependent on the US, so exactly how much pressure have they exerted on the US regarding anything since the 73 embargo?
I found most of the quotes Sibriak picked out rather compelling. Khalidi doesn't exactly sound like a sellout. Just because someone doesn't toe the party line on the exact degree of power of the Israel lobby doesn't mean that he or she is dishonest. If he's wrong on some point, well, sometimes people can be wrong in good faith. This is probably difficult to understand if someone has never been wrong. I myself have had a huge amount of difficulty wrapping my head around it.
I'm in the middle on this perennial and tedious debate about exactly how powerful the Lobby is.
But I agree with Chomsky that generally speaking, the US has a rotten human rights record. If Israel and the Lobby never existed, chances are good we'd have spent the past several decades supporting some thuggish government oppressing the people of Palestine. It's our usual pattern.
"The Israel lobby discussion is only a small part of the book."
Yes, but it appears that in a MW comment section if you're wrong on the Lobby that outweighs anything and everything else you might say. That issue trumps anything he might have to say about the Palestinians, America acting as Israel's lawyer, etc... Trivialities. He downplayed the Lobby. That's what matters.
But somehow I don't think that criticizing the US as Israel's lawyer and aligning yourself with the views of Finkelstein and Chomsky is the guaranteed way to become popular with the politicians and the punditocracy. Only in a Mondoweiss comment thread would people see Khalidi as taking the path towards mainstream acceptance. In the US? Seriously? I also think that this section actually sounds fairly reasonable--
"It is really not the Israel lobby that drives American policy," he said. Yes there are occasions when the lobby "prevails," but these are rare occasions-- when the cost of US alignment with the Israel lobby is so small that the U.S. can get away with it. And here Khalidi meant U.S. support for the unending occupation. In that case there is "exaggerated attention to domestic political concerns"-- be it voters, donors, or pro-Israel media.
This calculus is now at risk. Arab public opinion is overwhelmingly concerned with Palestine and against U.S. policy. But Arab states are generally not democracies, so there has been no problem for the U.S. in ignoring public opinion. "That policy would become untenable if [Arab states] are democratized," Khalidi said. "If Arab governments begin to reflect popular opinion then American policy will be in jeopardy."
"BTW, I wonder he would have to say about the Book of Ruth."
A fair number of religious people seem to miss the liberal strands in their own tradition.
"he became a believer in opposing those who conceded higher motives to Osama Bin Laden."
More McCarthyism. It may have escaped your notice, though I'm not sure how it could if you've lived in Israel, but killers often claim to have higher motives and may even believe it themselves. Osama bin Laden claimed to be outraged by American and Israeli atrocities--well, a fair number of American and Israeli murderers claim to be outraged by atrocities carried out by Muslims. There's no particular reason to doubt them. Why is it noble to "oppose" people who point out that Muslim terrorists often claim to be motivated by moral outrage over Western crimes? It doesn't mean one supports their vicious crimes. To me it seems incredibly stupid and dishonest to close one's eyes to facts. But in a vicious and dishonest period of history a propagandist like Hitchens can earn a lot of mileage telling lies.
As for Hitchens, it was careerism to some extent. Or a level of hypocrisy that transcends the already high level normally set by pundits.
On September 13, 2001, Hitchens wrote this--
Link
He never wrote anything like that again. Instead, he trashed anyone and everyone who wrote things like that. Before 9/11 he was something of a fringe figure, a little kooky on the subject of Bill Clinton, liked by most lefties, but his career really took off once he decided to trash his former friends. He wasn't stupid--if anything, it takes a certain level of marketing brilliance to posture as the second coming of George Orwell, the brave dissenter, while being lionized by the mainstream for supporting American military might. And he wasn't just crude in his attacks on others--he reveled in violence against his favorite new enemies, the "Islamofascists".
The best summary of what Hitchens became was written by Glenn Greenwald--
link
But nice of you to have conceded that Hitchens, with his crude glorification of violence and his apologetics for the dumbest set of war criminals ever to grace the White House, may have been mistaken. But if he didn't concede this, how does that prove he wasn't a careerist?
"His microphone was cut off twice, much of the audience stood and turned their backs, the stage was rushed, fog-horns and jeers drowned out his words, and he was booed from the stage. In retrospect, it is a classic."
That illustrates what I meant the other day when I said the US was insane in the period from 2002-2003, or more accurately, Sept 11, 2001 until sometime in 2004 or a little later. Not all of us were crazy, of course, but there was a McCarthyite atmosphere that dominated the public arena and many so-called liberals or lefties participated in it, Christopher Hitchens being the most famous, but he wasn't the only one, not by a long shot. Any objection to US militarism was seen as near-treason, and if you said that Islamic terror had any connection with US or Israeli crimes you were considered to be an apologist for al Qaeda. I'd read about periods of history like that, and of course mainstream America (meaning the politician and pundit class) is generally never very honest, but I'd never lived through any period as intensely dishonest and hysterical as that one. As Hedges said, the "liberal class", with some honorable exceptions, was worthless or worse than that--they were part of it.
I think the antiwar voices finally started to break through after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke--then we returned to our usual level of hypocrisy.
I don't think Kristof was for the war--in fact, I remember a column where he said that Iraqis would probably oppose our occupation. His sin (I read the link Hedges gave) was concern trolling--he was oh so upset that antiwar opponents were being too mean about President Bush when they could criticize him in more measured ways. What comes out with Kristof is that civility meant more to him than the fact that someone started a war on false pretenses and then engaged in torture.
That was anti-semitic, no doubt. She objected to racism against Palestinians by making a racist remark against Jews.
Unfortunately she then compounds her error by joining with those who think that support for Israel is a way of atoning for anti-semitism. So it's a zero sum game and either you support racism against Jews or you support apartheid for Palestinians. Apparently you're not supposed to think of some sort of third choice which might not involve racism against anyone.
"Well, you won’t ID Hamas that way, and they’ve killed many more people through terrorism than Irgun did. In reality, I would call Irgun a terrorist group, but as usual, you ignore the point. Irgun was a tiny group that never represented more than a fringe. Hamas is a mainstream group that rules Gaza and won an election. Ergo, they are different. "
It's true the Irgun was a marginal group--the bulk of the ethnic cleansing in 1948 was done by mainstream Zionist forces.
This is yet another example of a self-described liberal Zionist trying to make it seem like Zionist terror is only committed by marginal groups, while Palestinian terror is representative. In truth, conflicts over land (quite apart from who has the better claim, which is clearly the Palestinians) nearly always involve atrocities on both sides, and if the outsiders prevail, then they prevailed through massive human rights violations. If there are any exceptions to this, Israel isn't one of them.
On the subject of who contributes what, I've always thought the best advertisements for anti-Zionism come from the posts of Zionists, both here and in the comments (and some of the front page post) at Open Zion.
And that's not snark--I'm dead serious. Listening to the rationalizations and double standards used constantly reminds me of defensive white Southerners that I knew growing up, talking about race relations. The same bad faith, whitewashing, thinly disguised racism (if disguised at all). Exactly what one would expect--when Westerners oppress others and still want to think of themselves as the good guys, there are only so many ways to argue.
I'd take it more seriously if the Israeli side once and for all admitted that the vast majority of civilian casualties are inflicted by the IDF against Palestinians--until then, what one can't help but notice is the endless narcissism of the Israeli side which only notices its own tragedies.
"So you’re saying they were stupid"
Living inside a particular culture is likely to make one stupid on certain subjects. People often start believing their own propaganda. Look at the US in 2002-2003-- it was like living inside an insane asylum.
"He appears to accept it in much the same way another “liberal Zionist” and “humanist” – RW – accepted it:"
I don't think that's correct. I couldn't quite follow some of what Yonah wrote, but he's not the denialist that RW was/is. RW still can't bring himself to admit there definitely was ethnic cleansing against Palestinians in 48--he was fudging on that at "Open Zion" recently.
Yonah strikes me as someone stuck between liberal Zionism and post-Zionism. Very very ambivalent. I'll take that over most of what I see on this subject from most self-described liberal Zionists.
"I keep reading this sentence and I am disturbed by how trivial this makes expulsion – a crime against humanity – sound. He doesn’t even say it should be condemned, only that it’s not a good option.
Can you imagine if Obama were to say that about Jews in a speech to Arabs?"
Good point. In fact, great point. It'd be comparable to him telling a Palestinian audience that suicide bombing isn't the answer. People here and in Israel would go ballistic. It's yet another demonstration that the US can't be an honest broker.
"I wonder why that didn’t work in concentration camps, and how does that reflect on his other musings, especially those that you bring in you reply above."
Let me answer that for you, as you seem weak in the area of logical reasoning. It doesn't reflect on them at all--whatever one thinks of the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance against Nazis (it did work in some cases, though I think it would have to be people other than Jews doing it to work against the Nazis), Gandhi's criticisms of racial and ethnic discrimination remain valid.
"Originally I have intended to leave his name out, until he published his own account of our encounter at... "
I read that when it came out. I wondered what it looked like from the other side of the conversation.
I think Phil was wrong to say Obama was trying to run to Romney's right on Israel. It's the Republican Party that has prominent members denying that Palestinians even exist as a people.
But I don't think it is nitpicking to point out that Obama was personally involved in this platform scuffle--that's rather interesting.
"Maybe this is your plan – find common cause with Likudists on the right who want to politicize Israel in America "
What's wrong with politicizing an issue? That's what politics tends to do. It's been a disaster the way Israel receives bipartisan support no matter what it does. It's bad for the US, bad for the Palestinians and in the long run bad even for the Israelis. You only say "don't politicize the issue" if you like the status quo.
"And personally speaking, I do find it difficult to stomach when Israeli supporters insist on passing every statement made in anger by the Palestinians through a moral filter, while they themselves remain silent about the Pam Gellar’s and Caroline Glick’s of this world."
Me too, actually. Here of course I'm not talking about MJ or even the blogger he linked to, but more generally. At almost any mainstream blog or news organization I go to where there is a comment section and the I/P conflict comes up, I will see blatant examples of anti-Palestinian or anti-Arab racism there. One form of bigotry and racism is within the mainstream and the other isn't. Of course that doesn't mean we should go easy on anti-semitism, but I want to see the other kind of racism called out just as much by the people who complain about anti-semitism.
I agree that fighting anti-semitism is part of the good fight. But while I sympathize with the link author, I also think he's mixing up different things. There are no doubt some Western supporters of the Palestinian cause with ulterior motives. And they have no excuse for their bigotry and should be called out when it is clear. But Palestinians are in a different set of conditions. The Israelis and their defenders are constantly pointing out that Israel is the Jewish state, Palestinians should recognize it as the Jewish state, it has a right to exist as a Jewish state, and yet Palestinians know Israel couldn't be a Jewish state without forcibly expelling hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and it currently practices a form of apartheid on the WB. And America funds it. It's not the best of circumstances for Westerners to lecture people on the evils of anti-semitism. Yes, we should criticize anti-semitism wherever it appears, but when it comes from Palestinians we are in a rather awkward position.
" Obama seems to “make exceptions” to applying basic American principles when it comes to those he considers a victim class. Although I didn’t see examples of discrimination in accounts of his life I have read, there probably were some…some occasions when he was discriminated against which was made doubly vexing by the fact he was half white and may have felt ‘estranged’ from both blacks and whites emotionally. "
I don't think that's Obama. Obama strikes me as someone who has struggled his way up the power structure wanting to belong and to be identified as a centrist with progressive leanings. Everything he's said and done as a politician on the national stage gives me that impression. What's weird to me are all the imaginary Obamas people see--the black radical Obamas seen by people on the right or the liberal Obamas who secretly agree with whatever the liberal Obama worshipper wants to see (Phil used to have a few tendencies that way and maybe is showing them here to a lesser degree.)
Obama knows the Palestinian side of the story and when he was in Chicago he gave the impression of agreeing with Ali Abunimah (according to Ali Abunimah anyway). And he went to a fairly radical church. But he was in a liberal district and he used them as stepping stones and he dumped all that when it became inconvenient. In Washington during his first term he gave every indication of wanting to be seen as the great uniter, and what that means in DC circles these days is that centrists from both parties unite and give the conservative Republicans and the liberal Democrats the shaft. What Obama eventually discovered is that there are no centrist Republicans, but if you read some liberal blogs (the ones not deeply in love with him, that is) you'll find a lot of worry that Obama wants to shaft the left on issues like Social Security. He badly wants to be seen as the President who struck a Grand Bargain against the will of the liberals in his party. He just hasn't found Republicans who will take yes for an answer.
The relevance to all this on Israel is that the mainstream position in American politics is to be very pro-Israel. So that's where Obama is. There's no percentage in being pro-Palestinian.
"before you start equating them with the Israeli jews wanting their own jewish-dominated state?"
Not speaking for Ramzi, but for me the answer would be when Palestinians take over the entire land and force Jews out or into small enclaves. Until then, ordinary people living under occupation may express views that aren't liberal and forgiving towards their occupiers and while I will be critical of that, I won't go so far as to equate them to their occupiers. Particularly not when I help fund their oppressors.
"Obama “gets it”? How many times must one listen to an Obama speech, only to see his actions betray everything he said in the speech — how many times must this happen to understand that nothing Obama says means anything? "
Sums it up nicely. I don't doubt Obama is an intelligent man and I'm sure he understands the truth behind the conflict. But one slight correction--in another thread I just quoted from Obama's famous speech on race in the 2008 campaign, where he says this--
"But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."
Those are the words of a man seeking the Presidency, the words of a man who who was friends with Rashid Khalidi and knew Ali Abunimah. He knew better, but lied to our faces in one of the most widely praised speeches of his career. And what he said there was a pretty strong indicator of what sort of foreign policy he would have in the Middle East. Sometimes you can trust what he says--you can trust him when he lies, because the pressures that make me lie are the same ones that will drive his policies.
"In any case, if the American, western media are so biased, why have they devoted SO much attention in their (mostly favourable) and extensive coverage of the so- called “Arab Spring”?"
The media likes a story about heroic Arabs rising up against a tyrannical Arab dictator. They even show some understanding and support when the rebels use violence, including suicide bombing.
The media doesn't treat violent or nonviolent resistance to Israel by Arabs with anything like the same kind of sympathy.
"It was a tacit admission of failure, yet everybody seemed happier with the scaled-back aspirations."
Does Dana seriously believe Palestinians were happier with "scaled-back aspirations" that leave occupation in place?"
"Everybody" means "everybody that matters".
Sometimes I can't tell if someone is being sarcastic or being overly literal. The NYT story is still there and hasn't vanished--but so far as I know it isn't being referenced elsewhere, by the NYT editorialists or by other liberals in other venues.
Possibly I should have explained myself a little better, but some of the other posters upthread have filled in what I left out.
"If you compare their coverage today with even five years ago, it is no comparison. To even publish his piece was very daring,"
I did hastily throw in a comment at the top giving them credit for publishing the piece, but I sorta suspect it is as Avi said, a way of maintaining some degree of credibility. And they probably are better than they were five years ago--I'm kinder to Jodi Rudoren's reporting than some others here have been, for instance.
But the NYT has always published the occasional brave piece. They published Edward Said's essay critical of the Oslo process if I remember correctly. And there was also this piece by Deborah Sontag--
link
She flatly contradicted the standard narrative put out by Clinton and Thomas Friedman and virtually everyone in the mainstream at the time, which was that Barak and Clinton had put together this generous offer and Arafat just decided to reject it and start the terrorist intifada campaign (always neglecting the fact that nearly all the deaths in the opening months were Palestinians shot by Israelis.) Sontag wrote a genuinely balanced account rather than propaganda. But it was mostly ignored. It was just too convenient for American Zionists to pretend that the Second Intifada was entirely Arafat's fault. It was as though the Sontag piece (along with other books and articles which told the truth) had never been written.
Though I should add that it was good that they published Ben's piece. But it's wrong to publish it and then ignore it.