Total number of comments: 286 (since 2011-08-05 19:15:54)
-
-
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 1
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 0
- And we live on… 0
- US official — we went to Israel first 3
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 23
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look … 38
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 475
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 427
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 389
- March of the Flags 345
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 323
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 129
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 110
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
- Annie Robbins: Having recognized its weakness, the US knows that it will be the UN that takes the lead in Syria and...
- Did Israeli Eurovision contestant watch too much Juliano Mer Khamis? (54)
- Annie Robbins: GL, urban dictionary has PEP, just no explanation of progressive except for palestine....
- German Lefty: Annie, it looks like you got infected with the Eurovision virus. Great. The more fans, the better. The...
- US official — we went to Israel first (3)
- traintosiberia: OMG! Why I don”t have that Stockholm Syndrome yet! How long do I have to feign that I have it.
- Annie Robbins: a U.S. official…asked to remain anonymous owing to the sensitive nature of the issue. sensitive?...
- Carllarc: proof of ‘Israel firsters’, for sure
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (23)
- piotr: How many Jews who made aliya were actual refugees from Roman persecution? Thus the “Jew who taunted...
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism (113)
- yourstruly: what was that sound? the special relationship breaking down and the loud and sustained chorus that...
- MHughes976: I’m still a bit uncertain about what R.Brian means by ‘Zionism’: what proposition did...
- yourstruly: given, that the israel’s brutal occupation of palestine is why much of the arab/islamic world hates...
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Kate
- Annie Robbins
- Adam Horowitz
- Today in Palestine
- Matthew Taylor
- Alex Kane
- Max Blumenthal
Blogroll
What ever are you talking about Marc? I agree, better photos could have been used. But, really, "the damage has been done?" Symbolism? What damage? What symbolism?
This is a post about how Auden's Pulitzer may have been sacrificed by the Committee on political grounds. Phil happens to be on Auden's side. If Phil wanted to inject symbolism into the narrative, he would have made Auden look more youthful and energetic, you know, to win over all of us buffoon readers who need pictures to make judgments...
Putting a youthful picture of Shapiro is nothing more than pure happenstance. If it were more, doesn't it go against the intended grain of the actual post?
Oh, good grief...
What does the use of the word "whore" have to do with feminism?
Whore, noun: a woman who engages in sexual acts for money; a man who engages in sexual acts for money; a venal or unscrupulous person.
In the case of Rep. Chris Murphy's enslavement to the demands of the contemptible and subversive AIPAC, the term is not only apt, but politically correct. What the hell more do you want?
No one who claims to have compassion, who exhorts on the need for humanity, can rightly support a 10 years sentence for Ravi. What he did was cruel, but invoking hate-crime and tossing him in prison for 10 years is equally cruel.
Yes, Annie, and it is called 'invasion of privacy.' Ravi was charged and convicted of such, in addition to a hate crime. That is 10 years in prison for humiliating someone. How can you support that?
Hear! Hear!
Look to Rwanda... to Serbia... to Palestine... to Iraq... to Iran. Nothing in contemporary history is really as it has been presented.
If they can so thoroughly and so effectively revise events that are still so fresh, so real, and get away with it, of course they could have done the same to events long past...
The reader commentary around here is excellent. And the subject matter of the posts themselves have crucial information, whether they are from Alex Kane, of Phil, or Adam, or any of the other guest writers.
While, I agree that there is at times a cringe-worthy Zionist apologist feel to some of Phil's work, especially... I don't see that as a reason to stop visiting the site and contributing in opposition to those apologetics.
Disgusting.
...regarding one of the greatest threats Israel has ever faced...
Oh, for God's sake...and humanity's...someone with an influential platform call out this bold-faced, and dangerous, lie.
On the one hand, this is the Daily Show formula for all their interviews. I've seen many serious, and annoyed, people sit through the Daily Show interviews. So, this wasn't something especially crafted for the Palestinian ambassador. Also, there is something to be said for an absurd interview of this style demonstrating the absurdity of Israel's demands. Perhaps the ambassador found it refreshing. Probably not though.
I also believe, on the other hand, that unless the ambassador was 100% aware and supportive of the interview before hand, then this was distasteful fun that cheapens the struggle this man and his fellow Palestinians have endured.
Pabelmont,
In Arabic there are several accents/sounds that cannot be expressed in a single Latin letter. Therefore when writing Arabic phonetically in English, numbers are substituted to represent these sounds.
They are:
2 = أ (hamza) - glottal stop
3 = ع ('ain) - a "choked" letter sounding like an "a" you can't represent with the English alphabet
7 = ح (haa) - sounds like an aspirated "h" like the "y" when whispering "yes".
5 - خ - German and Scottish "ch" - sometimes transliterated as "x" or "kh."
6 - ط - hard "t" sound - otherwise transliterated simply as "t."
8 - ق (a guttural k sound - most commonly transliterated as "q." [cf. Iraq and Qatar]).
You have got to be kidding me! I would say "I told you so" when the bombs start falling, but that would be callous given the thousands of innocent lives at stake.
The naive adoration of Mr. Obama is sickening. He's duping an anti-war community into blindly following him to war...
...who upped the ante in Afghanistan, dragged his feat on Iraq, joined the NATO bombardment of Libya, stands silent on Syria, continues to send attack drones to Pakistan and Yemen, authorizes the assassination of American citizens abroad, authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens at home by the US military, and only now, when he deems it politically expedient, does he offer up the most tepid rebuttal to those who intend to inundate the globe in a massive regional war in the Middle East for the sake of sustaining a false narrative of Israeli victimhood.
But, yea, I'm sure he was fist-pumping at your anti-war scribble, Phil.
You're really delusional lately, Phil. Even if the speech itself marks a subtle change in language, even if that language might make AIPAC/Likudniks a little uncomfortable, you still point out the obvious, "But it's an election year, and so, politically, why did he do it? Ithink Obama sees a winner." How admirable! The gushing terms you use to refer to this President are hardly warranted for a man
This is a classic Onion piece:
link to theonion.com
Hear! Hear!
Really, Phil? The fact that McConnell made the obligatory call-out against Obama's Iran policy "shatters" the notion that both parties share the same foreign policy goals? So, McConnel couldn't simply be blowing smoke to score political points with AIPAC for the GOP? You're providing cover for the Democratic party in their culpability for the US's "wag-the-tail" foreign policy. It's cheap, and transparent.
Ah, the naive smell of optimism.
Excellent entry on the Iran "narrative."
link to ofpeasantsandothermatters.wordpress.com
link to ofpeasantsandothermatters.wordpress.com
The Palestinian response is reflexively emotional, that is why support for the Two-State Solution is so popular in occupied Palestine. After so many decades of oppression and subjugation, of utter lack of sovereignty, the notion of having their own state, their own society, and not seeing Israeli soldiers and armed settlers running rough-shod through their homeland must be an utterly blissful feeling, so blissful in fact, that they are willing to overlook the minuscule, incongruous and fractured sliver of actual Palestine that they'd ultimately be left with. Trying desperately not to sound condescendingly like a western academic who "knows better" than the Palestinians, I truly believe that the Palestinian collective is operating more on emotion than reason right now. A Palestinian state would not be sovereign and independent, nor even viable given the geographical divide between Gaza and the West Bank. It would be a demilitarized and fractured Bantustan society, geographically separated by Israel-proper as well as Israeli "settlement tentacles" into the West Bank. A Palestinian state is a fallacy, it would be nothing more than currently exists under the allegedly sovereign Palestinian Authority.
This is why, in my opinion, the discussion must not be about land ownership, or borders, or statehood, or the status of Jerusalem, but rather, it should be a loudly passionate demand for equality, for freedom, for human rights. These will resonate with the world. This is why the BDS movement is so vital. This is why so-called delegitimization of Israel is so necessary.
Yay.Yay
Newclench,
You're a parody.
Whatever its intended meaning, the word is Anti-Semitism, and Semites are not "entirely, exclusively" Jewish. Quite the contrary actually.
If we're going to invent words exclusively for anti-Jewish sentiments (as if "racism" or "bigotry" are simply too mainstream, too human, to encompass the "chosen" Jewish community), then why not Judeaophobia? That's much more accurate, as it refers to Judaism "entirely, exclusively."
Furthermore, reserving Anti-Semitism "entirely, exclusively" for Jewish victim-hood is doubly insulting and outrageous in that few contemporary Jews are actually ethnically Semitic. The diaspora, my friend, has been considerably watered down to, let's say, at best, the square root of the Chosen people. Whereas, wholly Semitic people still live, in large numbers, throughout the Middle East, and they ain't Jewish, I can assure you of that.
The politicization of the term "Anti-Semitism" is yet another example of how twisted the Zionist psyche can be... Up is down, white is black, evil is good, Anti-Semitism doesn't apply to... Semites?
Eh, Thomas....
Christian dispensationalist theology is the root of Christian Zionism, and it is alive and well throughout politically influential Protestant denominations.
See the work of Richard Allan Greene:
link to news.bbc.co.uk
I concur.
As I stated earlier:
Silencing Jeff Blankfort is no more principled or constructive than running interference for AIPAC. The outcome is the same: you help sustain the legitimacy of Zionism, in this case by removing an importantly vocal critic of Zionism.
Yes, eee and co. shall be pleased.
The term "Anti-Semitism," as it has been monopolized, appears to be exclusively reserved for racist commentary towards the Jewish people, of which I've seen nearly none on this forum. Mondoweiss knows better, in that Semitic people include Arabs; the racist vitriol emanating out of Israel is actually text-book "Anti-Semitism" toward Palestinians and other Arabs, both Christian and Muslim.
But, we're not interested in censoring that speech, of which there is plenty on this forum. Instead, we're going to chase the illusion that there is somehow widespread Judeaophobic hate-speech circulating the commentary here and ban a few high-profile commenters to keep the appearance of that meme going.
It's strategic. It's propaganda. It's the result of effective AIPAC/Likud/Zionist conversation control.
Phil and Adam have succumb to these pressures, and have incidentally undone much of what they claim to be working toward.
“Also Jeff sought to have a discussion of the Jewish historical role in the rise of the Nazis in Germany here. As we have made clear, this is not a subject we want any part of. It generally leads to anti-semitism and Holocaust denial, which we won’t tolerate on the site, and unquestionably hurts our ability to reach out.”
Is this really the discussion Jeff Blankfort was trying to have? Was he really linking a Jewish role with the rise of the Third Reich? Or, was he linking Zionism with the rise of the Third Reich?
Phil, is there truth to what Jeff was trying to discuss, or do you believe his position to be patently false?
If it’s the latter, I’d disagree with you, but at least your intention is to censor what you deem to be dishonest propaganda. If it’s the former, however, you’ve knowingly censored honest, well-intentioned and important discourse simply because it affects your ability “to reach out.” That’s wrong. That’s shameless. That’s a victory for Zionism. Zionsim only exists still because honest, well-intentioned and important discourse has been silenced out of irrational deference to the sensitivities of certain demographics. Worrying about who might be upset is no honest basis for censoring the truth, especially when this censorship directly contributes to the prolonging of an inherently racist political imbalance. Silencing Jeff Blankfort is no more principled or constructive than running interference for AIPAC. The outcome is the same: you help sustain the legitimacy of Zionism, in this case by removing an importantly vocal critic of Zionism.
Stevez22,
Your entire position lies upon a foregone conclusion that Iran having nuclear capabilities is a problem. It's not.
Iran is a member of the NPT. It has allowed inspections of its facilities. Iran leadership has never threatened to use nuclear weapons, were they to reach that capability. Ahmadinejad has never threatened to "wipe Israel off of the map." His actual statements have called for the end of the Zionist regime, a perfectly reasonable and applaudable position to take considering the inhumanity of the Zionist regime. Why can the US demand regime change all over the world, but Ahmadinejad cannot call for regime change in Israel? Regimes refer to governments, not societies. Iranian leadership has never sought the elimination of the Israeli people, just a transformation of governance in Palestine, with equality for all.
"Iran, Syria, the Palestinian Resistance and Lebanon are ready to meet any conditions, and we hope that the enemies of the nations of the region will change their course and instead walk beside regional states in cooperation. Insofar as the Zionist regime threatens Lebanon and Syria and prominent personalities of these two countries every day, it must accept its end and grant in their entirety the rights of the Palestinian nation." -Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Under what mandate can the belligerent, nuclear-armed Israel demand that Iran not acquire nuclear energy?
Under what law of reason would anyone listen to Israel, a nation that has 400 nuclear warheads and supports the "Sampson Option," in its hypocritical derision of Iranian nuclear aspirations?
Israels' belligerent rhetoric actually is the a good justification for why Iran SHOULD obtain a nuclear weapon. One can certainly understand why Iran would want a MAD-deterrent when Israeli officials say the things they say.
The hypocrisy is astounding. The US has some 8000 nuclear facilities and countless nuclear stockpiles. Israel has 400 nuclear warheads and exercises a Sampson Option. US and Israel seek regime change wherever it is deemed suitable. And yet, American and Israeli people take issue with Iran calling for regime change in Israel and seeking nuclear power? I feel as if I am in a twilight zone sometimes...
Taxi,
Very sorry to see you leave...
I understand your frustration at the way things have been going around MW. You're not alone in those sentiments. I feel compelled to stick around, though, contribute where I can, and at the very least continue to learn from the excellent commentary among the readers here.
I wish you the best. Forza Palestina!
Linking to the Council for the National Interest! Always a sound idea.
Thanks for the contribution, Jimmy.
If you believe Palestinian propaganda Martians arrived one day and forced innocent, peace loving Arabs out of their homes.
Giladg,
Hyperbole aside, you're on the right track. What you call "Martians," we know to be Jewish European immigrants. What you refer to as "one day" actually was a period of several decades of aggressive immigration that brought the Jewish population of Palestine (everything west of the Jordan River) from 43,000 in 1890 to 175,000 by 1931 to 630,000 by 1947 (See Sergio DellaPergola "Demography in Israel/Palestine: Trends, Prospects and Policy Implications"). Compare this to the local Arab population of Palestine at that time: 57,000 Christians and 432,000 Muslims in 1890; 89,000 Christians and 760,000 Muslims in 1931; and 143,000 Christians and 1.2 million Muslims in 1947. In other words, in 1890, before aggressive immigration by European Jews, Palestine was home to a minority of 43,000 Jews compared to 57,000 Christian Arabs and 432,000 Muslim Arabs.
Remind me how this is Jewish land, without invoking Biblical dispensationalism or inside information as to God's will?
Moving on, when you point out that these immigrants "forced innocent, peace loving Arabs out of their homes," you forget to mention the number, 700,000 forced to flee, plus you fail to mention the barbaric acts of terrorism at the hands of Jewish nationalists like the Stern Gang, Irgun and Haganah, plus you left out the British in pointing out who was the target of Jewish terrorism.
But, all things considered, you're well on your way to understanding history. You just have to clean up your terminology a little bit. ;)
Shorter Mark Regev: "He's been labeled a terrorist, therefore the rule of law is unnecessary."
Sadly, the recently passed DAA has imported this philosophy to the United States.
Creep! ;)
I know I’m probably alone in thinking this, but I’ve done a little homework convincing me that the Israelites and Hebrews didn’t live in Palestine. If they did, it was only partially. Methinks they lived a little northward in Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey....Everything is always talked of being built with cedar from Lebanon. It would be a little bit hard hauling cedar logs over those mountains and down to Palestine.
Very interesting. I want to look into this more. And, I assure you , Charon, you are in good company with such skeptical cynicism.
This sounds a little radical, but I think all the Palestinians should convert to Judaism en masse. Not permanently, just to lie and take advantage of the Jewish law of return.
Now, wouldn't that be something to behold. I wonder how quickly Israeli law would be rewritten if this were attempted?
From the entry:
"For decades Israeli propaganda has by design dehumanized those they oppress. History has been rewritten. Villages have been renamed. Centuries old olive groves burned to make room for further illegal occupation by settlers, who then plant new groves and claim they’ve always done so. Mega-media campaigns are unceasingly launched claiming there are no historic Palestinians; there were no ancient peoples on the land renamed Israel. And this effrontery to the personhood of Palestinians is shamefully echoed in American presidential campaigns. “They are an invented people.” An astonishingly callous, dehumanizing cruel assertion. It further victimizes already shattered victims of atrocities in a highly visible public forum. It is no different from standing in a sex crimes unit to declare rape victims are really imported mannequins, therefore, pay them no mind. It is propaganda of the most hideous sort. The sort that is meant not to incite, but to produce apathy. And so it has. And so remains the still present crisis of the Palestinian state; the state of non being."
Seafoid,
You may find this interesting: "The Right of Being: Palestine and Birthright"
https://ofpeasantsandothermatters.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/the-right-of-being-palestine-birthrights/#comment-17
Chaos,
Israeli culture already made that transformation a long time ago. Anyone denying that is either too emotionally weak to enter those choppy waters, or is engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
Citizen,
Not that I'm doubting you, but where did you get this figure: 80% of homeland security funds allocated for domestic security of American communities goes to Jewish communities? That's a fascinating statistic, if true, and I'd be very interested in seeing the documentation for that claim.
JSW-
Jewish "dual loyalty" is no canard. A significant number of American Jews do hold dual citizenship with America and Israel. This is a quantifiable fact. Dual loyalty is simply the logical progression of dual citizenship and it has nothing to do any "canard." Many Italian Americans have dual citizenship. Is it a problem to suggest that the people, and even Italian-Americans who only hold American citizenship, hold loyalties to Italy? No. So, why are you continuing to discuss the Jewish community with heightened sensitivity? You do this nation a disservice in attempting to downplay the very obvious fact that a great many Jews in America do consider Israel's interests as equal or superior to American interests.
That's not only a green tie symbolizing Islam, but actually a Hamas tie. The Hamas symbol is the Dome of the Rock, with crossed swords in the foreground, encircled by two prominently green banners with the flag of Palestine. At the top, where the banners meet is an image of the official borders of Israel, plus West Bank and Gaza with the inscription "Palestine."
This is actually pretty sickening.
In the picture: Mr. Obama is pointing at the Western 'Wailing' Wall in Jerusalem, a site of prominent significance in Judaism, and calling for its dismantlement.
The suggestion: Obama is an enemy of Judaism.
In reality: Israel's apartheid wall that stretches the length of the West Bank, of no religious relevance whatsoever, is the actual wall of contention in Palestine. And, Mr. Obama has no intention of opposing its continued existence or expansion onto sovereign Palestinian lands.
In the picture: A crow, perched on the President's podium, over the bloody corpse of a white dove.
The suggestion: Obama's policies have killed the possibility of peace, and are precipitating a looming war.
In reality: Israel's warmongering aggression toward Iran is threatening the stability of the entire region. It is the bellicose rhetoric of Israel's government and its 'politics of fear' governance that is threatening any possibility of peace. If war comes, it will be by Israel's hands alone.
Phil, et al.
Interestingly, another front page story in the NY Times on a training video shown in the NYPD that disparages Muslims actually does mention the Adelson/Israel linkage.
link to nytimes.com
"The 72-minute film was financed by the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit group whose board includes a former Central Intelligence Agency official and a deputy defense secretary for President Ronald Reagan. Its previous documentary attacking Muslims’ “war on the West” attracted support from the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a major supporter of Israel who has helped reshape the Republican presidential primary by pouring millions of dollars into a so-called super PAC that backs Newt Gingrich."
The Two-State Solution has become a euphemism for sustaining the status quo: Gaza blockaded, West Bank occupied, while negotiations fluctuate between immutable stagnation and precarious frustration. All Israel needs to do is continue to dangle the idea of a second state in front of international observers, while behind the scenes, she continues her absorption of the West Bank. Perhaps, there will be a second state one day, but it won't include West Bank. It will be Gaza or nothing.
"I’m no Progressive (or even liberal), but..."
At long last, I found another non-Progressive, non-liberal anti-Zionist. They say we don't exist. Anti-Zionism is a liberal concept, so no American conservative could rightfully claim a banner in opposition to Zionism. Nevermind that American conservatism is a brand of classical liberalism, not much different than American liberalism in the grand scheme of things.
Exactly.
It takes a Jew to recognize antisemitism? Let me ask, could it perhaps simply take a human to recognize racism?
This site serving Likud? How so? By reinforcing the resolve of hasbarists? For every Likudnik whose hatred of the goyim is reinforced by this site, two fence-sitters have had their eyes pried open by reading through the articles and comments here. Internet shares of Mondoweiss articles on my Facebook have led to handfuls of converts.
This site becomes as meaningless and ineffectual as the rest if Donald's censorship is implemented.
Discussions will lose their passion, as people will be frustrated with the moderation of their sincere view-points. It's difficult to write/speak of something you are passionate about in cold, statistical factuality. If I must censor the emotion out of my position and simply spout out statistical facts, dates, etc. I lose my desire to engage here in this subject.
I doubt I am alone. Comments will decline (both in influential quality and in quantity). Support will wane. Donations will plummet.
Donald's "vision" is not an asset to Mondoweiss or the movement, but rather an end to something awe inspiring.
So I say Boycott Israel, delegitimize Israel, cut off every penny to Israel, and save your tender concern for those who need it most– 9 million Palestinians, 300 million Arabs, 1.6 billion Muslims, who are facing genocide.
Hear, bloody, hear!
In all seriousness, Donald, while your intent is benign, this idea is ludicrous and dangerous. You wish to water-down the discourse on Israel so as not to turn away fence-sitters. But, in seeking to do so, you play directly into the AIPAC hand of inducing fear in honest, not prejudicial individuals whose legitimate criticisms of Israel become tepid out of a terror that intellectually dishonest or deficient minds might twist their words into something sinister, or extrapolate meanings that are not intended.
Not here. Things must be said, and they must be proclaimed loudly and in the harshest of terms, if necessary. People have been tip-toeing this issue for decades. This is a forum for the truth. If you or others can't handle this truth, this movement has no need for your feeble minds. We need strong, opinionated, well-versed individuals in this movement. Not people whose primary concern is not to offend anyone.
Any "offensive" dialogue we might offer up pales in comparison to the daily affront to Palestinian dignity and humanity that Israel sustains. I'll continue to combat these genuine transgressions and injustices, and I'll leave the hypersensitive imagined ones to you, Donald.
Duly noted. Now, what were we discussing?
Black people in Pittsburgh NEED a boost. Jesse Lieberfeld and his friends can and do have dozens — hundreds of opportunities to speak their piece. That they chose to use the one opportunity that young Black people might have to shine, to stand out in their community, to witness pride in “brainy BLACK young people,” strikes me as insensitive in the extreme.
Well, it strikes me as oversensitive in the extreme that you would expect Jesse Lieberfeld, a 17 year old, to know about the 40 year-old animosity from the black community toward Melon (Civic) Arena, or that you would expect Lieberfeld to reconsider his "timing" for giving a speech about civil rights in Palestine on MLK day. Again, I hadn't realized that MLK's vision was restricted solely to African-American civil rights.
Teta,
Eh, I must have missed the memo stating that only blacks are allowed to honor civil rights and equality on Martin Luther King Day. Carrying on the dream of the civil rights movement as it is needed around the globe is hardly an insult to its roots here in America.
This young man reminded me of Lennon who told Nixon to declare peace instead of war.
Breath. Let's try to contain ourselves, Mndwss.
Israel against the entire Muslim world -never mind the much smaller Arab world- is still a Goliath, Witty, and you know this.
I'm not sure that Winnica is.
Sure, this event is positive. The publishing of Lieberfeld's essay is positive. Giving him a podium is positive.
But, does this reflect some sort of fundamental transformation in the psyche of the American Jewish youth? Doubtful. Overwhelmingly, they still put on tribal blinders when the Israel issue is put before them.
Wonderful piece by Jesse Lieberfeld. Thanks for sharing, Phil.
Adam,
Thanks for your response. I understand what you're feeling when it troubles you that Paul says "I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year." As someone who is staunchly in the Palestinian camp, I am all for the world -and the United States- dictating Israel's borders. Someone needs to place limitations on Israeli expansion...
However, the most important thing is not that Paul would "be fine with Israel running wild," but rather that he would not get involved either way. In other words, Paul's disassociation from entanglements and interventions consequently means that he would no longer support Israel's running wild. This means Israel's buffer against the international community becomes solely herself. This opens Israel up. This is a good thing.
I don't think we should read too much into these statements by Paul. First of all, with all of the attempts at delegitimizing his campaign that have been made by fellow candidates, pundits, and media coverage, Paul almost has to "toe the line" on Israel to keep his campaign afloat. So, he's stressing that his views make him a true friend of Israel. It's actually a pretty savvy semantics games. He says that Israel is free to do as she chooses, which on its face sounds great to the Israel first crowd. But, as Dahoit noted, the inverse of that statement, which Paul deftly does not mention, is that Israel is also free to fall by her own actions without US diplomatic, financial and military support propping her up. Paul says Israel is free to attack Iran. But he has also clearly and loudly and frequently proclaimed his opposition to the saber-rattling towards Iran. Paul would be no ally to an Israeli attack on Iran, quite the opposite in fact. Paul would not not provide diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations. Paul would not continue to provide unrestricted financial aid to Israel in excess of $3 billion a year. Paul would not provide the offer of mutual security interests that ensure that an attack on Israel is an attack on the US.
In other words, a Paul administration would free the world to take the stance they want to take towards Israel without having to face off against the United States to do so. This is the most important point here. So, while Paul might not overtly work on behalf of Palestinian liberty (as that would be a foreign entanglement) his removal of backing from Israel would allow the EU to exert incredible pressure on Israel, for the UN to exert incredible pressure on Israel, for Russia and Latin America to exert incredible pressure on Israel, without any interference from the US. The world has been ready to put Israel in her place for some time. The only thing standing in the way has been the United States. Paul removes that obstacle.
Mr. Lieberman, I propose that all Israelis be stripped of their American citizenship. Any other arrangement is simply collective suicide. This has to be clear and I think it is time to say these things out loud.
For someone railing about the "simplicity" of non-interventionalism, Jerome Slater's understanding of the motivating factors for intervention of Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. is astoundingly simplistic. That he accepts the fairy-tale that is "humanitarian intervention," is illustrative of just how simple, just how niave and infantile his mind truly is. Someone give this man a bottle.
Thank you Waleed.
"...the cost to Americans was all that mattered – their troops, their money – them. A selfish media for a selfish people....'But, we must put this into context,' the Liberals say. 'How else will Americans care for Iraq if we do not put this into perspective.'
This rationale is one I deplore. I find it disgusting.
A very important point. It's the same with I-P. Everything must be viewed through the prism of Israeli interests. Peace must be attained, because peace is good for Israel. Borders must be defined, because borders legitimize Israel. A two-state solution must be reached, because a two-state solution protects Israel's Jewish identity. Never, ever are the needs and interests of Palestinians a priority. Never is Palestinian equality, freedom of movement, and self-determination even a cursory consideration...
Hear! Hear!
Nicely put, Professor Bromwich. Thank you for the contribution.
American,
Indeed. Stolen land cannot be the basis for "Israeli" inclusion in Palestine. Forceable, international intervention is required to uproot the leeches.
And, yes, Mother, the creeping tentacles of Zionism must be severed from global politics, no where more so than in the United States. An important task that goes hand in hand with Palestinian liberty.
John,
I agree that Jews are a part of Palestine, and individually they should have equal rights as anyone living there. They will be a vibrant part of Palestine. But, first we must stop giving credence to an Israeli-centric conversation.
The new repackaging efforts by some progressive Zionists suggest that Christian Zionists are not true friends of Israel, and that for the sake of Israel, true supporters of Israel should facilitate better decision making by Israelis before it is too late. The commenter above, SusanTheHuman, says as much when she writes: "The real anti-Israel types are the people who callously use Israelis like subjects in an amusing video game, laughingly egging them on when they do things that are not in their own interests. These “supporters” clearly don’t care about the lives of real people in Israel; if they did, they’d be desperately trying root out the settlements and creating a real, definable border as soon as possible, before it’s too late."
So, it's true that Christian Zionists are fawning miscreants who really do not care at all about the sustainability of Israel, long term. They either support Israel for political advancement or out of adherence to their apocalyptic dispensationalist theology. On the other hand, arguing that true supporters of Israel are those that do not let Israelis make self-damaging decisions, such as settlement expansion, and that true supporters are those who intervene to encourage definable borders before it is too late is deeply, deeply offensive to a great many of us activists who don't want to be lumped into this camp. I'm not a supporter of Israel. My opposition to Israel is not based on any fear that I have to restrain Israelis before they go too far and damage themselves or their brand. I don't care about their brand. The decisions Israelis make are solely the responsibility of Israelis. What are they, children, in need of some paternal guidance? No. Why are people like Susan not criticizing Israel's leadership and accusing them of callously playing with the lives of Israelis?
Truth be told, any solutions that should be on the table should not be to protect the viability of the Israeli state into the future, but rather to protect and ensure the equal rights and freedoms of Palestinians, to give them a voice in their own homeland and reverse the course of recent history which has stripped the rightful inhabitants of Palestine of sovereignty on their own land. I'm livid about this incessant Israeli-centric rhetoric coming from all angles. Even those who criticize Israel are supposed to be doing so for the sake of Israel? Give me a break, Israelis had 63 years to collectively carve out some reasonably humane and tolerant future, and Israel's supporters had 63 years to reign in the Likud fanatics who jeopardize Israel's existence on a daily basis. Even now, though, after so much failure, the discussion is still framed in terms of Israel, and Israel's interests. No. The only discussion worth having is about Palestine and Palestinians. Maybe their next 63 years can be more fruitful than Israel's last 63 years.
Hophmi,
The fact that others break the so-called law much more brazenly than the so-called criminal is relevant...
Wait. The Catholic Church and Islamic states are engaging in colonialism, racism, ethnic cleansing and anti-Semitism right now? Israel epitomizes current-day colonialism, racism and ethnic cleansing, and 99% of the worlds so-called "Anti-Semitism" (a distorted euphemism for animosity towards Zionism) comes directly from the actions of Zionists and the state of Israel.
The "Jewish right to self-determination" is not dependent upon the conquest of Palestine and the subjugation of its rightful inhabitants. The Chosen People. The Master Race. Oh, wait...
I’m not sure Ron needs your help? Think!
I don't follow.
Richard Witty,
"Too many to name" and yet you amazingly selected Ron Paul's pro-life stance as one of his positions that are "out of the mainstream, fanatic, reactionary even." Progressives can be so sickeningly inhumane at times. It's a shame that I agree with them on so much, such as Israel, universal health care, social justice, etc...
Insane article in the NY Times today about Ron Paul's "incendiary words."
link to nytimes.com
Interestingly, the article ledes with "Emerging as a real Republican contender in Iowa, Representative Ron Paul of Texas is receiving new focus for decades-old unbylined columns in his political newsletters that included racist, anti-gay and anti-Israel passages that he has since disavowed," but then never mentions anything even peripherally associated with Israel. Unless of course, you take Paul's accusations that Michelle Bachman "hates Muslims," and Rick Santorum talks almost exclusively about "gays...and Muslims." I guess if you take shots at avowed bigots Bachman and Santorum, one might as well be taking shots at Israel.
Democrats should be deserting their party in droves and registering Republican to vote for Paul in the primaries.
I feel vindicated for my tirade against Klein yesterday. It's been awhile since I've read him over at Swampland, so I felt just a tad bad about laying into him so hard. Not any more.
Rabin was just as morally twisted as the rest of Israel's leadership. Signing a peace accord hardly makes him a man of peace.
And that is exactly what the average american thinks...
That would first require the average American to be informed enough on these matters. No, sadly, I think the most your average American "knows" is that Israel represents a strategic asset for the United States, in which case, defending Israeli national security means defending American national security. Meaning, send our boys to war! They'd have to be able to demarcate American and Israeli interests for your theory to prove correct. I think few are able to do so.
I have had my qualms with -and often times downright contempt for- Joe Klein over at Swampland for years. I've argued with him repeatedly, and he's been more than generous in obliging me in some very lively discussions. His tone is often pompous and bombastic, and his dangerous fidelity to centrism is an intellectually bankrupt dismissal of liberal/conservative philosophy, always harping on about middle-ground compromise. He's the epitome of the Washington insider, who rubs elbows with all the elites, and too frequently blabbers on about the answers lying in the middle, as if compromise between two poles will always bring about sensible, fair policies. No, at times wholly liberal ideas are needed, at other times a conservative approach is needed.
However, he's been, at times, reasonable on Israel/Palestine, often willing to throw caution to the wind in his thorough denunciations of Likudnik-style Israeli policies. He has also, though, fell-back on his grade-school conceptualization of fairness in demanding tit-for-tat reciprocity. He's a big proponent of Palestinian "gestures" in return for Israeli adherence to law. With this, I vehemently disagree. Joe Klein is the type of intellectual who will bloviate about the illegality of housing expansion in East Jerusalem, or the illegality of settlements in the West Bank in one blog post, and then mere days later, pontificate about the need for Palestinian "gestures" when Netanyahu agrees to 90-day moratoriums on illegal expansions. This is intellectual fraud, and pandering at its worst. If Joe Klein recognizes settlements and East Jerusalem expansions for what they are, illegal contraventions of international law and obstacles to peace, then he should not feel that Palestinians owe anything when Israeli administrations put temporary halts on such practices. Joe Klein, for all his charming admonitions of Israeli intransigence, is still too much of a coward to ever fully take the side of Palestinians from issue to issue. All must be fair, all must be equal. My message to you, Joe Klein, is this: there is no parity in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; hit me back when you grow a pair and mature enough to join us in that depressingly grey area we call reality.
Hophmi,
Israel is a state not a religion! It's not a boycott of "Jews" to boycott Israeli good, companies or universities!
That you would want to stop the Technion from participating shows the reality of how you view BDS.
Is it any worse than pro-Israel groups lobbying Lowe's to pull advertising from an Arab-American reality show?
In my opinion, boycotting anything Israeli -be it Israeli universities, Israeli companies, etc.- is a wholly legitimate expression of one's opposition to the policies of the state of Israel, whereas pressuring Lowe's to pull advertising from a Muslim reality show is nothing more than open bigotry and religious based prejudice. I wonder if that distinction is lost on you.
Israelis have a culture of life, Palestinians a culture of death. Well, I guess that settles it. Thank you Mr. Lichtman for clarifying and simplifying such a complex conflict. Here I was thinking Israelis celebrate a culture of Jewish life, and Palestinians are surrounded by an imposition of death, but you've really cleared things up here.
I think the both of you are viewing the concept of tribalism at its most extreme. Yes, there can be some very unpalatable aspects of tribalism, even at an individual level, as you both noted, in terms of refusing service, or not hiring someone based on race/religion.
However, when I say tribalism, I'm not speaking in terms of the overt manifestation of tribalism as it directly and adversely affects those around you, but rather the very normal, very personal affectations communities may harbor within themselves for their tribe. I'm speaking to the concept of pride. There is a certain and healthy bit of tribalism in all cultures, be they religious or ethnic. Italians extol Italian culture. Catholics extol Catholic culture. There is a certain comfort that is felt when within one's own ethnic, religious and cultural community. It's perfectly normal and it is what sustains culture over decades and allows these communities to preserve their heritage over generations, over decades, over centuries. I see no reason why we should hold Jewish tradition or culture to any more stringent standards. But, obviously, I accept and agree with you that there are some unsavory aspects of tribalism that do metastasize in malevolent ways and they should be repudiated both from the outside and from within a given culture.
I have a great affinity for Arab culture, as several of my family members have married Arabs, and I myself am involved with an Arab girl. I'm around Arabs on almost a daily basis. Some embrace me and my presence, some openly do not. In either situation, however, I am never fully comfortable in the environment as it is not the culture I was raised in. There are many similarities between my Italian upbringing and Arab culture, as there are between all Mediterranean societies. However, I will always find myself most comfortable when around fellow Italians. That's tribalism. That's normal. That's healthy.
There's nothing wrong with Jewish tribalism on an individual level. But, state sanctioned tribalism that seeks to elevate a singular identity above all other forms of identity is clearly a problem. So much more so when juxtaposed against the hypocrisy of pluralistic, democratic neoliberal rhetoric.
Woody,
Rereading my last post, it comes off a bit aggressive. I apologize, not my intention. I just feel that the average American's perception of the Church is unfairly fueled by a pro-Enlightenment, WASP education system. Not all that much unlike I-P. The topic is inundated in propaganda and seeped in prejudice that most are not the slightest bit aware of. It bothers me.
Woody,
I'm not quite following your snark. It sounds though that you're implying the only reason so many Catholic clerics were scientists is because already scientific-minded individuals felt they could further their credibility by joining the intrusively all power Church. However, absent any evidence of such motivations, your assertion sounds like nothing more than a baseless attempt merge the reality (that the Church was behind most scientific progress of the so-called Dark Ages) with your own prejudices (that the Church is inherently hostile to science). Without any substantiation of your wild theory, I'll take it as nothing more than back-pedaling and posturing in the face of an "interesting" revelation that the majority of scientists during that age were Catholic priests or monks.
FYI...
link to en.wikipedia.org
The so-called "Dark Ages" were the most advanced in history up to that point. People really need to get over the false conception that because religion was inextricably tied to everyday life that Europe was somehow backwards. Great leaps in physics, mathematics, sciences (astronomy, seismology, biology, etc), art, architecture, conceptualizations of international law, free-markets, evidentiary trials, the university system, rational debate, etc. sprang forth from the so-called "Dark Ages," and they sprung forth with the backing of the Catholic Church. One can fixate over the fate of Galileo and extrapolate a larger theme, but that doesn't make it so. There's a very interesting book on the subject by Thomas Woods, "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization."