Total number of comments: 234 (since 2009-09-28 16:10:06)
-
-
- 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
The hypocrisy between the civil rights and Zionism didn't stop Stone then, but it would stop him now?
I think that is selling ethnocentrism short. It's what really gives meaning to some people's lives, apparently.
That last line really sums it up. The woman's sentiment is about the irony of security forces doing harm to the population instead of "the enemy," but Friedman's astute goy-dar rapidly detects her inner-Nazi, just waiting for this moment of anguish and personal catastrophe to come out. It's tribal and visceral. Oh yeah. It's not about land, human rights, or completely rational grievances.
Yet he has the gift of gab. Anyone unprepared for him will find their inner-idiot nodding along with Friedman's common sense analysis and friendly, "Here's what we say" hucksterism. Guy's a total fucking charlatan of course--I doubt he even understands Arabic well enough to understand what two hysterical women are screaming--but he's just the right mix of simpleton and expert and it makes people think he "gets it."
And it also just goes to show how superior Jews are to Palestinians, David. They were able to be in exodus for thousands and thousands of years, with nary a kvetch, while the Palestinians can't even cope with a measly 6 decades of murder, torture, and dispossession. I don't want to look like a social Darwinist but at some point, you have to wonder if it's just a case of better genes. Wonder what Marty thinks.
He believes it, marc. And we can't make fun other people's beliefs -- unless they're Christian or Muslim fundamentalists. It's part of the Jewish media rules. Everyone knows that.
Peretz is tribalist first and Democrat second; this makes it clear that he will be faithful to his party only insofar as they are as Zionist as he is. As Peretz told Henry Kissinger, his pacifism [humanity] "stopped at the delicatessen door."
It's no wonder the guy has alienated even the Jewish blogging cadre of tomorrow with his special brand of smug, pathetic tribalist vitriol. In fact anti-Zionists probably have no greater ally than Mean Mister Marty--he takes the mask off of "progressive Zionism" and shows what's underneath: discrimination and cruelty.
"rage" is in quotes in Witty's comment because it's his own stupid label for the sentiment that values universal human rights over some idiotic, racist-nationalist fetish that is becoming uglier and costlier by the day, yet still gives Richard Witty warm, fuzzy Jewish feelings inside.
Trouble writing in English? Can't make a coherent point?
MM Educational Services™ has online tutors standing by to help you formulate complete sentences and support your ideas with clear, plainspoken language that is sure to help you win friends and influence people, even on online forums that you despise but can't seem to leave.
Is reading comprehension a challenge?
Sign up with MM today and we'll include our guide to processing unpleasant information -- absolutely free! Learn the essentials of link clicking, vertical scrolling, and, through the magic of IDR (Intentionally Delayed Response), how to avoid falling into the same emotional loop every time someone disputes one of your cherished notions.
These are the same time-tested techniques used by professionals and respected online personalities, and they can be all yours if your order now.
The young guy also mocked the MK, laughing derisively, because he apparently wasn't there in person at the Egyptian protests he voiced support for. And he just sat there laughing like a douchebag as his crusty sidekick stenographer attempted to put the uppity Arab in his place. (Fitting metaphor though: media as the real authority, elected official expected to be dancing monkey). And even putting aside the stench of tribalist prejudice and embarrassingly adolescent partiality; the very point being made--that the MK should be criticizing Egypt rather than Israel for the situation in Gaza--is a Zionut refrain that only goes down with massive gulps of the nationalist kool-aid.
Of course it was the New York Times translator that opted for the provocative language that could then be sensationally lacquered over every western newscast for the the next several months/years.
Then again, Richard Witty is wagering with credibility that he lost a long time ago. He is a Jewish nationalist racist who would like to involve the United States in a military conflict with Iran, even though such a conflict would be a disastrous misstep for the people of the U.S. and mean colossal devastation and suffering for the people of Iran.
But hey if it buys Israel another 3-4 years... small price to pay I guess...
Richard wants to play quote-misquote because he's probably not comfortable arguing the merits of Barak's "kill one child for every bottle rocket fired" doctrine.
Richard is pro-peace but he will jump to the defense of certain war criminals.*
* Depending on their ethnic/tribal/"religious" pedigree.
I'm sure Richard Witty would be rushing to Ehud Barak's defense if he wasn't Jewish and this wasn't Israel.
I love this video.
The orange boy's website still has a following? That's amazing. What year is it, 2005? It was boring then; it's downright sleep-inducing now. "Oh we have to raise money for Joe Schmoe! He's running a courageous campaign as a centrist Democrat in a traditionally Republican district of West Virginia! This is going to make a SUCH a huge difference in that one CRUCIAL steering committee that is holding back the entire Democratic agenda despite our control of Congress and the White House!" Why anyone would go there for news or interesting opinion on anything is beyond me.
Oh yes, sure, the search for the Palestinian Gandhi is VERY relevant. It's a good-hearted, well-meaning, open-minded Zionist inquiry. But if you go and try to compare Israeli racist, colonialist brutality to that of the British Raj, that is just beyond the pale. Richard Witty will have one of his patented INCOHERENT new agey meltdowns.
Stop dwelling, cont.:
Israel wants prisoners exiled in proposed swap with Hamas
JERUSALEM - Israel would approve a proposed prisoner swap deal with Gaza's Hamas rulers if they agree to the deportation of some Palestinian prisoners selected as part of a trade for a lone Israeli soldier, Israeli media reported today.
If you go on Google News and search for "Auschwitz," the number of stories about the missing sign in the American press is 2,294. The number of stories in Poland: 27.
I was reading Chris Floyd's excellent critique of Obama's Nobel speech in which the self-described heir of Martin Luther King's legacy claims that non-violence couldn't have stopped the Nazis.
It all comes back to WWII.
And this is where American imperialism and Zionism intersect--the foundational myths of the "Pax Americana." That absolutist notion of good vs. evil is so important that the media will bend over backwards to drag events from 70 years ago into the current events cycle.
lol Shmuel... if I may just pick a nit--the Palestinians Must Stop, that is true and fundamentally sound.
But Phil is on to something: what they must stop, above everything else, is dwelling... be it on the past or in East Jerusalem... they just need to stop dwelling. Or dwell somewhere else.
If by "...suggests to the world" you mean "suggests to us paranoid, hyper-sensitive Israel-firsters," then your absurd comment makes some sense, I guess. Only Israel-firsters even consider opponents to Iran war-mongering and vilification to be "Iran advocates," and only the most paranoid and sensationalist morons would try to trace this anti-war position back to Naziism because of a term that originated many decades after WWII and in a completely different context.
But that's the Israel-first neurosis for you, whether neocon or "progressive" -- it's eternally 1938 for you guys.
And "ZOG" by the way is not "the trademark" of anyone; it's not a trademark, period. Have you ever considered using precise language in your futile bid to get any respect whatsoever here? You could have said "'ZOG' has connotations of..." or "'ZOG' is also used by..." but you prefer emotional, imprecise language even as you weakly, unpersuasively attempt to criticize Phil for the same.
I was actually trying not to respond to your Zionist affirmation of the faith, but I failed and took the bait and now you are concentrating on that, which is predictable on your part. Well played, wj.
But the substance of my response (to your response) was concerning the odd notion that war is not a profitable activity for certain people/sectors. It certainly is, in the U.S. And in Israel too, I bet.
Were you just throwing around words like "hegemony" without even thinking of their implications in real terms of power, influence, and capital?
the impulse to fight wars is stupid financially
What a simplistic statement, though. Stupid for whom. For the investors and former CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney. Was Iraq stupid for him, financially? Was it stupid for the shareholders of General Dynamics, who experienced a 164 precent increase in returns from March '03 to September '06? Was it bad for the petroleum industry who despite not getting Iraq's oil still benefitted handsomely from the price of a barrel reaching $100 in 2007? What about all the other investors in this mere handful of companies that together probably contribute trillions to the U.S. GDP?
I'm not even going to address "Israel does need to fight wars," because that's not a position any Zionist is going to relinquish, no matter how persuasive the argument that Zionist colonization itself constitutes warfare against the indigenous population of Palestine.
Let me add I would love to know what wondering jew, Phil Weiss, Jeffrey Blankfort, Andrew Sullivan, Jeffrey Goldberg, Steve Walt and John Mearsheimer, and the rest of the Mondoweiss readership think of this quid pro quo as I understand it.
What's missing from the Israel Lobby book is an honest examination of the role that military spending plays in the American economy and Zionism's effective support for continuing that status quo. Would there have been an Iraq war if the NY Times had blown the whistle on the neocons?
If it was hegemony it was a very Zionist conception of it. I think it had more to do with life support for the Pentagon and its growth industries in this unipolar moment where the U.S. has no real competitor in its self-selected arms race. There always needs to be a war happening (or on the horizon) to justify the outrageous "defense" budget and that's where the Zionist media complex comes in, selling the War on Terror as a battle for the survival of Western civilization, ginning up stupid American public opinion for more war and covering the Pentagon's flank when its ridiculous propaganda might backfire. In return for their services, the Zionists get unconditional aid and loan guarantees along with diplomatic cover from the increasingly discredited U.S. Both sets of elite benefit from direct investment in the military spending involved, the American economy avoids total collapse, and the advantages of apartheid on an imperialist island continue to translate into economic opportunity for a subset of Western citizens. The irony is that in terms of hegemony, the United States (as such, without its Zionist satellite) is losing influence every day because of the association, and the gain in military power is negligable since Israel has its military apparatus tied up in internecine scraps with their neighbors, none of whom are geopolitical forces to be reckoned with. The only legitimate hegemonic objective would be Iran, which the U.S. could probably co-opt with aid and kickbacks (like Saudi Arabia) if only it weren't backing the brutal Zionist regime.
robin, I think you already nailed it: "confusing," "expands," "way larger than," etc. At this point in the decline of all its former manufacturing might, and amidst increasingly skeptical international creditors, the U.S. economy desperately needs a war, any war, and it's the Pentagon's and corporate media's charge to define a coherent objective and refined methodology for the unseemly chaos and barbaric slaughter. Enter that lovely chart, or "hairball" as Phil has appropriately titled the mouseover. It is a fucking joke, and the American taxpayer and Afghan peasant are the butt of it. Print it out, wipe your ass with it, and send it in with your taxes next April 15th.
Here it is, everybody, Richard's realistic proposal for resolving the I/P conflict and maintaining anti-assimilation land FOREVAH!
I give you, the green line!
The two-state solution is just around the corner! You just gotta BELIEVE (and ignore the wall and all those magenta blotches).
How dense do you have to be to think that Phil is somehow obliged to parrot the conclusions of anything he cites? Has Richard Witty ever heard of critical analysis? Obviously he isn't capable of applying it, but does he it at least understand the concept?
And the Witty version of the headline makes it clear that Richard is, despite his "progressive" pretenses, firmly ensconced in the neocon worldview. Israel as the first line of defense against the Muslim hordes. What a hysterial Islamophobic war-mongerer he is at heart.
He hasn't figured out yet that the "terrorists" came into existence to oppose Israeli brutality and conquest, as they point out in all their manifestos and videotapes. Get rid of racist, colonial Israel and the terrorists would lose their principal raison d'être.
Witty also doesn't understand that the anti-Israeli resistance of Hamas and Hezbollah aren't linked to arms industry profiteers. They don't make money off of war like the Zionist cause does. Even Dan Fleshler understands this, but Witty is simply too dense to walk and chew this gum at the same time. If Zionism is a GOOD, how could the neocon camp of Richard Perle et al. be MAKING THEIR MONEY from arms deals?
First of all, who even said that "advocacy for the green line as boundary" is "reactionary"? What does that have to do with this post or James Bradley's comment? Who are you debating with, Richard? The anti-Zionists in your head?
And second, since you brought it up, if you actually consider the green line a possible border, at this stage of the ongoing colonization, you're not in left field, you're standing in the stadium parking lot, imagining a game that hasn't been played in sixty years and isn't on the future schedule, either.
Are you advocating for the removal of the annexation wall, Richard? Are you in favor of granting the future Palestine total sovereignty (including air space and water and the right to a military)?
You can construct anti-Zionist "straw dogs" all day but it won't change the fact that the two-state solution has never been further from reality. Even Ehud Olmert realized this--when are you going to remove the wool from your eyes?
Or is the dream of anti-assimilation land just too dear to your heart?
How many of the other countries mentioned are major recipients of U.S. foreign aid and loan guarantees? How much of that vaunted venture capital comes from the U.S.? How many Israeli subsidiaries of major U.S. companies receive subsidies to make them competitive or sustainable at all?
Julian's gonna give us all the pertinent details.
It's a military dictatorship masquerading as a representative democracy. To improvise on the neo-con hymnbook, "Pearl Harbor changed everything."
It's true, the famous Bush catchphrase is yet another Zionist projection. The Israel Lobby hates us for our freedom.
J Street is antagonistic to the BDS movement Ali was speaking in support of. Ergo: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ENEMY.
no questions for me either, watched the whole thing just for that!
The first step to overcoming Zionism is admitting you have a Palestine.
Do you have a problem with American Jews preaching military assaults, land and resource theft, and unequal rights, yonira?
As usual, Richard is to busy basking in his persecution nostalgia that he misses the boat. The only "dot" to "connect" is between Zionism and anti-Jewish sentiment. The indigenous population of Palestine NEVER wanted to be subjugated by outsiders, regardless of the justification.
Check out the trailer:
Fair enough, Shmuel. That being the case I'll suspend doubt that the meeting was actually testy, or nasty, since for an Irishman, probably raised on boiled beef and cabbage, it may well have been delicious, simply delicious.
As for yoni, I guess they can't teach everything in Hebrew school. Perhaps some day someone nicer than I am will teach him the expression, "no holds barred."
Is it a speaking role, yoni? Will he be going "no holds bar" to the tasty meeting?
This thread is a treasure trove of bad Israeli English.
And then there's Witty's post at 11:30 am, maybe the single most incoherent moment in his voluminous oeuvre. Quite an accomplishment.
You mischaracterize my attitude, yoni. I am always "holding bar". It's the only way I can maintain myself in a vertical position, what with the great quantities of liquor reading about your racist state makes me want to drink.
And speaking about ass-kicking, what's the difference between getting your ass kicked and being "persecuted"? Enlighten us! Please!
They've already picked their issue. The issue is Zionism, Richard. We young people think it is a racist, colonial nightmare for the indigenous population, and always has been (at least in its statist conception), and not only that, but it is hardly a fulfillment of the "safe haven" rhetoric you regurgitate on a daily basis here, since Israeli Jews are at MORE risk than Jews anywhere else, and many of them--especially the young ones who've just finished their army duty--just want to LEAVE.
In other words, Zionism is a failure. Thank your lucky angels that you only participate in it vicariously, Richard, because it is going to be a harsh reality when the apartheid walls finally come crashing down. I have sympathy for the Israelis who have been indoctrinated in a separatist, supremacist worldview that is obviously unsustainable without massive infusions of welfare from the U.S. and abroad. They all face a hell of a wake-up call.
The BDS movement is never going to be pro-Zionist, but go ahead and fantasize that your rhetoric will have some influence to that effect. Unfortunately (for you), anyone who's paying attention (and doesn't have an ideological attachment to Jewish ethnocracy) sees the two-state solution is a farce. It is not believable; it isn't even a long-shot fantasy. It didn't happen in the last 60 years and it won't happen in the next 60, either. The political will and resources that would be necessary to create a viable Palestinian state simply don't exist--not in Israel, not in the U.S., not in the Arab world, nowhere.
Where does that leave you, Richard? Riffing oblivious on all your old standards while the mighty ship goes down. It doesn't matter to us if you jump or go down with it. But why not get out of the way of those who want to escape?
Are you implying that yonira would try to mislead us, Shmuel?
The meeting definitely got a bit tasty when Moshe showed up with bagels and Sa'id broke out the hummus. Yum yum.
Tall order, Oscar. This is the short list of multinational companies that subsidize their Israeli operations or donate money directly to Israel, per this website, where more info is available on each:
And here's a graphic representation of some of the major brands involved.
One thing I question syvanen is whether Israel could exist without the military orientation and expansionism that the wars and occupation exemplify. Phil scoffs when Dershowitz uses the term "Auschwitz borders" (and it is absurd) but maybe Dersh knows something, namely that the Jewish settler colony, at most what, 3 generations old, doesn't have a sustainable future without the combination of territorial growth, arms commerce, and special subsidies and remittances that bolster its economic outlook. My question to you is this: even if J Street were so "respectable" in Washington that it were 100% successful on every one of its initiatives for say the next five years, what would be the end result, the difference, in Israel? Would Israel actually be less militarized? Prohibit settlements? Receive less money from afar?
They will, just as soon as Israel changes its ethnocratic law of return, calling for the permanent expulsion of the Palestinians.
This is great reporting, thanks DICKERSON3870.
Free trade agreements, guns, and cash bribes bolstering oppressive, exploitative regimes in the third world.
This is where I go a little bit Chomsky--look how much the U.S. elite and their Zionist allies have in common.
The Obama fetish has been the worst part about this blog.
From the very start, the whole phenomenon was so calculated, so manipulative, and so shallow, but what do you expect from a society infatuated with celebrity, hypnotized by narrative, and generally oblivious to history?
All signs pointed to capitulation. The most courageous moment on Obama's resume was an ineffectual vote against the Iraq invasion.
Witty's busy over on the other thread using his tremendous moral stature to leverage Ali Abuminah into a lite Zionist position. Meaning:
a). accept the fairy tale in which Zionism suddenly stops being colonial and the new ill-formed, discontiguous, overpopulated, and barely sovereign Palestinian state miraculously flourishes on nothing but hopes and handouts,
b). believe that if the Palestinians would just surrender unconditionally to Zionist aggression, Israel will eventually show them mercy, who knows, maybe even accept their right to "natural growth" (!), or at the very least, ZPG.
c). affirm that "justice" is a flawed notion, anyway,
d). support, in the mean time, double standards for Israel as a recipient of American foreign aid and with respect to international law and human rights.
In other words, if you really care about the Palestinians, become a "progressive Zionist."
it is a lot to ask that a people (Jews) remain homeless
Your notion of peoplehood is a nationalistic fantasy and your notion of homelessness is completely absurd. Why should Americans unaffiliated with Jewish supremacism have to pay for your delusional worldview?
The U.S. must give no more aid to Israel. Israel should comply with international law or cease to exist as a pseudo-religious ethnocracy.
Israel's murderous ethnic nationalism is a blemish on all humanity, and its apologists demonstrate the harm of indoctrination at an early age.
the warring element of the BDS approach
Figment of your imagination. Zionism is war. BDS is an attempt to throw a wrench in the war machine that is the modern Israeli state.
to achieve a single state
Richard, we already understand that anti-assimilation land is your most cherished ideal (even though you don't want to move there, for some reason). Frankly it's getting a bit old watching you try to pretend that you're against a single state because you're concerned about the welfare of everyone or you think the Palestinians don't want it.
When do you think you will develop the maturity to admit that it's only because of your own identity issues that you need to unconditionally defend an eternal haven for anti-assimilationism?
where the two communities consistently poll that they regard their separate IDENTITIES as critical,
No, that's you Jewish nationalists who regard your (constructed) identity as critical.
The Palestinians regard their actual livelihood as critical.
It is defined as the right of any descendant of any Palestinian (including those from – not just currently residing – Palestinian areas of now Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt).
Right, you've told us before how you don't think the children of Palestinian refugees should ever be allowed back to live. Very humane position. But you misrepresent it as "social" and not "geographic"--when in fact, it is both. They are the descendents (direct, first generation or second) of the displaced.
Zionism by contrast offers Israeli citizenship to people with no geographic connection whatsoever to the Middle East in the last 10,000 years or so.
Not surprising that you can't see the difference between constructed identity and livelihood, between real right of return and artificial, because your ideology can't square itself, otherwise.
I think it's what you like to call, chewing and walking in gum at the same time.
It's also valid to point out that gung-ho Zionists are a tiny minority with disproportionate wealth and power. I think the point should be made more often.
If there were a nation-wide plebiscite today on America's annual $3 billion donation to Israel, the U.S. would have an extra $3 billion to spend next year.
Luckily for Zionists, Americans don't have any say in American foreign policy. Richard sure seems content the status quo.
javascript:var w=new Array();var d=document.getElementsByTagName("dd");for (var i=0;i<d.length;i++){if (d[i].className.indexOf("witty")!=-1){w[w.length]=d[i]}};for (var i=0;i<w.length;i++){w[i].parentNode.removeChild(w[i])};var t=new Array();var s=document.getElementsByTagName("dt");for (var i=0;i<s.length;i++){if (s[i].className.indexOf("witty")!=-1){t[t.length]=s[i]}};for (var i=0;i<t.length;i++){t[i].parentNode.removeChild(t[i])}
What US interests is Iran working furiously against?
Obama backed down to Netanyahu to secure the supply chain for oil.
Palestinians need to reject pastoral extremists like Amram. His lease has been up since 1967, but he won't leave. He could have gone to a nice refugee camp somewhere and even brought one or two of his trees with him, but he was too selfish to get with the program.
Speaking of fairy tales, I'm surprised Phil hasn't (has he?) passed on Shlomo Sand's new website.
There's a review of the book by Gilad Atzmon (scary anti-Semitic saxophone alert!) that opens with the following quote from Karl W. Deutsch, which Sand apparently uses at the introduction, as well. So good I had to share it:
“A nation is a group of people united by a common mistake regarding its origin and a collective hostility towards its neighbours.”
Suggest Mondoweiss to Google News here.
Crystals of Witty's subconscious in dissolution:
"NOT PARALLEL"
"careless analysis"
"NOT PARALLEL"
"Take it seriously"
"forgiveness and reconciliation"
"Hamas NEVER"
"fears of Jews"
Poor Dick Witts, right as rain
Zionism lite done ate his brain.
Let a few Arabs come back with the Yids,
But good G-d almighty, don't bring the kids!
Israel's grown and had enough of war,
But you never know when it might want some more.
If Jews have to share with other non-Jews,
That's barely any different than Dachau Blues!
And that's what humanism means to Dick,
Talk new-agey, but carry a separatist stick.
Just testing something.
Israel is reportedly undertaking investigations of most of the incidents identified in the report, but it is unclear if Hamas is or will feel compelled to report their findings.
I salute Richard for trying his best, but this line is just crap. Israel is not conducting anything like an independent investigation--they are having meetings about how to manage this PR disaster, as reported by Haaretz:
Netanyahu instructed Justice Minister Ya'akov Ne'eman to coordinate the task force, which will present its recommendations as to Israel's course of action on the Goldstone report and its ramifications.
The team will make recommendations on what should be done in the diplomatic, legal and public relations planes.
The prime minister said during the meeting that the establishment of an investigation committee was "not an option."
"IDF soldiers and officers will not be subjected to investigation," he stressed.
As for Hamas, they're reported to be drafting a legal response to the allegations in the Goldstone Report.
Al-Massri told Xinhua that a team of legal experts and other leaders from Hamas is working "to present clarifications to Goldstone's committee because its members have not had complete information."
Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas leader and a member of the legal committee, told reporters that "the committee "will send its answers to the judge Goldstone as soon as they are ready."
"The committee will put evidences that prove the opposite to Hamas' and the resistance factions' accusations," Zahar said.
He added that the Hamas experts "will base their evidences on other international reports by rights groups, such Human Rights Watch (HRW) which denied that Hamas militants have used civilians as human shields."
They migrate north when Hell freezes over.
Dore Gold's right, they really are all alone. So what if they've still got the rotting, hollowed-out U.S. empire behind them (for now)? They've become a complete pariah state in worldwide public opinion. Most of Israel's friends are either its paymaster or purchased, and they all seem to care more about Israel's appearance than its actual behavior. (Those aren't good friends.)
And as its ethnonationalist ideal views the subjugation of its neighbors as an ideological imperative, Israel's likely to keep going it alone forever, until its dismantled, abandoned, or integrates a new paradigm that includes equal rights, creating the opportunity for greater solidarity.
Richard acts like the Litani River and its water don't even appear on the Israeli leadership's radar. He just assumes it really is self-defense motivating Israel to do what it does. If Alan Dershowitz & co. say it, it must be true.
David, when an Israeli citizen kills a Palestinian, is the Israeli state culpable?
Is the evidence that the rocket attacks are really coordinated and carried out by Hamas very strong, in your opinion? My impression is that it is smaller, private groups of radicalized, student-age Gazans who are firing the rockets. Why should the Gazan authorities, especially with their limited infrastructure, be considered responsible for this?
Frank Lautenberg
Another Italian senator?
Also apropos of nothing:
It occurs to me now that J Street's greatest problem is that, seeking access to power and political expediency, it will end up tied to institutional structures that are antithetical to the resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Phil and Adam are not a political force at this stage, but they're laying down the groundwork for new structures, to replace 19th century European nationalism with 21st century human rights and peaceful, sustainable development.
These tiles have to make a choice: it's covering walls and floors, or extremism. It can't be both. The Al-Hadad company could've accepted Israel as a neighbor but instead it turned to producing violent rejectionist tiles. Now they have to face the consequences of that choice. The IDF has investigated claims that some of the tiles in question were civilians, and concluded that was not the case.
I forgot to add that the IDF did everything it possibly could to minimize damage to the tiles. How would you feel if you had a tile factory in your backyard, threatening your family and children? That tile factory chose to obstruct IDF goals in the region--on reflection, was that a wise choice? If those tiles commit war crimes, shouldn't they be held accountable, too?
There were terrorists hiding in the tile factory, Phil. And those tiles can be used to make unconventional weapons which have already killed and maimed Israelis in Ashkelon and S'derot. If Mexicans were making tiles and within striking distance of San Diego, don't you think the U.S. would do something about it? Why does Human Rights Watch target Jews, but no other country, for criticism when they bulldoze a tile factory? If Palestinians hadn't been making tiles to begin with, the IDF would not have needed to destroy this factory.
I see, Richard. In that case, I am comforted that you do not view American occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan in that way, and I apologize for misunderstanding what you were saying. I agree with your assessment.
Where does it say his parents are from Jerusalem?
It's in the second paragraph of this post, but you'll have to pull your head out of your ass to see it. Good luck, yoni.
"There are reports, unconfirmed, that he was saying Allah Akbar," says Lt. Gen. Bob Cone.
Next: unconfirmed reports that the weapon came from Iran.
yonira, the point was that his parents lived in Jerusalem, ergo he was a descendent of Palestinians. Not any old "Arab." But I understand that Zionists see the entire Arab race as suspect.
That part of your analysis seems sound to me, Richard. But what about the part about American occupying soldiers being "there to assist Arabs"? And this foggy notion that Arabs are ungratefully killing U.S. soldiers even though the U.S. occupation is a humanitarian affair in your eyes? That's where I see the Zionist in you shining through, though you're probably not even aware of it.
And Richard does himself no favors equating the "attack from the right" and "from the left." I wonder if he can see the difference between my critique--that he immediately made this about "Arabs" and actually characterized U.S. wars as "there to assist Arabs"--and Julian's, which was based on the presumption that Major Hasan was an Islamic terrorist, even though we don't even know if he was a practicing Muslim, much less an Islamic extremist--typical Zionist Islamophobia, in other words.
But to Reductionist Richard they're the same thing.
I always read what Phil writes before commenting. Don't you?
Pointing out that you said "Arab" five times in your first paragraph isn't a low blow. It's meant to illustrate that you immediately became fixated on the shooter's ethnicity (even though Phil provided a much more specific context--his parents fleeing Jerusalem), and also that you harbor the impression that U.S. military aggression in the Middle East is "to assist Arabs."
And you still didn't finish your last sentence. I'm actually interested in what you were going to say about "mass murder as a model at all" -- because mass murder is what I consider the IDF to have committed in Gaza, having killed over a thousand people, nearly all of them unarmed.
You mentioned the word "Arab" five times, Richard. And you actually intimated that the U.S. Army is in the Arab world "to assist Arabs." Wow.
And your last sentence is missing its predicate... you had me hanging on there... "to have mass murder as a model at all..." is what? Wrong? Wrong unless you're a state called Israel? Let us know!
Any chance the "average American" is going to start wondering why American tragedies (9/11, Ft. Hood) are "good news for Israel"?
It may seem like another Sirhan Sirhan type of thing--I see syvanen's point--but the internet could easily blow the lid off this.
Not to mention that the gunman is apparently still alive. When's he gonna do an interview?
MRW, I think there's some kind of length limit on the href parameter of the link tag, maybe imposed by the Mondoweiss CMS, so a long javascript link doesn't work.
But I posted the code below; if you copy it into your address bar as is, it will have the desired effect.
Shmuel, thanks for the clarification there on the fish threats. :-)
I agree with you that the marriage issue is more perception than reality, but as most of us would be disgusted by a ban on interracial marriage in any context, I think it may be a particularly offensive perception, when it does arise.
Oooh, a Jeffrey Goldberg interview with Dan Senor! Now there's two objective sources on Israel! One's American and fought for the IDF, the other's an AIPACer and worked for Bush! Both thought invading Iraq was a brilliant idea! These are two guys Americans can really trust!
Besides the Goldbergian staple of pretending that Zionism has been a victimless crime (Goldberg: "They've written a book that doesn't examine Israel through the prism of its conflict with the Arabs"! Woohoo!), the two also get right into the Jewish superiority thing that Phil just wrote about, despite falling all over themselves to pretend they harbor nothing of the sort:
JG: One thing about the book that's interesting to me is that it seems that you're trying very hard not to say, 'Well, of course if you put a bunch of Jews in a room, that weird Jewish brain will create something."
DS: We were very self-conscious about that.
JG: Because it's wrong? Because it's stereotypical? Because you don't believe it?
DS: We believe that there are lessons that developing and developed economies can learn from Israel, and that there are prescriptions for the U.S. that can be taken from Israel, and if it is simply about the fact that Jews are smart, well-educated and good at business, it completely undermines the notion that there is anything transferable. We really believe that. We're not naïve; there are certain dynamics that are unique to Israel that cannot be, and should never be, tried elsewhere.
JG: Judaism: Don't try this at home.
DS: Exactly, but we think that's only part of it.
Interesting points, Shmuel.
I think it also has to do with anti-miscegenationist attitudes and tribal networking.
I have relatives, for instance, who in their youth dated Jewish girls only to be told, directly or indirectly, that they best stop. Or else. (Or else what, I don't know--they'd find a dead salmon on their pillow?) Anyway, that doesn't exactly inspire much fondness.
And though personal connections are always going to be valued by humans, and rightfully so, the sentiments that Phil has written about here, about media figures feeling more "comfortable" working with other Jews, definitely has a discriminatory air to it that doesn't exactly exalt people's image of, or respect for, Jews as a tribalist grouping. (It also belies a certain hypocrisy in the "meritocratic" ideal.)
The point I was making, Richard, is that you can talk about reading history books all day long, but in the end, your conclusions pre-empt any new information anyone presents to you. You've already concluded that "Zionism is a good"--a rather absolute claim, for someone who thinks "justice is relative"--and everything either fits inside that value judgment or deserves your dismissive scorn.
That's why it rings so hollow when you present yourself as a new-agey, open-minded liberal whose primary goal is the resolution of this conflict. It's like your conscious and your sub-conscious are incommunicado.
Richard, do you want me to find the comments you made asserting that W&M had not factored in Saudi Arabian interests or the petroleum industry in their calculations about who pushed the Iraq war? (In fact, they dedicated dozens of pages to these.)
Why is it that you are content with your "impressions"--however factually challenged--and yet you take such offense at the impressions of others?
My impression is still that you have not read the W&M book. Another impression I have is that you begin formulating your comments after reading only the title of Phil's posts.
I'd like to hear you explain how my comments or any comments here will "affect others materially."
Is Zionism a racket?
Very good, Rich. Now read the rest of the post.
Speaking of which, I gotta go do the dishes... But let me just respond to Witty real quick...
lol poor Rich...
I know he can hardly write comprehensible English, but he isn't a very strong reader either. Did you notice he's been touting the fact that he's reading History of Israel all week long now? What's he, in former President Bush's book club? He still hasn't gotten around to The Israel Lobby book by Walt & Mearsheimer, but he's reviewed it about 30 times on this site and Realistic Dove. He had to install a macro for the word "polemical", he used it so much.
I would feel sorry for the guy if he'd quit all the guilt-tripping and just "get out of the road if he can't lend a hand" -- because yes, the times (but no, not the Slimes) they are a changin'.
See you tomorrow, Captain Chaos.
I have no problem with your retorts, Chaos, in fact I think they're always on point, but I just thought even a Witty warrior like yourself could maybe use some peace and quiet now and then. Merely for you to use at your discretion. Don't take it the wrong way. I actually wrote it for Donald who was joking in another thread that I can't find anymore that he needs to go "cold turkey."
Sometimes addictions need to be treated. But anyway I can't get the link to work.
Let me try like this:
javascript:var w=new Array();var d=document.getElementsByTagName("dd");for (var i=0;i<d.length;i++){if (d[i].className.indexOf("witty")!=-1){w[w.length]=d[i]}};for (var i=0;i<w.length;i++){w[i].parentNode.removeChild(w[i])};var t=new Array();var s=document.getElementsByTagName("dt");for (var i=0;i<s.length;i++){if (s[i].className.indexOf("witty")!=-1){t[t.length]=s[i]}};for (var i=0;i<t.length;i++){t[i].parentNode.removeChild(t[i])}
Paste that in your address bar and see what happens.
Chaos, this is for you, Donald, and all the Wittyholics among us.
<a href="javascript:var w=new Array();var d=document.getElementsByTagName("dd");for (var i=0;i<d.length;i++){if (d[i].className.indexOf("witty")!=-1){w[w.length]=d[i]}};for (var i=0;i<w.length;i++){w[i].parentNode.removeChild(w[i])};var t=new Array();var s=document.getElementsByTagName("dt");for (var i=0;i<s.length;i++){if (s[i].className.indexOf("witty")!=-1){t[t.length]=s[i]}};for (var i=0;iErase Richard Witty Threads.
Simply bookmark this link and click it every time you open up a Mondoweiss thread. And enjoy that cold turkey.
(Click it now if you want to test it in this thread. )
Weiss wonders, Witty whines.
Since 2007.
Another terrific, probing, honest post. Phil is the best writer in America on this issue, barnone.
I have a close friend from South Africa and his parents' garden looks the same if not better today, under black rule, as it did under white. So maybe it's a bit irrational to think that the quality of life or certain cultural characteristics will inevitably change if Palestinians get to have a say in a democracy. Frankly I think it's yet another case of Jewish/Zionist projection--having imposed so heavily on the Palestinians, they imagine the Palestinians doing the same to them. Nothing of the sort has happened in South Africa, as far as I can tell. The whites aren't required to wear African fabrics and speak Bantu and live like the African population. And they don't.
Owning up to the superiority complex is such an important part of addressing Western imperialism -- beit in the form of Zionism or American military aggression in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq. It's not just a Jewish thing, though that is a valid specific context Phil's qualified to talk about, but an American and Western thing. We think we are the greatest civilization since humans fell out of the trees, despite the fact we are constantly at war, our economic system generates massive poverty and endless debt, and we are driving the planet toward ecocide. Some serious self-reflection is in order.
But our Zionist friends would rather that we look down on the Arabs (and bomb them).
And why do you say he was "being lectured"? Klein says Mitchell was "rais[ing] the issue," and you interpreted that as lecturing? Isn't that, to use your own patronizing language, "odd," Richard?
I liked your poem, marc b. And bonus points for working in shoot and cry.
Justice is relative;
Injustice is absolute.
The Nakba is regrettable;
The Holocaust is unforgettable.
If it's my relatives,
Or if it's not my relatives,
That is the principal of Relative Justice.
Israel: Jewel of Nations
Bureaucracy,
Inconsistency,
Corruption,
Residue,
But never Racism.
Unique circumstances,
Unique necessities,
Unique accomplishments,
But no unique flaws.
Zionism: forever a jewel.
I propose that for one entire day everybody honor the great sage by responding strictly in verse. My next one will be a sonnet in iambic pentameter about discrediting Humans Rights Watch.
4 Haikus for the sage:
Continental drift
Nothing humans can affect
Pure geology
Dense Zionist plate
Subducts Palestinians
Forms huge volcano
Sublime volcano
Great for human sacrifice
But sulfurous smell
Planet keeps changing
Mother Nature ignores your
Ancestry fetish
Scolding Ode to Human Rights Watch
To pine for rights is not the thing to do
One dares to judge a people for their deeds?
When such reflects a stain upon the Jews
Who bomb and gas and maim for what they need
Mere goats and trees and goys there earned their due
With simple structures pastures fields and seed
Why can't the chosen people move there too
And build a wall secure within their breed?
If some should try to force them to a fight
Or stay where Jews would like to put a home
Defense is called for, clearly apt and just.
The question never has been what is right
But what secures the right to kill and roam:
Prevent the witness gaining any trust.
Thanks, Elizabeth. You know, part of the problem with anti-Zionism in an age of so much Zionist propaganda is that it requires some degree of cynicism, hardly a very attractive quality, but without it one can end up being played like a fool.
I understand you're still deliberating on how to go forward. I think that's great. I only meant to give you some food for thought.
One last observation on what you've written:
You decry nationalism as racist but the notion of a "Jewish people" is a construct of Jewish nationalism, or Zionism. And of course this is where the waters get kind of muddy about what "Jewish" means--Judaism, the religion, or Ashkenazi, the ethnicity, or some blend of the two, with the Sephardim thrown in for seasoning. It's a very fluid definition that seems to change according to who's asking and why. But it is very difficult for me to even accept the notion of a Jewish people, or any essentialist notion of any people, especially when such a concept is used primarily for discriminatory purposes.
Very interesting, Eva. There's also another aspect to this:
Whereas the pastoral culture of tending olive orchards and herding goats, without a young nationalism's demand for hyper-growth, allowed Palestine's arid climate to provide for a sustainable human inhabitation for several millennia, the Western technological hubris involved in "making the desert bloom" and installing a modern industrial/agricultural economy through feats of irrigation has actually caused rampant desertification in Israel.
What this means in the context of I/P debate is that even while first-rate universities exist in Israel to develop technological solutions to ecological problems for instance, the expressed need of Zionism to fill the land with Jews as quickly as possible has led Israel to the point of ecological disaster.
Hi Elizabeth,
All nation-states aren't racist to the degree that Israel is. I don't think any are even close. But I see that you're talking about a utopian notion of world citizenship or something like that. And I'm with you on that, great but not realistic in our lifetimes.
The thing about the "two-state solution is more practical" argument is that it assumes there can be peace without justice, particularly economic justice. That's a big assumption, don't you think? Even if the Palestinians have a state, if it's noncontiguous and inviable, and Palestinians continue impoverished and crammed into the most densely populated areas on Earth, do you think that will resolve the conflict?
My my, lunch with Richard Witty at the Veracruzana!? You've got to try their tacos al hasbara!
Elizabeth, Israel doesn't have fixed borders, nor a proper constitution, and its military regularly circumvents the decisions of its Supreme Court. It sits in violation of more UN resolutions than any other country on the planet. So we're not talking about "the collapse of the nation-state paradigm," we're talking about the normalization of Israel within the accepted rules of how a country could act. And the one-state solution also wouldn't entail any such collapse of the paradigm. It sounds like you've internalized some Zionist talking points on that score. "The world's only Jewish state" is also the world's only colonial, nuclear-powered rogue state. Religion really isn't the question.
Neither, he's just putting out the match. Pass some over this way, Moosey old pal!
Great writing, Psycho!
knock 'em out da box, kev!
There is no possibility of a mass youth movement around this issue
And how would you know, being a 60-something-year-old ostritch with your head in the Zionist sand?
As just one example, during the Gaza massacres there was a viral campaign on Facebook to boycott American multi-nationals that do business with the Israeli government or give preferential treatment to their Israeli subsidiaries--which goes way beyond the current BDS movement.
Like Peter Tosh said, "You can't fool the youths."
I really want to see Donald go all Moses on Witty.
Is that wrong?
Chaos, read what dana wrote over in Realistic Dove's latest thread. So spot-on that Richard didn't even try to respond.
And Chaos, you weren't even here yet when Witty started relating his "dream" (remembered in incredibly vivid detail) about Phil in a top-hat walking with his mistress into the theater and ignoring Richard and his Holocaust victim grandparents-in-law who were sitting on the steps calling out to him! Talk about a black-balling whiner! That was one for the books.
I was moved to satirize Witty not by his boilerplate affirmations of Zionist goodness but by how viciously he used guilt, shame, and scorn to try to get Phil's goat. He may be a great guy when the topic isn't Israel; but when it is, he's a cretinous clod. (Zionism is a good!)
We all should be against Holocaust denial AND revisionism?
By revisionism, Anonymous means "the critical re-examination of presumed historical facts and existing historiography"?
Deborah Lipstadt and Anonymous are concerned about how historians interpret the Holocaust, but are they pro-dogma for other events and areas, too?
"Never again" as a life-orientation means no rational inquiry into the Holocaust? (Kind of like "Jesus saves" means being against scientific stem-cell research?)
If the "Jesus saves" people shouldn't be in charge of science, should the "Never Again" crowd be in charge of history?
(Or foreign policy?)
I think OhioJoes was trying to say he's more of a two-state guy.
I see LeaNder's point that labels are lame, but Phil did say he was anti-Zionist and that post-Zionist just wasn't strong enough to convey how he feels about Zionism as it exists now. Read the post, "I'm gonna wave my freak flag high" (is that a Hendrix reference?) from back in January of this year. Google it, I'm too lazy.
I admit I was paying more attention to Anna's body language.
Who were those other two guys, and why were did they keep interrupting the show?
how do we best control the Palestinians?
Bullseye. That's the contradiction of the progressive Zionists: they're against the oppression, but not quite totally for freedom and equality. If only there were some middle ground.
The peace process!
Don't you get it, Donald? Everyone here needs to change, except Richard.
He walks and chews humanizing gum at the same time; it's a tension, but a GOOD. He doesn't criticize, he PROPOSES that we are all wrong.
Thanks, Citizen. I'm gonna go out on a limb and apply the ADL anti-Semitism test to myself. I'm probably outing myself as a rabid anti-Semite here, but here goes:
Jews stick together more than other Americans.
Isn't that the definition of tribalism?
Jews always like to be at the head of things.
Like all humans?
Jews are more loyal to Israel than America.
Many aren't nationalistic at all about America, yet are about Israel.
Jews have too much power in the U.S. today.
Zionists have way too much power in the U.S. media and government.
Jews have too much control and influence on Wall Street.
Tribal networking is probably among the least of Wall Street's problems.
Jews have too much power in the business world.
Men have too much power in the business world. I imagine some of them are Jewish.
Jews have a lot of irritating faults.
As do I.
Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want.
Not in places where the law is applied equally to all.
Jewish businesspeople are so shrewd that others don’t have a fair chance at competition.
Sometimes tribal networking probably tilts the field; Jews are not the only ones who do that, though.
Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind.
Is that statement good for the Jews?
Jews are not just as honest as other businesspeople.
Businesspeople are honest?
Anyone else want to give it a try?
Several really anti-Semitic notes at 0:34 here. Truly hateful saxophone.
Good luck memorizing them, they're pretty avant garde. I think John Zorn would probably be more your cup of tea, though, if we're judging jazz by its sensitivity to Jewish identity, which is a perfectly sound criteria for judging just about anything, I'd say.
The formulation "people who have never considered anything on a non-racial basis" is just bullshit, and a prejudiced generalization, itself. Mooser's reading hearts and minds by glancing at the cover-art, once again.
And "the Zionists' best friend," to me, would be those still granting validity to the notion of "anti-Semitism" to begin with. Michael Neumann, whose anti-Zionist cred probably surpasses yours and mine times a thousand, wrote the ultimate, painstakingly detailed refutation of the concept many years ago. Why don't you give it a read, Mooser, and we can discuss this like adults, you know, by going into hysterics and divining what's in people's hearts from four or five comments.
And lastly, it might have been before Alces alces was reintroduced here, but Phil has come out as anti-Zionist, albeit while still paying the obligatory lip service to the impossible, not-gonna-happen two-state "solution." Probably a smart pragmatic play for someone who still wants to dialog with the lite Zionist dead-enders of his "original community," even if I think it's a little bit of a waffle.
He's described it as a wonderful "tension," Colin.
And note how he projects his nationalist sense of identity on to the Palestinians: "BOTH peoples identify as peoples." Because he really knows how Palestinians think, having read several books by Jewish Zionists, and many articles in the New York Times.
The Arabs also lived in a "real fantasy world" that the Crusaders would disappear. And by 1291 AD, they mostly had.
Of course many of the "Europeans" are choosing to leave Israel without anyone forcing them, because it is such a militarized and conflicted society, and life anywhere else--the U.S., Latin America, Goa--seems like paradise compared to it.
And it is not inaccurate to portray the Zionists as the "invaders." The word "invade" means to enter for conquest, to encroach upon, infringe, or spread over as if invading. Regardless of the better intentions of some early Zionists, the historical reality of Zionism is an invasion and attempted ethnic cleansing of Palestine. And that view is "applauded" whether stated by Ilan Pappé or Benny Morris.
Without all the lawyers, guns, and money Israel commands from the U.S., the integration of the immigrant European population into the local fabric would probably occur quickly and peacefully.
But by "defending itself militarily," by which Richard means aggressively and brutally dominating the indigenous population, it engenders hatred, violent resistance, and rejection, all of which cycles into more "defending itself militarily." It's a script that the Crusaders of the 11th and 12th centuries already wrote. And the ending is known.
But please, don't anybody spoil it for Richard!
Thanks for the insight, matt.
Did J Street actually say they are trying to create an emerging grassroots movement, or was that your interpretation/expectation?
From the name, I thought they saw themselves as a political lobby, which in the U.S. means an organization that sends money to politicians so they'll act or vote a certain way.
I can't imagine an example of a D.C. lobbying organization actually being "grassroots." Maybe "astro-turf."
...thank Allah for Hezbollah
...or Sharon. One of the two.
That's exactly why I think the anti-anti-Semitism crusade here is completely counter-productive. Not because I'm pro-prejudice and itching to get the pogroms started--but because the paradigm of ever-suspect motives needs to be changed.
Ethnocentric Jews treat anti-Semitism like it's one of Newton's laws. In fact, it was a specific historical phenomenon and barely applicable at all to the situation at hand--unless you're a Zionist with a "Jews need a haven" paranoid worldview.
I imagine that for some participants and speakers, "loving Israel" may be a pragmatic stance, to gain credibility among the faithful. People like Richard who are just too emotionally invested in Israel to hear criticism without first having their sensitivities assuaged.
But aren't words so cheap? Wouldn't real love for Israelis (the people, more than the idea of a Jewish state in the abstract) mean prioritizing peace over colonization and ethnocracy?
While it is encouraging that someone like Congressman Filner can put the subject of Zionist power ("the lobby") on the table, since the U.S. Congress is currently so compromised by unconditional support for Israel, an organization is only as strong as its leadership, and J Street's seems more concerned with showing its "pro-Israel" bona fides. It reminds me of MoveOn.org, which was able to capitalize on a groundswell of opposition to the Iraq war, but squandered it by refusing to take on the bigger issue of militarism, beyond partisan theatrics. Where is MoveOn.org now? Not in the news. No longer relevant.
Even if J Street fails as an organization, however, I can appreciate Phil's perspective that just uniting these people for a conference is a positive achievement. Even if J Street fails to become more representative of its base, the networks and energy formed during events like this can create momentum for other endeavors.
...Like BDS.
I honestly don't see many anti-Semitic "haters" here, Donald. I see garden variety Arabophobia from the Zionuts that occasionally come by, I see chauvinism and exceptionalism from all sides at times, but I really don't see anything resembling "hatred" towards Jews. Perhaps I'm just not as sensitive to that as some people are; maybe I am skeptical after hearing so much "Wolf!" cried; or maybe I just don't equate distrust, opposition, and/or ignorance with hatred.
I agree with you that pathological dishonesty (especially accompanied by that all-too-assured condescension) is a really disruptive force and the discussion here suffers for it.
Lastly I think that personal threats or incitements to violence are the one type of comment that should be removed immediately and result in banning.
Part of that is the legacy of racism, no doubt, but that's an enormous over-simplification. You would also have to consider so many other factors: dysfunctional governance, corruption, and capitalism to name the principals. In many ways race is a prism that distorts underlying class reality--for example, part of the racism considered endemic to the American south was originally served as a distraction for poor whites from their own lack of opportunity. Likewise a lot of urban racism was the result of the real competition for limited resources among immigrant of different ethnic groups.
I see a couple of big holes in your theory, Mooser. The biggest of which is that we all talk about collectives especially when the topic is institutional power. How can you not? People form groups. "The Republicans" is also a generalization; Republicans have NAMES, etc. If you can talk about "the Zionists" as a collective, or "Zionism" as an ideology, why wouldn't you be able to talk about "the Jews"? There may be valid characteristics one could attribute to them. There are "Jewish" organizations. There is "Jewish culture," "Jewish civilization." These concepts are used to collectively identify elements of society, aren't they?
I suspect that you actually have a double standard, which is that YOU (being Jewish) can generalize about the collective, but others cannot. Would you be ok with someone imposing the same restriction on you talking about "the anti-Semites"? They are individuals and have names, after all. Don't you see the absurdity of trying to dictate how people talk about people? Why not try to measure the accuracy of what people are saying first, and then make conclusions about intent second? The anti-Semitism brigade seems to do it in reverse.
Another flaw I see in your reasoning is that Zionists are more than adept in creating "anti-Semitism" where there is none. It is an article of faith among many Jews and Zionists that anti-Semitism is "the world's oldest pathology," after all. The near-total absence of actual violent anti-Semitism (say, such as exists today in the U.S.) doesn't keep Zionists from capitalizing off fear and loathing. So why lend credence to that M.O. by assuming malevolent intent on the part of people who generalize (as all humans do) when talking about human phenomena? Why not just point to counter-examples, if you have them, and leave it at that?
It just seems to me that this has much more to do with controlling discourse than actually preventing people from harm. Maybe I'm completely off.
Sin Nombre, I agree that ad hominem attacks are distasteful. Just as prejudice is distasteful.
I'm as guilty as anyone of ridiculing certain contributors here. The intent was not to damage the person, however--my intent was to make light of the absurdity of their positions.
That fact of the matter is that certain postures, arguments, methods etc. DO themselves call into question the good faith of the person making them. When that happens, it is almost impossible to engage the content without characterizing who's behind it.
I agree that the snipefests here are a distraction though and most of them don't make for good reading. That's why I mostly skip over them. Sometimes the deceit or dishonesty are just too great for me to resist jumping in, however.
BTW I agree whole-heartedly with your characterization of Chris Moore's posts here. I never saw anything of his I would consider even remotely impolite. I saw plenty of argument based on certain prohibited historical interpretations, but like you, I think it would've been much more valuable and interesting to engage it and discover its value (or lack thereof), rather than ban it outright.
The good cop/bad cop routine again:
"If you don't agree with my [reality-challenged] vision of Zionism, you get Likud."
Followed by crocodile tears: What a tragedy. (But not as much of a tragedy as a one-state solution, right Rich?)
I imagine that the more benevolent possibilities of apartheid were also sabotaged by the uppirty intransigence of black South Africans wanting full rights.
I imagine that they are “secretly” waiting/hoping for J Street to fail.
In some romance languages, there is only one word for the verbs hope, wait, and expect. Luckily for us, English provides for greater nuance.
But that's not of interest to Richard Witty, who is still attempting to pressure Mondoweiss authors into unequivocal support for a supposedly tamer Israel Lobby. So he attempts to tar them as "hoping for J Street to fail." This, despite Phil's cheerleading since its inception, which has no doubt resulted in contributions being made to the young lobby.
It's just astounding to me that certain people think "anti-Semitism" (meaning: unflattering opinions about Jews, suspicions of tribal networks connecting disparate events, or certain historical interpretations about Bolshevism) is as important to combat as Zionism itself.
I don't see any equivalence whatsoever between prejudice and actual systematic brutality. Everyone here probably carries certain prejudices and/or ignorances, and most likely none of these translate into any kind of actual malevolence.
Purging Chris Moore instead of allowing his writing to be engaged here was a sham. And it may be conspiratorial thinking on my part, but I can't help noticing that Moore was disappeared just before Phil & Adam got themselves published in The Nation. I hope it was just a coincidence, the timing of that.
At the time he was banned, it seemed like an attempt to sanitize this blog, to adhere to a certain predominant, liberal worldview, to minimize the risk of losing any potential commercial opportunities. (In that regard, it recalls Witty's gloating that Phil could not get published because his views were too radical, or Phil's getting dumped by the NY Observer.)
I wonder about the real value of establishing "respectability" by limiting discourse to acceptable theories and descriptions, because I don't believe the anti-Zionist perspective is really marginalized because of fear of anti-Semitism. I think it is marginalized because it threatens an actual power structure. Therefore, while not offending the more sensitive readers may win a few converts to Israel-criticism, it does so at the expense of being able to freely examine the actual power structure in question.
Even Jeff Blankfort, published here as a contributor, recently commented that (I'm paraphrasing) the British lent their support to Zionism in the Balfour Declaration because powerful Jews had gotten the U.S. to enter WWI. That's a pretty strong allegation and, had it come from Chris Moore or somebody similar, it would've no doubt been labelled anti-Semitic by our cadre of defenders of acceptable discourse. And that would be a shame--because whether or not that interpretation has merit, it should probably be examined according to relevant facts, not the sensations it produces it certain people.