-
-
- 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 … 0
-
- 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
- Adam Horowitz
- Allison Deger
- Annie Robbins
- Kate
- Today in Palestine
- Alex Kane
- Eleanor Kilroy
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
Anyone notice--yet again--the contrast between the readers' picks comments and the NYT pick comment?
This is a representative example of a readers' pick comments:
This is the sole NYT pick comment:
How long before they get rid of the readers' picks tab?
link to salon.com
Zbig: Israelis “bought influence” and outmaneuvered Obama
The president "should have stuck to his guns" in pursuing Mideast peace, says former NSC advisor
Witty:
You are like a petulant child. You remind me of my son, who is almost 3 years old, only you're neither as sharp, nor as humorous.
I know what you ignore because I read what you write. What you ignore is actually what speaks loudest about your writing. You are so very transparent, both in your thoughts and your motives.
And by the way, your righteously touting of your "reasoning and presentation," especially considering that you are almost universally mocked and scorned here due to your lack of intellectual honesty, is one of the funniest things I've read at MW. Thanks for that.
Chaos:
I also understand the urge to leave mixed in with the desire to stay. It's all very frustrating.
And, sadly, that might be the worst part...
Tree wrote:
Tree: I should have let you make the argument. You summed it up very nicely. Thank you.
Witty said: "My point in doing so, is to get to a status of problem solving, that the problem is a joint problem, that we should put our heads together to solve, leaving both communities standing."
Witty ignores that when Israel was "created," its soldiers--through various means--depopulated and destroyed more than 400 Palestinian villages and displaced and/or dispossessed over 700,000 indigenous Palestinian civilians.
Witty ignores that Israel continues to displace and/or dispossess Palestinians today, in East Jerusalem and elsewhere. Witty also ignores the 711,000 illegal Israeli settlers in the West Bank, along with their illegal structures (including what can only be described as a land confiscation wall) stolen land--including farm land--illegal businesses, illegal use of natural resources (that is, the resources that Israel proper isn't already stealing) and of course their racist violence against Palestinians, especially children, and the Jews-only roads.
Witty ignores that Israel has the 4th most powerful army in the world with as many as 500 thermonuclear weapons, including rumored nuclear submarines for second-strike capability, while Palestinians do not have one tank, one fighter jet, one modern missile, one military base, etc. Witty ignores that it is Israel that demands "security guarantees" from the unarmed Palestinians, while at the same time massacring Palestinian (police personnel who were in training) along with all the women and children it murders. Witty ignores that Israel has never fulfilled one single signed commitment with the PLO, neither in letter nor in spirit.
But please, so long as we can disregard ALL OF THAT, Witty says let's "put our heads together to solve" how we can "leave both communities standing."
dahoit:
I didn't say I want him banned. I said he could fairly be banned. It would not be an injustice to ban him. A blog with a rational posting policy that actually follows it would have banned Witty before he got to his 500th post.
eljay:
You are a master of missing the point. Since you've made this about you, again, let's touch on that. I'm not sure how many of your posts I've read since September 2011 but it hasn't been that many. Either way, there were many, many comments here that I wanted to add to or argue against, since that time. The fact that you have taken my decision to post on this thread to "mean something" greater than it does is bewildering and possibly, in my opinion, disingenuous.
What inspired me to post after you did was your comment that you were "puzzled" by the fact that the vast majority here were upset by this article. This is typical of your style. You are more about feigning ignorance, misunderstanding or indifference than you are about seeking out and hearing other points of view.
Let's look at this in a superficial way, which is your obvious preference. From the comments that I've read on this thread, you are the ONLY commenter who claimed to not comprehend why this post has caused a stir. You are the only one who didn't "get" why it could possibly be controversial. Do you wonder why I can't possibly take your approach seriously?
Finally, with regard to your ridiculous comment about "therapy," no, you are completely wrong. There has been nothing at all cathartic about this exchange with you. It is always difficult to discuss issues--especially volatile ones--with highly superficial people, especially those prone to mental shortcuts rather than critical thinking.
Jeffrey Blankfort:
Are you the Blankfort discussed on sourcewatch.com (below) and who wrote the essay "The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions" in 2003?
[From SourceWatch.com: Jeff Blankfort is a radio program producer with KZYX in Mendocino. He is a journalist and Jewish-American and has been a pro-Palestinian human rights activist since 1970.]
If so, I was wondering, do you have any plans to publish a memoir or other type of book that discusses in detail what your experience was like growing up in a "non-Zionist family" in the United States?
I would very much appreciate it if you considered arranging for Mondoweiss to recommend and link to your future online work on these topics, and/or link to your preferred merchant for purchase of any future books.
It would be great to see these issues discussed from this point of view (outside of Mondoweiss) more often.
In hindsight, the above discussion of one aspect of Donald's writing is the primary reason that his piece rubbed me the wrong way. There was just something off about some of his points and as usual, I looked to the comments for help.
Avi:
I didn't get a chance to comment when I read this post of yours last night but I wanted to come back and read it again. Of all the posts on this page, many of which are truly excellent, I find that yours, above, is perfect, as is so often the case with your contributions here.
I think one of the main (stylistic) reasons I am drawn to your writing is that you succeed so often where I fail, and that is to say that you are civil and never cruel, even when your comments are searingly pointed. I enjoy Danaa's posts for similar reasons.
Wow, this whole comment was just one big suck up, wasn't it? Sincerely, Avi, thank you for all your insightful comments, especially on this topic.
kalithea:
Forgive my presumptuousness in saying this, but from one person with a "chip" on his shoulder to another, I want to sincerely thank you for adding this:
"When it comes to defending a member of the tribe over an outsider, truth is sacrificed for cowardliness."
This is how I felt back then, and how I feel today, and I've written as much, but it's nice to see someone else understands. It's what makes me sad about not participating so much in the MW comments. I really feel like no matter how righteous, the only "anti-Zionist" views that are truly safely held and protected here are held by MWers who happen to be Jewish. Everyone else is suspect.
eljay:
We are getting nowhere--yet again--and I think that is because you are stubbornly refusing to understand my point.
For the final time: My point is that there is a difference between “attacks” that are backed by facts and “attacks” that are simply attempts to shut down debate. You defended the latter. Everyone else here (that is, everyone other than you, Guilty Feat, eee and hophmi) defended my right to engage in the former.
It's as simple as that and there is nothing that you can do to change what you wrote then. Anyone can go and read your posts from September. Maybe you feel differently now but I wouldn't know since you don't share too much here.
Some people, like me, put themselves out there and share experiences, including painful ones, and others, like you, sit back and take little sarcastic and snide shots when they can. Is it satisfying? Do you feel fulfilled? No need to respond.
Additionally, I see that you added this gem:
"So, according to you, the “principles of honesty and justice” dictate that one person cannot call you an anti-Semite but that many other people can attack that one person with – to quote you quoting me – “labels that are at least as vicious as anti-Semite”. That’s an interesting perspective on “honesty and justice”. -eljay"
Listen, eljay, this has been explained to you in so many ways by multiple people. Calling Witty a Nakba-minimizer, eee a militarist, hophmi or winnica a shill, or guilty feat a liar is different than accusing someone of being a "low-grade anti-Semite," with the backing for this claim being mostly "because I feel like he is."
There's truth, there's lies and there are all kinds of things that are arguable but seriously, open your eyes. You can't see the difference between "attacks" that are backed by facts and "attacks" that are simply attempts to shut down debate? You are literally the only one here who hasn't grasped this fact. Even the crew I mentioned above know this. They have to in order to successfully manipulate people like you into thinking that speaking the truth forcefully indicates a "chip on a shoulder."
eljay:
And you're more interested in pointing out obvious "chips" rather than being intellectually curious or empathetic. Many commenters here have noted my often harsh tone but, unlike you, they also have tried to understand why it's there and have looked at my posts as a whole and not simply as "rants," which is what you called them last time. This is not to suggest that you must agree with me or even interact with me. Just try to be fair and open-minded for once, at least.
It would be really refreshing to read something like that from you. Think about it. Or don't.
To quote you "I have no apologies to make to you, so I won’t make any.” Come to think of it, it actually sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder, too. Why do I think you didn't come by yours honestly, in contrast to me? Care to touch on that issue? Please, tell us about your background.
Also, admitting that you're puzzled is not a sin. Stop acting like I insulted you on that score. So sensitive.
"The resulting vitriol and outrage is truly puzzling." -eljay
Eljay, with all due respect, do you spend a lot of your time puzzled? I find you puzzling.
Back in September, annie wrote to you: "haytham is smart educated and knows his stuff, so they are trying to take him out. that is the way it appears to me."
Your response was the following:
"annie, I appreciate what you're saying. But as I just wrote in another post that's awaiting moderation (September 7, 2011 at 2:51 pm), Haytham is not the only person I haven't stood up for in reponse to a charge of anti-Semitism."
Note that this was just before you wrote this to me:
"You have a chip on your shoulder (i.e., you take things way too personally, even when they are not intended as personal attacks) and you have a short fuse.
...
I'm sorry you feel that I defended GF too much - even though he is verbally abused more often than you are, and with labels that are at least as vicious as anti-Semite.
But I haven't labelled you an anti-Semite - in fact, I've stated that I don't think you are one - and I haven't insulted you in any other way.
...
I have no apologies to make to you, so I won't make any."
See, eljay, it doesn't really matter who is "verbally abused more" if you are going to act on principles of honesty and justice. You clearly do not value these principles in open debate.
While Guilty Feat and others were throwing the label "anti-Semite" at me, without any basis, you defended your decision to speak out on GF's behalf by claiming that he was attacked more often than I was, ignoring that the attacks on him were warranted because they were true while the attacks on me were unwarranted because they were false. Others pointed this out to you at the time more eloquently than I did but you agreed to disagree and withdrew.
You can tell a lot about someone by who they choose to defend and who they choose to ignore.
Very puzzling indeed.
[Cliff said, inter alia: "WHEN – are you guys going to apply these same standards to Muslim/Arabs and Palestinians? ... Phil has never (at least publically in the comment section along-side us) condemned anti-Arab/Muslim/Palestinian comments."]
Cliff's analysis is consistent with my experience at MW as a Palestinian-Arab-Israeli-American. I also second the several and various learned comments of American, Citizen, annie, Danaa, MRW and many others here.
I understand that it is absolutely necessary to draw and keep readers to MW and I understand that certain preconceptions and sensitivities will always play into that and make it difficult.
I just wanted to say that I was offered no assistance--zero--when I was deluged with false charges of anti-Semitism by hophmi and others here, even after I and others emailed Phil and asked for him to step in and provide some guidance. I even had some of my posts that were direct responses to my attackers censored, even though my posts were entirely appropriate and not in violation of the MW posting rules.
When this occurred, I explained it all to Phil (that is, the MW posting policy) since he and his staff seemed entirely unaware of the MW rules. I believe I may have posted excerpts of this in the open comments as well, but I don’t remember for sure.
My consolation prize came a short time later in the form of an offer to write about "Palestinian Identity"--or some other subject of my choosing--as if that could somehow be a substitute for a MW representative stepping in to correct the ongoing libelous charges of these virulent Zionist commenters.
Richard Witty has 11,000 posts including probably 3,000 that have in some way obfuscated, dismissed, minimized and even completely denied Palestinian rights**, identity, suffering and obvious position as the oppressed and brutalized party in the IP conflict. His posts are frequently off topic and classic cases of “thread jackings” and therefore it would be entirely appropriate and sensible to, first, censor his comments repeatedly, and, if that doesn’t work, ban him for over-posting, among other rule violations. Even someone as open as Glenn Greenwald occasionally bans people after giving them multiple specific warnings. Witty wouldn’t last 10 days at Greenwald’s spot.
Also, I have to say, one would think that after using the word "dialogue" something like 9,000 times he would have learned to spell it. Witty's complete inability to spell "dialogue," even in the face of hundreds (if not thousands) of times that he has been corrected, by James North and others, is similar to his complete inability to honestly reflect on his mythical brand of "Liberal Zionism." It's a blind spot that he will never discover and correct, mostly because he refuses to look. The possibility of there being a life altering revelation or epiphany down that road is something he can never, ever risk; therefore, Witty holds his nose and continues to cheer the dispossession, degradation, displacement and murder of an entire people and culture because it’s his “team” that is the perpetrator. Witty is what you could call a “Fan” (as in a “Fanatic”).
In closing, I just want to say to Phil, Donald, Witty (and others who agree with Donald's post) that while you are here calmly and sensibly discussing these issues and smacking down every "whiff" of real anti-Semitism (~5%) and pretend anti-Semitism (~95%), Palestinians (and all the other victims of Israel, the Eternal Homeland of the Jewish People,) will continue being attacked and savaged in every way imaginable, including on these MW boards, by the same people with whom you are being oh-so-sweet and civil. Keep up the great work.
**To Witty, Palestinian rights are a wonderful and even necessary thing, so long as there is: (1) No land under said Palestinians’ feet that is coveted by any segment of the Jewish international community or Israeli government; (2) No natural resources under said Palestinians’ feet that is coveted by any segment of the Jewish international community or Israeli government; or (3) Any non-specific objections (to Palestinian equality and personhood) by any segment of the Jewish international community or Israeli government.
I'm sorry you're so sensitive about obviously over the top comments like "the rest of mankind."
You're right, you don't understand the civil justice system in the US, leave it alone. And on that subject, no I'm not practicing and I have never said anything that would suggest otherwise. In fact, I have explained why at least twice in the last two or three days. I don't expect you to follow along with all my posts but I would prefer if you not make things up, or engage in hyperbole, when it comes to my life.
I'm not getting prissy. As you noted, I engage in aggressive arguing with FACTS, rather than making ad hominem and emotional attacks. See the difference?
What offer of coffee? With you? Why, so you can call me names to my face? No, thanks.
GF:
I don't have to prove loss if I can show I work in a profession where my honesty, integrity, etc., could be harmed by your statement. For an attorney, that's simple.
GF, I would never sue you for something you say here about me. You would have to say something really awful and tie it to my real name.
I don't plan on being around long enough anyway. Just trying to respond, sarcastically where necessary, to outstanding posts.
eljay said:
What you're doing is not really unfair, though I appreciate your attempt to understand how that might be the case (even though you fail miserably). Although it cannot fairly be labeled an unfair stand, it is, however, a remarkably unprincipled one. What I mean is that you seem to have no moral compass on this issue.
You have made an "affirmative action" defense of a lying, reactionary commenter; that is, you have recognized that GF is in the minority as a Zionist apologist for Israel and due to this you have decided to intercede on her behalf. I don't think I have ever seen someone take such an unprincipled and arbitrary stand for such a silly reason. I mean arbitrary as in completely pointless, i.e., serving no rational purpose, except possibly keeping the number of Zionist posters here artificially high. Why would you care about that? Doesn't the truth matter to you?
Yeah, I, like you, also seek out minority, racist, inflammatory positions--those of individuals who are flailing about, trying to defend themselves and their positions with no regard to whether their accusations are legitimate--such as those on Stormfront, and I defend those, too, just like you do here. Hey, it's unfair that they should be out there alone making those arguments! Let's all intercede for those whose views are wrong, so long as they're in the minority on a website or on the web!
Just so that we're crystal clear, I am restating what you wrote to me: that you believe that you need to intercede on behalf of someone who is doing wrong, someone who is being unreasonable and potentially racist, someone who is purposely or recklessly (and admittedly) misrepresenting another person's views (my view, and I happen to be an actual minority in the United States, not legally speaking since Arabs are considered Caucasians in the US, but ethnically speaking), because that person's view is in the minority here?
And I have a chip on my shoulder? If every one of you attacked me, all at once, I might not like it and I might not stick around, but at least I wouldn't resort to unwarranted personal attacks. I guess if I claimed to be a Zionist Jew I could do that, because then people like you would come to my aid? Care to tell me where I'm wrong here?
And this chip I have, can you provide any explanation of what you mean by it? Is zealously representing a point of view--one that you, of all people, seem to actually agree with, no less--a chip? Does that make sense to you? So my stating your position, more forcefully and intelligently than you ever could, indicates that I have a chip on my shoulder? I guess in a way that's a compliment.
It's interesting to hear you talk about the chip on my shoulder. I remember around the time the Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) case came out, there was a lot of talk among whites who were obviously and openly prejudiced (and some who obviously had no idea they were prejudiced) about "all these" African-Americans having a chip on their shoulder. No discussion of the context and reality of the historical social and economic inequalities that exist in the US as a net result of slavery, just talk of their "attitude."
Are you from the US? Do you remember this--does it ring a bell? Maybe it's just me because I was paying attention and actually care about civil and human rights. Equality isn't a pipe dream. It just requires people who are accommodating to racists, people who are accommodating just like you, if I wasn't being clear, to stop and actually take a stand against prejudice. But then you wouldn't get to be "friends" with both sides! It's a tough stand to take, I know.
My point is that just because you perceive a "massive chip on [my] shoulder" (your words) and are able to acknowledge that it might be "rightly" (your word) there, doesn't make you reasonable, progressive, open-minded or anything of that sort. It indicates that you are able to see that there is an injustice (no matter how minor, in your view) going on and you are only able to see it as me being either (rightly or wrongly) overly sensitive.
Do you have any idea what the historical meaning of "chip on your shoulder" is? Maybe you and I have traveled in different circles but in my experience, it is usually used to demean a minority individual's legitimate claims of discrimination. You wouldn't be doing that, would you? Of course, you are. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Let's make this post longer, since GF hate that, shall we?
Translation: 'Haytham, sometimes I like reading you posts but your aggressive pursuit of what you believe to be the truth hurts some (dishonest) peoples' feelings and that makes me uncomfortable."
Translation: 'You are totally f*cking up these Zionist liars, and without any help from me. I wouldn't help you even if I could. (Let's be completely clear, Haytham, I can't help you and I won't)'
Translation: 'GF gets a high volume of posts attacking her Zionist apologies, since they are illogical, emotional and generally not supported by fact. I defend her for no other reason than this. It may not make sense to you, but I have a good reason for it, even though I am not able to articulate it.'
Translation: 'Ultimately, I don't give a shit what you think, Haytham. I'm going to continue to take unprincipled stands without stating a good reason for doing so. I hope you continue to post her so that GF and others can continue to engage in ad hominem attacks against you. I will also ignore all of those attacks on you."
Translation: 'F you.'
Translation: 'I disapprove of any unsubstantiated accusations unless they're made by a Zionist. The Zionists on this website are a minority and therefore I have to tolerate their lies and attacks on Haytham. Haytham's opinions are a dime a dozen, as there must be hundreds of Palestinian-Israeli-Americans that post here, and his perspective is superfluous; I mean, really, we already know what it's like to be a Palestinian--and what we don't know GF will tell us. I realize--because I've been told several times, including by GF--that GF's accusations were unwarranted, but I still persist in pretending that it's just a case of he said/she said."
As for everyone that has said if I leave, "they win," they have won.
Danaa & annie:
Thank you for your contributions. I understand what both of you are saying, however, as I posted on the "Erdogan to speak at Tahrir on Sept 12 and try and visit Gaza after, says Turkish news site" thread, I'm out of here, both as far as participating on the comment boards, and reading the blog.
Some here, and I dare say it's the majority, view accusations of anti-Semitism as unfortunate hyperbole. That's not how it goes in my world. In my world it's serious. I'm not anti-Semitic and I don't view it as a "card" to play.
If every time I criticize someone like Witty, eee, lli, or GF, I become an open target for the anti-Semitism label, this becomes a boring and sad uphill battle I have to fight. This is what has happened.
I think eljay's response is a good illustration. It's unfortunate, he said in all seriousness, that Haytham was called an anti-Semite without any basis by GF. But I, eljay, will not criticize GF or stand up for Haytham. I will continue reading both GF and Haytham, eljay said. Maybe someday they'll work it out. I sought clarification and he affirmed that this reading of his posts is accurate.
Wrong. I understand now without a doubt that what I said THE FIRST TIME I LEFT was correct. This is a site for Jewish Zionists and anti-Zionists to politely argue with each other. Someone like me is just the unwanted Palestinian that accidentally wandered into the promised land.
eljay:
It's beyond unfortunate. Your tepid response is not encouraging.
I get to be called an anti-Semite and you got to say, oh, well that's so unfortunate! That GuiltyFeat is such a rascal! Too bad!
Well, it's more serious than that. The fact that you cannot and will not recognize that is very, very disappointing to me.
eljay:
Let's make sure we're clear on this.
GF has said that I am an anti-Semite and an apologist for war crimes. (Then apparently GF admitted that this was recklessly incorrect, because the length of my posts is prohibitive of GF reading them. So GF decided to "play the odds" and accuse me of something. Seriously.)
The only thing that GF has accused me of is quoting Victor Ostrovsky and making a sarcastic but entirely defensible and not inappropriate comment about Capt. Israel.
So you will continue to read both of us and agree with some things and disagree with others?
I get called an anti-Semite and apologist for war crimes, both of these allegations being false.
I accused GF of ducking me and therefore being a coward.
These are equivalent in your mind?
Does everyone here feel that way?
I'm an anti-Semite?
Okay.
I guess we'll add you to the Richard Witty list of egregious, baseless allegations against Israeli-Palestinian commenters. Sound fair?
Your main problem is evident here:
My beef, to the extent that I have any, is with Israelis not Jews. The comments that I made about Capt. Israel, though almost entirely tongue in cheek (which you missed), were a comment on the militarization of Israeli society, which I think it is impossible to deny.
I never said anything about "Jews" except that "Jews" hold most of the top executive positions in Hollywood. I got that information from Joel Stein, as I would otherwise have not known it.
With regard to this;
I have no doubt that you're right. I have egomaniacal tendencies, some of it a defensive mechanism that is impossible to recognize on the internet. I'm aggressive and mean, but mostly when someone lies about me. Being completely honest, though, yes I'm aggressive and mean sometimes absent the lies.
I do not mean the aggression or meanness personally. I'm sorry if I offended you. And I don't mean that as the insincere "I'm sorry if you took what I said the wrong way..." nonsense. I am actually sorry.
Legally speaking this:
is libelous. The only way this is not so is if there was no distinction between "Israeli" (which many non-Jews are, including me) and "Jewish." If there is anyone who can argue there is no distinction, I have yet to see this.
I am not an anti-Semite. I have anti-Zionist views.
This, in conjuction with this, which I just read, literally 5 minutes ago:
This is a serious and libelous (and therefore actionable) allegation. You have admitted that you recklessly made the allegation. GF, I thought you were an attorney? Would you be willing to defend this statement in court?
A side note, I know, I know, my posts are too long:
The post you refer to was referencing Victor Ostrovsky, an Israeli Jew, from his book "By Way of Deception." So you called me a "conspiracy nut job" before you went off to bed. I was referencing an Israeli Jew's work. Is he a "conspiracy nut job" or is that title reserved for people like me? Is he also an anti-Semite that you would filter out? Or is that only Palestinians you do that to?
What apology? You're done, okay, I'm sorry about that. I would prefer to argue with someone reasonable like you than someone like dimadok.
But what apology? Do you really think I would harp on this if I knew you apologized? I wouldn't. I respect the idea of "agree to disagree" and move on to argue another day.
YOU ARE NOT MY ENEMY. Please stop acting like this is the case. We can disagree without it reaching this level.
I'm truly sorry if you apologized or even modified your comments and I didn't see that.
In the end, it's up to you, obviously. I can't force you to interact with me, but I do sincerely wish that you would reconsider.
GuiltyFeat:
Let me be completely clear here: you are a dishonest "internet persona."
Everything that you have ever posted about me has been an outright lie.
If there is an option to have Phil, Adam or whoever you want pull all the comments and analyze who said what and post it in full, I would be willing to participate in that.
You claimed that I said things I never said. I challenged this and you ran. This angers me, as I am a extremely careful about the things I post in serious internet arguments. If I post something false, I lose credibility, and I don't ever want that to happen.
On the other hand, you admitted that when you're wrong you "scurry off" (your words, right?) instead of admitting you're wrong. I would NEVER do this. I have admitted when I'm wrong and I will always do this.
I'm glad you've chosen to be more cautious and use the modifier "guessing." I don't feel comfortable comparing Israelis to Nazis. Nazis incinerated Jews in ovens. This is indisputable, no? Nothing that the nation of Israel has ever done is on this level of evil.
Sure, during the battle for independence, Palestinians and others were executed. It happened in every major Israeli-Arab war. It happened in Afghanistan, where US troops have admitted to using Afghani farmers, essentially, for target practice. Nazis? No. Evil, but not Nazis.
Sabra and Shatilla? Awful. No one discusses this here. Who was responsible? Lebanese Christians were obviously involved in this and I know from personal experience that some of these Maronites loathe Palestinians, and in some cases for legitimate grievances. Who am I to pass judgment on fault? I wasn't there. I know that when people are executed it is evil. But I also understand the need to have perspective. Just because I think some Israeli acts are evil and despicable doesn't mean that I could EVER compare Israeli actions to the Nazis.
Israel is not a Nazi state. Israel can be a brutal, oppressive state at times. The United States can also be at times.
You were dishonest about me and I have never been dishonest about you. Mean to you, yes, maybe, but not dishonest.
Can you really not see the difference?
eljay:
I tend to operate more on the "what-have-you-posted-lately" theory of internet commenting. I thought GF had credibility and I was impressed with GF's ability to look at Israel objectively (compared to lli or dimadok) but when you start accusing me of making outrageous allegations on subjects I have never touched (and as an attorney would never touch), you lose me.
I don't like when people lie about me, anywhere.
GF:
You don't catch on too quick. The comment you blockquoted was irony and yes, I took some liberties in the rest of the post. They were obvious, no?
What am I supposed to do? You won't respond to me directly.
What you posted about me was despicable. Forgive me that I expected you to either stand by it or apologize.
eljay:
Do you mind if I address you, out of turn, as it were?
What you refer to as "crapping" on GF, I see differently. GF accused me of certain things and when I responded, GF literally ran away and admitted as much, albeit on another thread.
It's hard to respect someone who runs rather than stands firm.
You respect GF. Based on what? Did you read what GF wrote about me on the other thread?
Yeah! No apologies!
GF:
I'll comment. On what?
I know you said yesterday you don't respond to people who embarrass you by destroying your arguments but what are you going to do, duck me forever?
GF:
Denounce what? The misuse of Judaism to forward a cause? (Do you see the irony of this, Mr./Mrs. Zionist?)
Anyway, absolutely, I agree with you. People should tell the truth and be straightforward. I think the only justification to lie about something like that would be, for an extreme example: you're Jewish, someone holds a gun to your head (you know they will shoot you if you are a Jew), absolutely, lie. If you're going to be harmed I think some lies are okay.
For someone to use Judaism as a ladder to give themselves added "credibility," that's truly worthy of condemnation. It's unacceptable.
I would be interested to hear from the person why he misrepresented himself, that is, if he did.
Anyone ever notice that the only link Witty has ever provided is to his own blog?
James:
Thank you (on the "dialog" issue).
Also, Witty said I don't accept apologies. Did he apologize to me?
I don't accept insincere apologies. I have received no apology, insincere or otherwise, from Richard Witty.
Witty, by the way, the reason I posted that last comment was because recently James has jokingly needled you about your spelling of dialogue, (even when you didn't use the word). He's done it probably 5 times. I'm surprised you didn't see it. I wasn't being cruel, just joking around. At least I didn't say you are inferior to me, less of a human being, like you did to me.
Finally, "propagate" what? Can you give me the definition of the word and tell me when I did that?
Witty:
Witty--it's official--you are now a caricature of yourself.
James?
James:
Here's the thing: The way I see it, everything I say is true. Any quotes that are obviously outrageous are just that, and by definition cannot be libelous.
Learned from...what? Oh. Never mind.
Single quotes you say? Interesting.
Haytham said 'F&ck you Witty for saying you are more human than I am.'
Also, Witty said 'I assumed Haytham can't be Israeli because the name Haytham sure doesn't sound Israeli but also he referred to himself as an Arab and we all know there are no (d&r^y) Arabs in Israel.'
James North said 'Haytham, stop, you're giving me and my method a bad name...'
DBG said: "Arabs are inherently violent. Especially Palestinians, who carry weapons at all times, even in their mouths, between their teeth. This is why we kill Palestinian children. Once Palestinians are old enough to have teeth, they are legitimate targets."
Rania:
No.
That's the problem.
I was single at the beginning of law school, August 2001, having broken up with my long distance (Lebanese) girlfriend in anticipation of not having time to see her (long distance = Columbus to Cleveland, not Ohio to Lebanon). The week after 9/11 I was on a first "date" with a girl who had been my friend for a couple of months (both of us had expressed interest in each other, so we decided to give it a shot).
I already really liked this girl, before our date. After talking about the normal stuff for a little while we started talking about 9/11, just because it was on our minds, it was so recent. She asked me if I would shoot bin Laden in the head if he was in front me. Out of the blue and without any context. Why? Things went downhill from there.
I don't really know what to say about any of this anymore. I just know I don't want to be here anymore but I don't want to go without answering (almost) everyone that addresses me.
Come on. You guys were doing more than fine before I showed up. As GF pointed out, I just argue too aggressively and it causes unnecessary conflict.
I don't feel like it anymore anyway. It's fun to debate and even angrily argue sometimes but not when the "losers" can't keep up and just go to their prepared ad hominem attacks. I'm not rubber, I'm glue.
Shmuel, annie. J. North, others:
It's not vindictive. I'm not "punishing" anyone. And I'm not "giving in" to the Israel-firsters. [As if withholding my contributions would be punishment! Yes, I'm very arrogant, but I am still capable of reason.]
What no one seems to understand is that I want Israel, as country (not as an ideology necessarily) to succeed! My family is there. I would love to go visit them again. I haven't' been back since 2005, which seems like forever to me.
But I won't go back until I know that my wife and children will not be abused at the airport. I would recount what happened last time but come on, people have complained about the length of my posts. Maybe in my "over-zealousness" to contribute to MW I have posted too much, and too many words.
annie, you upset me because you plead with me and you seem to take it so personally. There's nothing you can do about this. It's not your doing. I don't feel like explaining to my wife and 2.5 year old son that I'm crying because of some internet shit. I don't want to have that conversation.
There is no protection for me. I'm too sensitive and I overcompensate with egotistical flourish. The truth is simple. LLI, GF, eee and the rest hurt my feelings. It's basic.
I can stand up for myself in an intellectual debate but the "I'm sad to disscover that you're an anti-Semite" or "Have you stopped beating your wife?" level internet discourse I can't deal with.
I have informed Phil about my feelings. I think it's probably just a matter of me being too easily rattled (i.e., feelings hurt) to continue here.
My frenzied posting of the last couple of days has been my reaction in an effort to try to keep up in the face of the scurrilous attacks on me.
Like I said, it's not personal in the sense that you couldn't have "helped" me. I just can't deal with it, honestly.
GF today was able to push me over the edge with his/her accusations. So over the edge of despair I go on this issue, and here I am.
If I was "strong" enough to withstand these types of accusations/attacks, I would be practicing law in support of the Palestinians like I intended. I had an internationally known law school prof mentor who agreed to take me under his wing but I feared that I couldn't stand the heat of this issue. I was right.
Witty:
I want to address this to you because along with GuiltyFeat, you had the most to do with this.
I am not only out of here (the comments board) but I will no longer read the blog.
If every time I am honest (and not anti-Semitic) and completely rain on your liberal-Zionist parade I am going to get basically shitted on and accused of anti-Semitim, what fun is this?
GuiltyFeat called me an anti-Semitic conspiracy nut job for discussing Victor Ostrovsky's (a former Mossad agent) views.
You, Witty insinuated that I was less than a full Israeli citizen. You also accused me of dehumanizing you, though you didn't say how.
Phil asked me to write a blog post about Palestinian identity or the statehood initiative or whatever I chose but let's be honest. This is not a fairly moderated, open forum. I thought it was, or I wouldn't have financially contributed here. I did notice that none of those who unfairly called me names contributed financially here. And that really sucks, guys.
Phil, you can consider this my response, and I mean no disrespect to you, personally:
I will not be writing for a website that has a comments section where people do not get moderated EVER for falsely and libelously calling someone an anti-Semite but DO get moderated for criticizing Zionism.
In fact, such a website is not worth reading, in my humble opinion.
I guess I'll stick with al-Jazeera or some other such website. I like Greenwald's blog.
Thanks to annie, J. North, Danaa, tree, Taxi, Mooser, Citizen, American, Avi, Shingo, seafoid, Rania, Inaana, and I'm sorry if I forgot anyone.
My anti-Semitic ass is out of here.
Witty said blah blah blah Gaza blah blah Israel's existence blah blah reality.
Blah blah mutual respect blah blah Israel disappearing blah blah.
I agree completely.
Actually, she asked him: "You really believe there were no people there?"
He said yes.
She said, "My husband's family has been on that land for generations. It wasn't empty." She explained a little more...
He got confused, "Wait, you're not Jewish? How is he Israeli and not Jewish?"
People in this country know a lot less than a lot of people who post here think. It's easy to assume that something you care about is universally recognized as an important issue but in my experience that is not the case at all.
When you get to about the 100th time you've had to explain the difference between "Pakistan" and "Palestine" you'll realize people are ignorant.
Yeah, because this sounds like something CAMERA would say
Kathleen:
You measure? Statistically?
How do you know it's not the same people who are participating, maybe becoming more vocal as the tensions increase? Or that it's only a few people participating? Witty has posted over 10,000 comments here. If you looked at the comment activity only you might think, wow, a lot of people are engaged on this issue (rather than one person posting 10,000 times). It's deceptive.
Also, just because a few more people join the discussion, do you really think that indicates that a significant number of people across the nation are "waking up?"
This conversation reminds me of the 9/11 issue. In response to a survey, what was it, 60% of Democrats believed in 2008 that the government "covered up" or was "involved" in 9/11. So what? Do you see a mass movement of Democrats demanding a new investigation? No. This issue of "participation" translating directly into political action (i.e., "things changing") is not as clear cut as you make it sound.
As far as people being far more well read, I think that is completely false. In my experience, many more Americans were aware of the conflict and the reasons behind it, in years past. Sure, many sympathized more with the Zionists because of Israel's "frontier" image and "making the desert bloom"* propaganda, but at least they knew that the Palestinians were dispossessed, fighting for their homeland, etc. As someone pointed out here recently, based on polling, people are more likely than ever (now) to believe that the Palestinians are occupying the Israelis.
*True story: My wife had a patient about a month ago, a middle aged guy, who asked what nationality her last name (my family name) was. This happens quite a bit here in the Midwest. When she told him, simply, that I am Israeli, he said--and I'm trying to quote as closely as possible what she told me he said--"Isn't it a miracle that those people were able to find an empty land all to themselves after so many years of suffering? And look how they made it bloom!"
K:
Obama doesn't care about the scales unless we're talking about campaign contributions.
Not enough people will vote on their "pro-Palestinian" beliefs to impact Obama's chances. I really don't think he cares. Also, I'm sure his various Zionist advisers are downplaying any sort of talk of the "mood" of the country shifting on this issue. I can't remember who said it--not only Cornell West, but someone who studies the history of the executive branch, I think--said he's never seen such an isolated president as Obama.
Also, not to rain on your parade, but I have yet to see any concrete evidence that the actual "mood" of the country is changing. More people in this country than you think have never read a news article or opinion piece on the web.
Witty:
I was baptized Greek Orthodox, Witty, if that matters, since you seem to think I'm a Muslim. I don't believe in any god or religion, including yours.
Yes, Witty, we all know this is your obsession. FYI, I try to oppose things that are anti-me whenever I can, since I don't like being on that end of the anti-. OK?
Stop embarrassing yourself, Richard. You have proven time and again, without any assistance from anyone, that you have no idea what I understand. In addition, your ability to gauge what you understand is limited at best.
You don't seem to understand that even though you couch your arguments in moderate terminology, you are an extremist. You are not a moderate on Israel. Sorry, that's just the truth. You're one step removed from Hamas.
Thanks for your post, even though it was completely pointless.
You have no idea how ironic that is.
I originally typed, but then deleted as gratuitous something along these lines:
LeaNder:
I appreciate the tone of your post; however, you're making a basic mistake. You're assuming that just because there's a logical reason Obama is not doing something, that this is the ONLY reason that he's not doing it.
The truth is that the Muslim constituency is not powerful and not properly mobilized. Obama has little to lose by ignoring them and he would do so even if the Right wasn't so focused on painting him as a "secret Muslim."
When you say something like this:
You assume that you know what Obama would like to do. You do not.
Based on what we saw from him during his campaign versus what we have seem from him since his inauguration, I would say that none of us really knows him. He has proven to be highly deceptive.
This is exactly right. Many people believe that it is in politicians' interests to pander to every group and fight for every person's vote. This is not realistic.
As you know, in reality it's more about campaign contributions and targeting large voting blocs that are not already guaranteed to you but that are realistically swingable to your side.
Obama has been criticized for his "punch-a-hippie" strategy of ignoring at best and beating up at worst his liberal base. (I'm sure this was perfected under Rahm "Liberals are fucking stupid" Emanuels' watchful eye) He doesn't care for obvious reasons--most of these people will vote for him because they are terrified of the alternative.
People on other sites give Phil a hard time about "counting" (campaign contributions and the constituencies that make them) but in reality all politicians "count" and keep a very accurate and current score. It's almost all they care about in US politics, especially because elections occur so often.
You also agree that the only reason Obama isn't visiting mosques is because of right-wing crazies?
Did everyone just decide today to stop reading what Witty writes?
Witty doesn't even mention Zionists or anyone else. Or money.
Snap out of it guys.
So you think if right-wingers weren't going crazy about Obama then he would be visiting mosques? That's what Witty said and that's what you agreed with.
This is his entire post
You guys are so wrong.
Witty:
Right, because if that lie hadn't been invented he would have been all over the Muslim community that doesn't contribute meaningful sums of cash to his campaign coffers.
You're an intelligent person, Witty. Don't play dumb and simultaneously insult our intelligence.
Slater:
Why would you come here of all places with this weak nonsense? The things you state, even if true, did not justify an invasion that would kill many, many innocent people, without attempting some other routes first. In reality, of course, if all of these issues existed since at least 1991, there was no obvious need to rush into war and no reasonable reason to believe that any type of intervention was necessary. The intelligence on this issue was not incorrect or confused, as I'm sure you know but do not say. It wasn't incorrect or confused until Cheney and his office of Special Plans got a hold of the "raw intelligence" and started making wild assumptions using it.
You know this instinctively which is why you noted at the end of your rambling word bag that you were not necessarily in favor or "preventive war."
Of course, you fail to note that "preventive war" is not generally accepted by the international community and has no protection under international law. Therefore, "preventive war" is arguably an aggressive war, and a war crime. Do you believe in international law? I know that most people in your position don't but it would be nice to get a straight answer on that.*
As I stated, you know all of this, even though you do not state it. Unfortunately, your position exists to make situations like this seem like a case of "we made a horrible mistake" or a case of "it was he said/she said, so how could we have known?" The truth is many people and governments around the world knew that this was not true. The fact that you were one of the relatively few people in the world that was suckered by all of this says a lot about your ability to weigh evidence. Let's just say I hope you're not on a jury anytime soon.
*Information in this section was taken from the wikipedia entry on preventive war, which cites these books
^ Shaw, Malcolm (2008). International Law (6th edn). Camrbidge: Cambridge University Press. p. 1140. ISBN 9780521728140.
^ Brownlie, Ian (2008). Principles of Public International Law. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 734. ISBN 978019921770.
Chaos:
Do you mean Jews or Israelis? Because Israelis are the most militant and militarized society on earth right now. Frankly, I think they would be upset that Captain Israel doesn't demolish homes with only the breath from his lungs, build apartheid walls with beams shot from his eyes and drop thermonuclear bombs out of his ass.
You keep track of all the Jewish superheroes and their liaisons, as well as their creators?
That's great to know, because only 90% of Hollywood studio heads are Jewish, so it's a good thing you have comic books. What would you do otherwise? Complain, probably.