-
-
- Video: Medea Benjamin interrupts Obama speech on US drone … 6
- Glenn Greenwald on the Woolwich attack and blowback from the … 4
- Church of Scotland accepts controversial report on Israel/Palestine 1
- Half of Israel’s eligible youth don’t enlist– and ranks of … 4
- Chelsea Clinton’s multifaith initiative 7
- More on the ‘creepy’ al-Dura report 7
- Exile and the Prophetic: Does John Kerry have the keys … 6
- Wolf Blitzer looks for a religious state 7
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 2240
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 1716
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 1699
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 1359
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on … 952
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 809
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 442
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 438
-
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 96
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 93
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 93
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 87
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 73
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani 63
- Dershowitz should stop lying about Tutu’s record 56
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 48
-
- RT @alexbkane: Obama says expanded surveillance raises "difficult questions" , but his Justice Dept. has stalled on an inquiry into NYPD sp…, 1 hour ago
- RT @samknight1: Flashback: Israel helped train Guatemalan dictator Rios Montt, recently convicted of genocide. https://t.co/oYsxDokunE, 2 hours ago
- RT @samknight1: Israel to train Chiapas police? Well. Say goodnight to the Zapatistas and probably a whole lot of indigenous groups http://…, 2 hours ago
- RT @RodrigoEBR: Medea Benjamin also told Obama "I love my country. I love the rule of law. Abide by the rule of law. You're a constitutiona…, 2 hours ago
- RT @allisonkilkenny: I've never seen this level of outrage from journos levelled at the president for, say, droning people in secret. But f…, 2 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Glenn Greenwald on the Woolwich attack and blowback from the ‘war on terror’ (4)
- yourstruly: while perpetrators of recent terrorist attacks have said that what motivated them was the violence of...
- Annie Robbins: my pleasure MRW. btw, i enjoyed your ‘The History of Israel Blog‘ idea. ;) cheers.
- MRW: Thanks, annie.
- ‘Al Jazeera’ reposts Massad piece, after censoring it (8)
- lysias: Glenn Greenwald posted a piece on this two days ago: Al Jazeera deletes its own controversial Op-Ed, then...
- Video: Medea Benjamin interrupts Obama speech on US drone policy (6)
- Taxi: Massive courage, Medea, wow what naked conviction! The strangled voice of truth in the house of lies –...
- Philip Munger: Medea rocks! Indefatigable.
- Wolf Blitzer looks for a religious state (7)
- Krauss: Touché.
- Chelsea Clinton’s multifaith initiative (7)
- Stephen Shenfield: Any room for atheists in the “multifaith dialogue”?
- Talkback: “When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you...
- Kerry goes for the Hail Mary, but Obama is punting (23)
- MHughes976: The bolded words seem to make an interesting, slightly idiosyncratic maybe, comment on the fate of...
- Glenn Greenwald on the Woolwich attack and blowback from the ‘war on terror’ (4)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
former coMMenter,
Hilarious! I missed those the first time around. Classic!
You're sinning in your own eyes again, Witty.
"con·demn (kən dem′)
transitive verb
to pass an adverse judgment on; disapprove of strongly; censure"
Of course you weren't. You were attacking the stereotypical American while addressing Todd. You'd have a lot more success making your point about stereotyping Jews if you wouldn't engage in stereotyping so much yourself with respect to gentiles and also to those who disagree with your left-leaning politics. (And, yes, I would probably agree with most of your political points on the issues. But indulging yourself in attitudes that stereotype others really doesn't serve you well here at all. )
And if you'd stop trying to mind-read through stereotypes, you'd probably be a lot less worried about anti-semitism, because you wouldn't be imagining it where it doesn't exist, and amplifying it where it does. After all, if stereotyping is something that you yourself sometimes fall victim to, is it really so horrible that others do too? Perhaps if you had the same awareness of your own foibles, you'd know how to address and correct others more effectively. Or not. (Speaking as someone with a wide and varied set of foibles myself.)
Shhhhh! You're getting in the way of Mooser mouthing some stereotypes (i.e., those that are acceptable to him), while he decries other stereotypes, whether read or imagined.
Mooser,
I'm not surprised you are worried about the rise of anti-semitism. You find it where it isn't even implied. If you study the Nuremburg trials you'll find that a lack of Anglo- American rules of evidence is one of the serious flaws of the trials.
But don't let reality prevent you from crying "anti-semitism" when you really don't understand the point being made . And while you're at it, why not throw a few stereotypes around about fellow posters. That's always a good way to show your "principled" stand against stereotypes.
I've heard he is a very creative man, but I always think of him as Vizzini in The Princess Bride. "Inconceivable!"
It's not just that there are "wildcat" colonies. Its that Jewish Israeli settlers are allowed to commit crimes against their Palestinian neighbors with absolutely no negative repercussions. So what has the IDF done to address the problem of settler lawlessness? Another Kafkaesque response. Read it and weep.
link to imemc2.org
Wonderfully cogent comment, danaa!
Yes, and look at who was the proposed target of BDS in June of this year.
Likud minister proposes Israeli sanctions on US
"Translation: Lets release some of these 13 year old stone throwing kids and their mothers; "
Further translation: We can always re-arrest them next week, since we don't have to charge the with anything to keep them in jail indefinitely, and there's no such thing as due process or double jeopardy for Palestinians in the occupied territories.
You're sinning again, Richard.
Richard may buy that, but I don't think there is any reason for anyone else to buy it. I've read in the past that Israeli intelligence reports indicate that Hamas is entirely pragmatic and has modified its strident stance against Israel over the years. The problem with assuming that the problem is that Israel doesn't believe that Hamas is willing to honestly negotiate is that it assumes that Israel itself is interested in negotiating. Everything it has done over the past few decades indicates that it is not. "Gaza first" was a notion dating back to the 80's, and what was clear between the lines was that the Israeli government wanted Gaza to fail so that it could claim that the Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves and therefore Israel should have the right to take all of the West Bank. All the actions that Israel has taken since them can be explained with this in mind. It doesn't negotiate with Hamas because it doesn't want to negotiate, period. Hamas is merely the latest excuse.
Then you sin here everyday, in nearly every comment you make. You condemn Hamas, you condemn "the left", you condemn anyone who strongly disagrees with your opinions, you condemn other commenters, you condemn BDS, you condemn non-violent direct action, you condemn the idea of Israel as a nation of all its citizens, you condemn anyone who offers anything other than the mildest of criticism of Israel. The only things you seem incapable of condemning is Israel and yourself, and those you constantly justify, while offering the faintest of criticism, not of yourself, but of Israel.
con⋅demn
/kənˈdɛm/
1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.
Self-examination, Richard. It would help you immensely, if you are still capable of it. Commenters here could help you if you would listen.
And you completely missed the fact Derfner is pointing out that "self-defense" is the Israeli denial of the terrorism they commit against the Palestinians. You engage in that denial yourself, so I am not surprised that it went right over your head.
Yes, my thoughts also turned to Witty.
I agree about your point in re security, but think that it goes even farther than a lack of equal concern for Palestinian security. Palestinians are not just expected to give up any security concerns of their own, they are expected to give up basic human rights in order to placate Israeli security concerns. The internal checkpoints, the closures, the curfews are all violations of the Palestinian's basic rights, and all justified by Israeli worries about "security".
When Palestinian land is taken to build Jewish settlements, yet additional land is taken around those settlements so that the Jewish settler's have a "security" zone around them on which Palestinians can not tread. If the settlers expand into this security zone, then more land is taken from the Palestinians to create a new "security zone".
Jewish Israeli "security" always trumps Palestinian rights, no matter how basic the right. Thus, the Israeli government will justify killing 60,000 chickens in Gaza, further worsening the already dire food situation there, as necessary to its "security". And, sadly, many will blindly believe.
The term "semitic" is not spurious but it does not refer to ethnic groups but to groups of languages sharing a similar background and origin. Included in the group are the languages of Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic and Anharic, among others.
One more paragraph from Segev's "The Seventh Million":
Two-thirds of the German Jewish population (over 400,000 out of approximately 600,000) escaped Germany for other countries prior to the outbreak of WWII. That means that during the height of the worldwide depression, many countries opened their borders to refugees. This is not a sign of indifference.
Some 50,000 or so went to Palestine, but they were required by the Jewish Agency to sign commitments to work the land in Palestine for 2 years in return for an immigration certificate.
Speaking of indifference, this is from Tom Segev's "The Seventh Million":
Could the Allied countries have done more for the refugees? Certainly. Do the Zionist agencies and their political offspring, the state of Israel, have any moral leg to stand on in criticizing the Allies, given their own indifference to those European Jews who weren't seen as a boon to their national project in Palestine, and also their own callous use of the refugees after WWII? No.
See Yosef Grodzinsky's "In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The Struggle between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II" for a detailed look at how insensitive the Zionists were to the needs of the survivors of the Holocaust, unless of course those needs could be used to advance their bid for statehood.
Two points here are necessary. Number one, the St. Louis did NOT return to Germany with its passengers. Four European countries- Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands- each took a share of the passengers . No passengers were forced to return to Germany, although the empty ship did eventually return there. Because of the ensuing world war, approximately a quarter to a third of the passengers eventually became victims of the war, but they were not victims of "allied indifference".
Point two, as Tom Segev revealed in his book "The Seventh Million", the Jewish Agency in Palestine was asked to take in the refugees. The Jewish Agency had control over who was allotted immigration certificates to Palestine. Britain issued the permits but the JA had ultimate control over who they went to. The JA refused to use those certificates to help the St. Louis passengers. At the time, not all certificates issued were being otherwise used, as there was just as much illegal immigration being encouraged and organized by the Zionists as there was legal immigration. So, yes, the US deserves approbation for not doing more for the St. Louis passengers (although the US was involved in negotiating the reception of the refugees in the aforementioned countries) but that approbation is highly hypocritical coming from the same Zionists that refused to help the passengers themselves.
Your own historical examples are incorrect and incomplete. The 1956 war ended with the US and the Soviet Union demanding that France, Britain and Israel, who had all colluded on an invasion of Egypt, withdraw from Egyptian territory. Britain and France did so right away, Israel was a harder nut to crack, so to speak, as it took several months to get them to leave. The US had to promise Israel that it would consider a closing of the Straits of Tiran to peaceful shipping an appropriate casus belli for Israel. The UN made no such statement, and in fact reiterated that the Straits were still considered Egyptian territory (they are less than 12 miles wide and Egypt thus considered them at the time to be part of her territorial waters at the time) until such time as international water rights were negotiated. This was in line with UN principles that territorial rights can not be acquired by war. This position did not change between the two wars, although Egypt did allow Israeli ships to pass through the Straits during that time.
As for the UN troops along the border on the Egyptian side, Israel had no say over there position there. They were there at the request and with the acquiescence of Egypt. Sovereign countries do NOT have the right to insist on UN troops on their neighbor's soil. That is why there were no UN troops on the Israeli side, because Israel refused to allow them to be there, and Egypt had no right to demand that they be there. Nasser asked for the UN troops at Sharm-el-Sheik to be removed, as was his right as the sovereign leader of Egypt, and the UN decided to remove all troops, including those along the border with Israel. This was not the request of Egypt. Israel protested, but could have asked for the UN troops to be redeployed on the Israeli side, but it refused to do so.
Egypt announced it was closing the Straits of Tiran to any ships carrying goods to the Israeli port of Eilat, after Israel threatened Syria, and violated Syrian airspace by shooting down two Syrian jets over the Syrian capital of Damascus. Nasser stated that it was his right to do so, and was willing to have that right adjudicated on an expedited basis at the World Court. Egyptian diplomats were in Washington negotiating with the US which was attempting to solve the issue by diplomacy when Israel attacked the Egyptian air force on the ground.
One of early precursors to the war is little mentioned but I suggest that anyone who claims that Israel was merely engaged in a pre-emptive attack should look up the Samu incident.
If this action (Samu) was taken against Israel instead of by Israel, or for that matter if this action had been taken by any other country against its neighbor, it would have been taken as a serious act of war. But because it was Israel that did this and not any other country, people in the US still believe the tripe that Israel's attack on Egypt was merely a pre-emptive act of self-defense, and most know nothing of this major attack on Jordanian civilians, or the following attacks on Syria. Israel was hoping to provoke a war, and when it couldn't do so, it started one by itself.
You are being way too generous, potsherd. A much better arrangement would be to banish Richard from his house. You can allow Mrs Witty to stay, as long as she's willing to sleep on the floor and acknowledge that the house is really YOURS and she is merely a potential fifth columnist that you have graciously allowed to stay in your home as long as she doesn't complain. Witty can go next door and live with the neighbors and if the neighbors won't take him in, then its really not your fault that his neighbors are such horrible and uncaring people that they won't take in a refugee. You, in the meantime, can invite some of your cousins to come live in Witty's other bedrooms, thus showing everyone what a kind and caring soul you are. Of course, Witty should not ever be allowed to return to his house. After all, "shit happens" and he just has to learn to move on.
Not true, The vast majority was private Arab lands. From the September 3rd, 1947 report to the UN General Assembly by the UN Special Committee on Palestine, paragraph 164 of their appraisal:
Source
Here is a map copiled from the British Mandate government's "Village Statistics" monograph of 1945, listing the percentages of ownership by subdistricts in Palestine . It makes clear that most land was private land. It does show a category for public land but, as it points out, not all "public land" was state land.
Bedouin land in the Negev fell under this category, as the land was held communally under a usufructary system. The British Mandate government acknowledged during their control as "state' agent that the Negev lands were held by the Bedouins, and were not considered State land. Also, numerous villages held title to the lands around their villages in a communal fashion. This land was likewise not State Land. But even if you expand and abuse the meaning of public lands to equate it to "state" land, still, the majority of land in Palestine prior to the Nakba was private Arab land.
The British Mandate government estimated the size of "state domain" to be approximately 4% of Mandate Palestine.
People who are expelled don't need help "escaping". So I take it that you have abandoned your lie that Arab Jews were "expelled"? Or do you want to have it both ways, as many Zionists do. On second thought, many Zionists want it 3 opposing ways. Jews everywhere longed to return to Israel, but Arab Jews needed to be expelled first before discovering this longing, and they had trouble getting expelled in a timely fashion, so they had to rely on their fellow Jews to help them escape to Israel. That about covers it doesn't it? Does any of that really make any logical sense? Or is it purely an emotional argument, meant to bypass reason?
Ah, more tired old hasbara lines. Jordan gave all Palestinians in the West Bank full citizenship rights. Egypt was more harsh towards those living in Gaza, but neither country stole Palestinian land for the use of their own citizens. Jordan was a poor country and had to absorb thousands of refugees without any compensation. (As opposed to Israel, which used the confiscated Palestinian property and businesses as well as reparation payments from Germany to support the influx of olim. ) Despite this, the standard of living in the West Bank and Gaza is lower than it was during Jordanian and Egyptian rule. You haven't ever been to the West Bank, have you? You just repeat propaganda points as if they excuse the horrible conditions that Israel has imposed on the Occupied Territories for over 40 years. The Israeli occupation has been belligerent and in violation of the Geneva Conventions for decades. Even if you truly believed the crap you wrote, it does not excuse what Israel has done.
Sand's book discusses the changing meanings of the word "people" that have existed over time, and discusses its use today as an equivalent to the word "nation".
From Sand's book, discussing another book by prominent Israeli authors that sought to justify Israel as a democratic state of the Jews:
I've gotten about half way through the book now and I would say that your interpretation is generally correct. Sand also points out that there was no massive Jewish exile by the Romans, and that the Jewish historiography adopted and expanded on by the Zionists and Israel was really an invention of some 19th Century Jewish historians and intellectuals who were caught up in the contemporary craze of nationalism. In essence, he is saying that the Zionist history of the Jews being one people ( a nation) forced into exile 2000 years ago and longing to return is merely a historical myth created to justify both the creation of Israel and the expulsion of non-Jews from the territory that the Zionists wished to possess. Tony Judt has a blurb on the book jacket and it seems to me to be an accurate summation of the book so far.
Do you have any idea whether Phil considers himself Jewish in the religious sense? Of course not.
Of course, Mooser then proceded to make half of thefirst 45 comments on the topic. Are you going to do the same, giving us numerous posts about your uninformed opinion about a book you haven't read?
You don't understand what the book is about but seem to think that Sand has an opinion on whether Phil is a Jew or not and seem to think that posting your ignorance is a good thing.
Sand's point is that the Israeli idea of a Jewish "nationality", invented by the Zionists, comprised supposedly of one people who trace their genetic line back to ancient Israel and were exiled from that land is contrary to both history and biology. It has nothing to do with whether Phil considers himself a Jew or not. It has everything to do with whether Phil thinks he has a genetic or historical connection that allows him as a Jew to displace those who are not Jews from the lands of Israel/Palestine. But Phil doesn't think that. I suspect that you do.
WJ, if you have to put false words into others' mouths to make your point, then maybe you should consider that you are projecting and not adding to the conversation. You're descending into Chris Berel territory here. I would say that, although I have disagreed with most of them, up until now your arguments have been of a better caliber than this.
Mooser, you are falling off the deep end here. You are the one here who continually announces your Jewishness, and you usually make crass stereotypical jokes about yourself while doing it, and at the same time you insist that there is no such thing as Jewishness. So, you've given us a conundrum and D is asking for your solution.
I saw that first comment of Mooser's and figured it to be a first attempt at gatekeeping on the topic. Mooser is afraid of where the discussion might go, and that was his first volley. Since returning to see the comments this afternoon, I was supremely UNsurprised to see that he is the most frequent commenter here, despite his professed busy schedule. We are straying from Mooser's approved historical line , which is that Zionism is a merely a sub-project of British Imperialism, despite the fact that Zionism predates Britain's post WWI control of Palestine, and that the early Zionists were petitioning the Ottoman Empire in the same way before WWI that they petitioned the British in the post war period.
Any attempt to insist that any two or more Jews could have gotten together and come up with the idea on their own is sacrilege to Mooser, because he knows that if you get two Jews together you will come up with 3 opposing ideas. Totally unlike, say, Americans, who are all "racist chickenhawks", and can be easily and acceptably generalized about.
------
I'm just beginning on Sand's book. I was sold on the author's writing style after reading the introduction, where he recites the identity stories of his father and father-in-law and some of his friends and students, none of which comfortably fit the Zionist myth of Jewish (or non-Jewish) identity, and all of which cry out for a need for an Israeli identity separated from an ethno-religious one.
I also was sold on his quote from the book jacket, "I could not have gone on living in Israel without writing this book. I don't think books can change the world - but when the world begins to change, it searches for different books."
I also chanced upon the last few paragraphs of the book.I'll only quote the last 3, although the paragraphs that precede it are just as profound, I think.
If it went to an American, then someone like Greg Mortenson would have been an infinitely better recipient that Obama. And the money would have gone to a great cause.
It goes back further than the settler's version. "Sharing" was not the attitude of any of the Zionists who expelled three quarters of a million Palestinians in 1948 and continue to deny their right to return some 60 years later. The settler's are simply expanding on the original "share". ("My share is everything, your share is nothing. See, we shared." )
In case you doubt my answer to number 2, google "rocket fire sderot 2009" and you'll find incidents in May and August of this year, and probably others, well after the end of Cast Lead.
1. Yes, with minor exceptions.
2. Yes, with minor exceptions.
3. There is no difference to answers 1 and 2.
You must have missed the reports. The IDF soldiers (the only "Israelis" there) shot at the animals instead of feeding them, killing some of them and terrorizing the rest. They also trashed the offices, defaced the walls, ripped out the computer hard drives and ripped a toilet off the wall. It doesn't look like the IDF soldiers felt any sorrier for the starving zoo animals than they did for the starving Palestinians of Gaza. Nice set of values you've got there, OJ.
WJ, I don't hate Israel and I think you are simply lashing out when you claim that I do. I don't like the country's form of government (ethnocracy) because it is so physically and emotionally damaging to those who are not of the favored ethnicity/religion and ultimately morally damaging to those of the favored e/r who must continually justify the unjustifiable. I think that one of the ways necessary to end the in justice is to expose the truth and talk about it, without sugarcoating or apologetics. That is not hatred. I feel the same way about the global injustices that the US has caused, not just in the Middle East, which is usually tied up with an unhealthy relationship with Israel, but also in Asia, and South America and other places, which have nothing to do with Israel. I don't hate the US either. If seeing the truth is hate, then what is love? Blind and ignorant adoration? Denial? I think that Israel can eventually get to a place where it is a democracy for all of its citizens, and the actions of Taayush, and AATW and others
give me hope, but Israel isn't going to get there by whitewashing what it is now.
I didn't compare Ahmadinejad to Moses, and I never would. (And I believe that Moses is most likely a mythical figure, not a real human.) But I don't find Ahmadinejad to be particularly different (or worse) than 90% of the politicians in the world today. Perhaps he is a mediocre man, but if threats of attack against a country are legitimized simply because that country has mediocre leaders, then why not threaten the US, which has an abundance of mediocre leaders, most of them sellouts to monied interests. We really don't want to go down that road.
I don't pretend to know a whole lot about what is going on in Iran, although I have read some, but if people are going out to protest on the streets, then logically that indicates that those protesters are not afraid, so to assume that everyone who is polled by telephone is afraid to tell the truth is to live in a fantasy. And if everyone is afraid then why didn't they all claim to support Ahmadinejad, instead of just 64% , and why did only 81% claim to be at least somewhat satisfied with the electoral process? Dissent doesn't happen in a country where everyone is afraid.
From what I have read it seems likely that 1) there is some level of Iranian dissent and dissatisfaction with the government and 2) external interests (US and other) probably provoked and encouraged some of that dissent, thus making it impossible to tell how much dissatisfaction is real and how much was manufactured. Actual proof of election rigging seems non-existent and the only cogent arguments offered all relate to probability based on previous elections, which ignore specific differences between this election and those previous ones.
Ahmadinejad is not the boogie-man. Saying so does not mean that we are elevating him to the status of a great statesman. There is a vast landscape between the two and most of the politicians of the world fall in between. We really don't live in a Manichean world, despite what some want to believe.
And how do you know that everyone polled was "scared for their lives"? You just seem to have a competing fairy tale you want to believe.
Excuse me for chuckling at this. I would not compare Ahmadinejad to Moses, but, really, wasn't Moses pretty autocratic? Weren't the Israelites governed by a theocracy? I find it to be pretty much a denial of history to claim that Moses was a believer in democracy. If you want to state differences between Moses and Ahmadinejad, you really made all the wrong points.
-----
As to Ahmadinejad's "holocaust denial", it seems much more likely to me that if anything he's a holocaust revisionist, and frankly it shows a total lack of a true belief in freedom of speech to use his position vis-a-vis the Holocaust as an excuse to kill more innocent people. Yes, lets extol the virtues of freedom of speech, unless you say something that we don't like, in which case we have a right to kill you and a multitude of your countrymen. Lets kill a lot of people just because one of their leaders deny that a lot of other people were killed 65 years ago. Really? Is that supposed to pass for some principled stand?-'cuz it sure sounds like morally inexcusable blood lust to me.
I'm really not surprised that Holocaust revisionism or denial has an appeal for some Muslims and Arabs. Israel uses it as an excuse to oppress the Palestinians. Israel has consistently, since its inception, lied about the actions it has taken, claimed that it never expelled any Palestinians, claimed that it was militarily outnumbered and outarmed in 1948 when it wasn't, claimed that Egypt invaded and attacked it in 1967, when instead it destroyed the Egyptian air force on the ground in Egypt as the first act of war. It publicly claimed that no IDF soldiers were involved in the massacre at Qibya when it knew that was a lie, it lies about the weapons it uses, and the ones it possesses. It's lied for decades about what goes on it the Occupied Territories. It claims that Palestinians are equal citizens in Israel when they are not. The list could go on and on. Israel lies. Its been Israeli government policy since the very beginning. Most Americans may not be aware of this, but many Arabs are aware of the legion of lies that Israel puts out. So its really not surprising that Israel, which is like the boy who cried wolf here, would be suspected of lying about the Holocaust.
Its vanity, Richard. Everyone here recognizes that but you, apparently.
Actually, Richard,you're not able to criticize without demonizing either, although you do manage to do so sometimes. What you do manage to do consistently, including in your above two sentence post, is announce that you consider yourself superior to other posters here. "I am. " It is a form of subtle demonizing, and you use it consistently.
As for my two cents, any symposium on "Jewish values" that features Dennis Prager, Alan Dershowitz, and Elie Wiesel is engaged in cheapening and co-opting those values. I consider it equal to having a symposium on "Christian values" that features Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich and pretends that "Christian values" equal jingoistic Republican values.
It was more than just witnessed to by human rights groups. It was confirmed by the IDF itself.
No, he just pointed out your own hypocrisy in pointing out violence from the weaker side, while you are an apologist for violence from the stronger side. You blame Hamas for "provoking" Israel into the invasion of Gaza, and never blame Israel for its massive violence. In your world, Hamas bears responsibility for its own violence as well as the much greater violence that Israel commits. Israeli violence is never the responsibility of the Israeli government. That's having a double standard and Shingo was pointing it out.
Yes, but not really surprising. I am ashamed of my government on this.
I did catch that. I'm sure Tibi's heard every positive stereotype about Jews and every negative one about Arabs over and over and over again in the Knesset. The sanctimoniousness must be completely overwhelming at times.
So sorry to hear about your accident! And glad to know that you are making progress. First priority is always to take care of yourself, but your writings are truly missed by many. And I'm glad to see you commenting here as well.
Best wishes for a complete recovery!
Diane,
You haven't posted much at your website lately(Lawrence of Cyberia). I miss your commentary there!
Just now? Wasn't that part of her job at the NYT? She sure acted as if it was.
My understanding was that the "anti-semitic" charge was thrown around by just about by everyone in Israel, just as often against other Israelis as against foreigners, to the point that it really had no meaning there, other than as an easy slur to toss out.
I can understand the Orthodox temptation to claim to be the "real Jews". Some Fundamentalist Christians do the same thing vis-a-vis Christianity. And no one that I know claims to be Christian by ethnicity, or claims to be a Christian atheist, while the correlated claim is prevalent in Israel among those identifying as Jews.
Agree. I also see a side elephant.
In the US, an opinion such as this would be attacked as anti-semitic if it wasn't coming from Jews with a strong attachment to Israel. It wouldn't even see the light of day. Even more so if the opinion was addressing the greater problem of religious freedom and equality for non-Jews in Israel, and arguing for the same separation of church and state that we take such pride in here.
From a perusal of the Hiddush website (Gold's group) it obvious that their idea of "diversity" and "religious equality" only applies to Jews. There is absolutely no mention anywhere at the site that there are citizens of Israel who are not Jews or wanna-be Jews, and yet it claims to be for "religious freedom and equality" in Israel.
Frankly, the group merely illustrates the core problem of Israel and its apologists. In their world, those who are not Jews don't count, whether in a discussion of Israeli "democracy" or when discussing religious freedom. Only Jews are important in the oxymoron that is "Jewish Democracy".
From the group's statement of purpose.
I'd be ashamed to be so blatantly obtuse as they so proudly declare.
As I understand it, Glenn is homosexual and his SO (marriage partner) is Brazilian. Laws in the US that prevent him from bringing his partner here, and having his marriage recognized in the US is what keeps him returning to Brazil. This is not a big secret. He has discussed some of this before in his Salon column, I think.
Mooser, I think this is why you are getting a bad reputation here. You put words in other people's mouths so that they can more easily fit your stereotypes. Try listening, instead of leaping to stereotypical conclusions just so you can mock someone.
I think you have misread Gideon Levy. You quote his final paragraph as if it is his first. and them you accuse him of OK'ing the occupation and viewing Gaza as merely a PR disaster, when this is far from what he was saying there, and diametrically opposed to this long held positions which he has continued to brave express despite being harassed by the mainstream. I suggest you read a collection of his other pieces over the years. I''m surprised you haven't heard of him before.
Gideon Levy articles
The problem with this analysis is it ignores the fact that for the most part Jewish Israeli hearts were already hardened to the plight of three quarters of a million Palestinian refugees in 1948 and 250,000 more in 1967, and 33 years of brutal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza before the start of the second intifada in 2001. They were likewise already hardened to the 13 unarmed Israeli Palestinian citizens who were gunned down in October of 2001 by Israeli police, and certainly already hardened to the pain of the Palestinians of the occupied territories who were subjected to over a million bullets fired by IDF forces (estimated by the IDF itself) in that same month of October, and also subjected to invasion of all their principle cities by Israeli tanks, troops and helicopters. The suicide bombings didn't begin until February of 2002, many long months after Israel had decimated Palestinian civilian life in the territories without any outpouring of empathy from the majority of Israeli Jews.
As much as many people on both sides wish to believe that the recent Gaza invasion was one step beyond, it really wasn't different in tactics or cold calculation than any other IDF action from 1948 on, and most Israelis supported and justified all those actions. Most Israelis have been too caught up in justifying the unjustifiable for too many decades now to exhibit anything other than a hard-heart when it comes to Palestinians.
I thought you confessed earlier that you don't "look Jewish" and therefore non-Jews are constantly privately sharing their anti-semitic feelings with what they take for their fellow goy? Which one is it? Or are all your statements just part of your schtick, changeable at any time depending on what you think will get the best laugh, or be the most provocative?
Richard, I don't watch TV either. If I did, I doubt that I would have heard of Ben-Artzi there. You may very well read widely, but you have admitted that you refuse to read certain information, i.e. the Goldstone Report and the various Breaking the Silence testimonies, among other things, and you have very wide gaps in your understanding, which you fill with what are probably very comforting assumptions for you about how similar Israel is to the US, rather than filling them with more inquiry and reputable information. Your problem may not be one of lack of reading but rather a lack of absorption of those facts that make you uncomfortable or conflict with your fantasy about Israel. Ben-Artzi's struggle to get the IDF to recognize conscientious objection may not have entered the MSM, but it was widely reported on blogs like Phil's and Richard Silverstein's, which you regularly read and post on.
Perhaps you should begin to question your own assertions, since you have proven to post "embarrassingly inaccurate" comments yourself. As you illustrated above, the information that proved your statement on conscientious objection was flat out wrong was quite simple to come by with a simple internet search, and yet you posted the falsehood. You are applying higher standards to others than you are applying to yourself. There's nothing wrong with applying high standards, its just that when you don't apply them at least equally to yourself (or those things you identify strongly with) you are.....well, a hypocrite.
I posted before seeing your belated apology. At least it is one small step for you and you are to be commended for making that small step.
I would urge you, though, to realize that you are not at all well informed about Israel or Israeli law and it would perhaps be best for you and in the interest of greater knowledge to test your own assumptions and knee-jerk reactions and seek more knowledge before passing yourself off as a source of information on a subject on which you are ill-informed.
Good grief, Richard, I'm beginning to think your reading comprehension is next to zero. From the link YOU provided.
* There is no recognition of the right to conscientious objection for men, and an incomplete recognition of the right to conscientious objection for women.
* The procedures governing the hearing and deciding of cases of conscientious objectors are unfair and unknown (to the public).
* The imprisonment of (male) conscientious objectors is a violation of the human rights to conscientious objection, derived from art 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
* The common practice of repeated imprisonment of conscientious objectors for the same offence is in breach of article 14, paragraph 7, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
* At present the ongoing attempt to force conscientious objectors into betraying or changing their convictions by means of escalating the tactic of repeated imprisonment is of major concern. This is in breach of article 14, paragraph 7, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and contrary to Commission on Human Rights resolution 2002/45.
And yet you stated a falsehood that Israel has a conscientious objection statute just like the US and then provided a link that proved your falsehood. You knowingly posted a lie. Go ahead, wear your badge proudly. You've certainly "earned it".
Once again, Rivhard, you prove you know nothing about Israel. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION IN ISRAEL. That is why Jonathan Ben-Artzi spent a year and a half in jail, despite the fact that he requested conscientious objector status and volunteered for alternative civilian service every time he was called up. That is why these two young Shministim women were imprisoned for two weeks and then declared mentally unfit. This should be common knowledge for anyone who claims to be well read on Israel, but yet again you prove that you indulge in your concept of a fantasy Israel, where military conscription is just the same as it is in the US.
The US no longer has a draft. Israel has a "universal draft" which only subjects certain religio-ethnic groups to subscription, with exemptions for those who are Jewish religious students, There is no conscientious objector status allowed, nor is alternative civilian service allowed. Males are required to serve 3 years, women slightly less than 2. Males soldiers are required to perform reserve service up to age 51 and females up to age 24. There is very little that is similar about the rules of military service in Israel and the rules in the US. If you would take off your blinders you could see that. Instead you happily close your eyes and lecture others on their lack of vision and attempt to spread your ignorance as if it was some kind of profound truth. Do you really wonder why you are labeled a hypocrite?
Shebaa Farms, which has been militarily occupied by Israel since 1967, is claimed as Lebanese territory by Lebanon AND Syria, although Syria and Lebanon are not willing to submit exact demarcations of their border in that area until Israel ceases its occupation of same. They have proposed that the area be put under UN jurisdiction while the borders are finalized. Israel, the occupying party, has refused.
The UN's position used to be that the Shebaa Farms area is Syrian territory, but after the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War the UN sent a cartographer to the area to delineate the area and, according to a Deutsche Press-Agentur report on October 27th, 2007:
If I may jump in here, I'm guessing that Citizen is referring to "gatekeeping" where any criticism of Israel is kept from wider circulation. I've heard personally about it and read about numerous examples of American Jews who cast a critical eye on Israel being denied access to forums and money unless they quit their criticism. This censorship is usually instigated by mainstream Jewish interest groups here. Phil himself was a victim of this. Things are opening up now, but the problem was quite severe a decade or two ago, and it is partially responsible for the vast ignorance that we witness in the US today about what really goes on in Israel and the Occupied Territories.
Shmuel,
I've mostly missed on reading this thread until now and was happy to find a lively and wide-ranging discussion here, instead of the gatekeeping and threats of banning that worried me and caused me to speak up in the earlier thread. I've agreed with much of your viewpoint in general here, but if I may I'd like to add my insights to a few of your points.
I totally agree with this point, and take it to apply universally, which implies of course that taking Israeli and/or American Jews to task for their complicity in the oppression of the Palestinians and the encouragement of anti-Arab hatred is legitimate, but of course it is not legitimate to link this to a supposed universal Jewish or Israeli malevolence. However, my point would be that many Israeli and American Jews make a connective leap between criticism from non-Jews and a belief in Jewish malevolence that most times does not exist in the mind of the critic.
I can't really speak about Chris Moore's belief system, as I missed most of the exchange, and the little I read from him seemed to blame "the left" of malevolence and hypocrisy, as distinct from "the Jews", but if I knew him better I might be inclined to say he has anti-semitic ideas. I would say that he has a conspiratorial mindset, and I consider that a negative, but not necessarily worthy of a banishment. I think most of the rest here have easily admitted that misdeeds by Jews as individuals or in groups do not imply some global Jewish malevolence. The complaint that I have raised and have seen raised by others is that criticizing those misdeeds themselves is often assummed by others to be by implication a denunciation of all Jews everywhere, when really it is an aknowledgement, or at least a plea for acknowledgement that Jews as a group or individually are equaly capable of gross inhumanity as any other group. That is not anti-semitic in the least. Just as often as there are negative stereotypes about Jews there are positive stereotypes as well, and pointing out that the positive stereotypes are, well, just steretypes, certainly does not imply that the negative ones are any less sterotypical either.
That is why I think that discussions like this should not be banned or discouraged, and I think that your Italian analogy is a good one to follow. Universal demonization by race or religion or nationality should be addressed and challenged but it can't be done by simply banning any discussion of human negatives for fear of hearing from bigots.
I assume that I am one of those to whom you addressed this question, as I had criticized one or two of your earlier statements. Is my house in order? I strive for it to be but admit to the usual human failings. I try to check myself regularly for biases, and admit that they are easy to fall into. So far, I have found that using the test of "changing places" has helped me to identify and overcome some of my inherent biases. In other words, if the protagonists were swapped would I still come down on the same side of an issue, or does the identity of the protagonists lead me to change my view of an issue? Its probably not a perfect system but so far it has worked for me. I am female, grew up as a Unitarian, have a sister who chose to convert to Orthodox Judaism and move to Israel. I saw her grow more bigoted as she made the change in religion and nation, but don't take that as an indictment of all of Judaism, and I am well-aware that there are likewise some Christian Churches that encourage the same kind of bigotry that she picked up from her rabbi. And even though Unitarianism is very non-dogmatic, I'm well aware that a Unitarian is capable of being just as big an @sshole as anyone else. I'm now an agnostic with some atheistic and some pagan leanings, and would probably tag myself as liberal. Again, none of that provides me with a talisman against human shortcomings. I strive as much as possible to find my own identity rather than tie mine up with any group I might logically be catergorized into, but am very aware that identity is oftentimes a social construct more than an individual one. If you catch me displaying what you think is a bias of mine, please point it out. It can only help me.
Test of the spa filters that don't see to like me lately.
My above post was addressed to comment 37 by kylebisme. I was having difficulties quoting his(her?) comment without having the spam filters accusing me of spamming.
None of that information in your second paragraph is at all relevant to the charge that Polanski admitted to, namely statutory rape. Even if the 13 year old provided the quaaludes and alcohol herself and begged for the sex, none of which is alleged, Polanski would still be guilty of statutory rape. The legal reasoning for such a charge is that a minor child has neither the maturity nor the required sense of independent self to give real informed consent to a sexual act with an adult.
If the judge was at fault, as you allege and this was widely known, then appeals of any excessive punishment could have been made after sentencing, to a higher court. Polanski clearly had the legal firepower and the money to appeal any sentencing, or any alleged error committed by the judge. Your arguments really don't change the facts of the matter.
I'm not sure what the maximum penalty was then for statutory rape, but nowadays the maximum is 2 to 4 years in prison, so even if the judge was biased in favor of "throwing the book" at Polanski, he couldn't have sentenced him to any more than 4 years in prison, which could have been lessened to about half that for good behavior in prison. Not exactly a sentence that could be reasonably defined as persecution beyond all reason for a man who admitted plying a 13 year old with drugs and booze and then having sex with her.
If you are admittedly not an expert on Atzmon, g, perhaps its best not to throw around the epithets "anti-semite" and "self-hating Jew". Better to read Atzmon yourself than rely on someone else, particularly Greenstein, who has a personal animosity towards Atzmon for the latter's criticism of Greenstein's self-identification as a "Jewish Marxist", which Atzmon believes to be oxymoronic. I don't agree with everything that Atzmon says but I find his analysis refreshingly different and admire his willingness to question taboos.
And as a slightly off-topic comment, may I say that I find the term "self-hating Jew" to be particularly anti-semitic itself. It seems to assume that no Jew must think differently than any other Jew on certain proscribed subjects or else they are in conflict with their inner selves---as if every Jew's inner self is in essence exactly the same. And that assumption is truly anti-semitic.
I understand that this representation of history is uncritically accepted thought, but it really isn't the truth. The "doors of the rest of the world" were not slammed shut, and most German Jews who fled in the 1930's did not ever go to Palestine.
From Segev, "The Seventh Million":
Was it easy to emigrate from Germany during the 1930's? Did other countries welcome the refugees with open arms? No. It was during the depression and many countries were loathe to accept any refugees for fear of conflicts with their own populations, and many were just uncaring. But, despite all that, most German Jews went to Western Europe or the US or Latin America, not to Palestine. So obviously, the doors were not slammed shut.
But it was no different in Palestine. Besides the British restriction on immigration certificates, instituted for fear of conflicts with the native Palestinian population, the Zionist organizations themselves were not really interested in immigrants unless they were of a Zionist mindset and/or could help in the Jewish nation-building in Palestine. In other words, they were no better than any other country in that regard. When the histories are written in 50 years or so, I believe that most will come to realize that Zionism, whih was disasterous for the Palestinians, also did little to really help the Jews, unless it first served other purposes, such as the building and maintenance of a Zionist state.
Yes. I'm absolutely certain that Mrs. Abu-Mastfa purposely gave birth to a baby with a heart-defect just so she could make the IDF look bad.
It's sad, isn't it, that we know all the lines that are used to justify Palestinian deaths?
It would be a good thing if you would apply those standards to yourself. You refuse to read the Goldstone report, and have not read Breaking the Silence, and you don't listen to hear what other posters motivations here are, you simply castigate them because they disagree with your own and then pretend to some moral superiority because you do nothing to upset or challenge the Israeli status quo.
For someone who claims to be well-read you are remarkably obtuse. There are numerous testimonies from former and current IDF soldiers, as well as from Btselem and CPT on the IDF's indifference to, or participation in, violence against Palestinians by the Jewish settlers in Hebron. Have you bothered to read any of the soldiers' testimonies from Breaking the Silence, or is that another source, alongside the Goldstone Report that you have no intention of reading?
Here are some samples:
1) "I’d come home, then go back to Hebron and feel as though I’d gone abroad,
really… as though in one go I simply cut to a totally different place. Whatever
I used to call democracy here, would simply vanish in Hebron. Jews did as
they pleased there, there were no laws. No traffic laws. Nothing. Whatever
they do there is done in the name of religion, and anything goes – breaking
into shops, that’s allowed… "
2) "First week, first time at the checkpoint, at the passage between the Palestinian
area and the street where only Jews can go. You need to have a fence. Those
guys, they have to stop, there’s a line, then they hand you their ID cards
through the fence, you check them, and let them through.
There was this guy with me who… We’d just finished advanced training,
got to the assignment and he yells, “Waqif! Stop!” The man didn’t quite
understand and advanced one more step. One extra step, and then he yells
again, “Waqif!” and the man freezes in fear. He didn’t quite understand what
the soldier said. Actually, it’s a procedure nobody pays attention to, stopping
them exactly on the line. So he decided that because the guy made this one
extra step… they should obey us, therefore he’ll be detained. I said to him,
“Listen, what are you doing?” he said, “No, no, don’t argue, at least not
in front of them, what are you doing, I’m not going to trust you anymore,
you’re not reliable”… Eventually one of the patrol commanders came over,
came from up there, and I spoke to him. I said, “Listen, what’s the deal, how
long do you want to detain him for?” He said, “Listen, you can do whatever
you want, whatever you feel like doing. If you feel there’s a problem with
what he’s done, if you feel something’s wrong, even the slightest thing, you
can detain him for as long as you want.” And then I got it, a man who’s been
in Hebron one week, it has nothing to do with rank, he can do whatever he
wants. He had been there a week, he was hardly even there, like… Really, he
had no idea what was going on there, he didn’t have a clue! He’d been there
a week! But everyone can do whatever they want, it’s like there are no rules,
everything is permissible."
3) "I was on routine security duty with recruits in Hebron. On our first day
we were patrolling in town, and the company commander showed me the
outposts etc., and I had no idea yet who’s who and what’s what. It was curfew,
the streets totally empty of Arabs, and a 12-year old kid with a skullcap and
side-curls was walking around, all jolly. He went into a yard, as we walked
by, and we saw the Arab family that lives in that house, sitting behind the
barred windows on the second floor, peeping out. In the garden of that house
grew a pomegranate tree. The kid picks a pomegranate, and throws it at the
window, breaking the glass right where they’re sitting. They yell at him from
upstairs, so he picks another pomegranate. I started stepping in his direction,
to stop him. I asked him to move away, perhaps lay a hand on his shoulder
to try and stop him. Two adults walked by just then, so I was glad I could
ask them to take the kid away, he was only causing trouble. To make a long
story short, they yelled at me for being just another leftie-softie soldier: “Go
handle Arabs and leave us in peace” or something of that nature. Anyway,
another incident where you suddenly realize that the children’s violence is
nurtured by their environment."
4) "Concerning the IDF, the ease in which you actually do whatever you
want to do unsupervised, that is, enter people’s homes, conduct random
searches. Every officer, every commander can decide now I’m entering a
home, ordering the family out, ransacking the house... In fact, I think that
in Hebron, I was disturbed and frightened most of all by the unregulated
and uncontrolled power, and the things it made people do. On one occasion
we were told: “Peace and quiet is not necessarily good, and if there isn’t
mayhem, we’ll create it.” To demonstrate power, to demonstrate that we are
everywhere. A soldier like me felt embarrassed in situations in which I was
confronted with adults, old people. There are things, I believe, that an army
shouldn’t do, like close schools; simply enter a school and: no school today.
Without asking too many questions. That’s it, in a nutshell."
5)"It was in the middle of an operation in Jabal Johar, actually in all of Hebron
but specifically in Jabal Johar, where my company took position. As part of
the house to house searches, there were lots of Border Police in the street.
One of them overhears some guy insulting a sergeant from my unit. So they
came and said, “No problem,” took the Palestinian and brought him back
about 20 minutes later. He’s trembling in fear. They tell him, “Okay, now
start singing ‘Carnival in the Nahal’ [name of an army unit].”
Q: How did you feel then?
I didn’t like it. It looked like everybody there thought it was funny, so okay, I
just sat there and kept quiet. I won’t start fighting with my comrades.”
Q: Why did you keep quiet?
I don’t know. Maybe it wasn’t important enough for me to say anything… I
don’t know. You just take a deep breath and keep doing what you’re doing.
It’s the duty with which I’ve been entrusted. Right now I’m just a little cog
in the wheel. I do my job and live from one furlough to the next, until my
service is over. That’s how it was all the time."
6) " In one of our conversations with the Border Police in Hebron, two of them
were bragging about how much they liked to take a Palestinian whom they
caught throwing stones or just throwing a word at them, or looking at them
the wrong way. They’d put him into an armored jeep and then hit him with
the spark-mufflers of their weapons in the chest or the stomach or the neck.
Then they’d bet how fast they could take the turn in the road where they’d
throw him out of the armored jeep. If you ask me, then yes, it really bothered
me, but what could I do about it?
Q: You know that the Border Police did this to someone afterwards and
he was killed. They murdered someone.
That’s very sad. And, so?
Q: Did you recognize any of the murderers, the guys who are standing
trial now?
No. I didn’t recognize anyone. I don’t know them. I just heard ‘em talking. "
7)"Be it during the day or at night, whenever I feel like it, we choose a house on
the map, according to the geographic position of our unit at the time. We feel
like it, that’s the one we choose, we go on in. “Jaysh, jaysh… iftah al bab”
[army, army, open the door] and they open the door. We move all the men
into one room, all the women into another, and place them under guard. The
rest of the unit does whatever they please, except destroy equipment—it goes
without saying—no helping yourself to anything, and causing as little harm
to the people as possible, as little physical damage as possible.
If I try to imagine the reverse situation: if they had entered my home—not
a police force with a warrant, but a unit of soldiers, if they had burst into my
home, shoved my mother and little sister into my bedroom, and forced my
father and my younger brother and me into the living room, pointing their
guns at us, laughing, smiling, and we didn’t always understand what the
soldiers were saying while they emptied the drawers and searched through
my things. Oops it fell, broken... all kinds of photos, of my grandmother and
grandfather... all kinds of sentimental things that you wouldn’t want anyone
else to see, wouldn’t want them infringing on your privacy, your home is
your place.
There is no justification for this, it definitely should not be happening. If
there is a suspicion that a terrorist has entered a house, okay, so be it. But
just to enter a home, any home: here I’ve chosen one, look what fun, there’s
a number on it in Arabic numerals that I can’t even read. I felt like going in
there. We go in, we check it out, we cause a bit of injustice, we’ve certainly
asserted our military presence… and then we move on."
8) "Q: What were the army’s procedures? The settlers run wild, what
then?
Crass, cowardly procedures. At the end of the day, this is the source of all
evil in this city at present, that’s what gives the settlers their power. The
leniency, the crassness and cowardliness with which the army handles them.
Since there is no law in effect there, they can do whatever they please, one
always feels as if the brigade commander is saying to himself: “I have a
million other things to deal with, this is not important. We’re not messing
with them. So they’ll burn another shop, trash another home, occupy another
dwelling, no big deal.”
9)" I had a friend who carried a weapon equipped with a grenade launcher, and
everybody with a launcher got ammunition for dispersing demonstrations.
[And he] got lots of tear gas grenades, and he really liked to fire this gas,
so he would also steal them from other guys who were equipped with gas
grenade launchers, and he would fire them whenever he came on duty and
before he went off. He would simply fire on groups of people who were just
standing around and talking, to see them running and coughing, he got a kick
out of it.
Q: How did the guys in his unit react to that?
I don’t know, even the ones who were bothered by it didn’t lay into him
about it or… I don’t know, everybody just took it as normal."
10) "But one of the things that really bothered all of us, was this aspect of
authority that we did not have to deal with the settlers. I am a soldier. I don’t
know how you arrest a Jewish person. I don’t know the law. I wasn’t told I’d
ever have to do anything like that. In Hebron I was actually told, “This is not
your job. That’s what the blue (civilian) police is there for”. But the police
wasn’t there. I remember that the chief of police explained to us that they
don’t have the budget to post enough policemen to answer any call. So we
were very helpless, and that was a policy decision. By the same token they
could have decided that we wouldn’t be so helpless, that we’d have more
police on the spot, or give us the authority to arrest settlers. I’d see children
doing something and had to call the police, I couldn’t really do anything
myself. I’d have to catch them myself on the spot, so I catch one, and my
partner catches the second kid, and meanwhile, another three kids go around
and throw stones at some house, and no one would do anything about them
because they’re minors. The police would arrive only after an hour, because
they come from afar. And the police would sometimes… I mean, I’d report
some incident, then a policeman would arrive, debrief me, sometimes with
a video camera, but the bottom line was – nothing special. I mean, if they’d
wanted to, they could. In this case, they didn’t especially want to…"
11) "That morning, a fairly big group arrived in Hebron, around 15 people or
so, of Jews from France. They were all religious Jews, French Jews, they
didn’t really know Hebrew, and spoke half English, half Hebrew, and half
French. They were in a good mood, really having a great time, and I spent
my entire shift following this gang of Jews around and trying to keep them
from destroying the town. In other words, this is what they were busy doing
for hours. They just wandered around, picked up every stone they saw off
the ground, and started throwing them in Arabs’ windows, and overturning
whatever they came across. A gang of Jews from France simply came along,
to the area we were responsible for, and did whatever they wanted. And
there’s no horror story here… he didn’t catch some Arab and kill him or
anything like that, but what bothered me about this story is that along came
a gang of people from France, and I have no idea how in tune they are with
what’s going on here, and without… maybe someone told them that there’s
a place in the world where you can just, I don’t know… that a Jew can take
all of his rage out on the Arab people, and simply do anything, do whatever
he wants. To come to a Palestinian town, and do what ever he wants, and the
soldiers will always be there to back him up. Because that was actually my
job. I guess I could have tried to keep the rock from being thrown, something
I can’t do, of course. I couldn’t run after them all the time, not successfully at
least. But my real actual job was to protect them and make sure that nothing
happened to them. And that’s how the job was also explained to us. Not to
stop them. To try and stop them. But mostly to protect them."
There are many more here and here.
Good point. Phil, in referring to the Mississippi 1963 photo, would you have asked "how whites could become so brutalized"? I doubt it.
From my perspective, a closed and shuttered discourse, or the denial of any discourse at all, is much more likely to lead to anti-semitism than an open one. You can't lead someone away from anti-semitism, or any kind of bigotry, by insisting that certain subjects can not be allowed to be discussed. Frankly, such a shutting off, or instant name calling without listening to what is being said, is much more likely to convince some people that anti-semitism isn't so bad after all. (And to my mind, it is no worse than any other bigotry, but any form of bigotry is a bad thing.)
What I see here is too many people having knee-jerk reactions to any criticism of Jews or Jewishness, inferring that anyone who is not Jewish and makes such a criticism is applying it universally to each and every Jew and/or positing that it is some genetic trait. I haven't heard anyone here make those points, but I've heard a lot of strawman arguments against points that were not made.
Open discussion is a good thing, regardless of where it leads. I suspect that some people believe that any open discussion of the topic will lead to anti-semitism, which will necessarily in the end lead to oppression and pogroms, and this is why they feel the need to shut down discussions. But I believe that such thinking is not only faulty but is at its root just as bigoted as the anti-semitism it fears. My two cents worth.
And I seriously doubt that either D.. or Cliff were talking about "alien Jewish thinking stuff". I believe you are knee-jerking and assuming you already "know" what they are saying and therefore don't have to actually listen to what they do say. I may or may not agree with their perspectives 100%, since it is hard to tell in a forum such as this exactly what others' thought processes are, but I see them as making valid and non-bigoted points that are worthy of more than name-calling in response. I believe they are attempting to apply the same rules of acceptable criticism for other cultures to Jewish culture and are thus arguing AGAINST the idea that Jews are alien or exist outside of the rules that apply to all others.
Then you were "replying" to something that was not said by D.. and assuming that he was "defending " Chris, or agreeing in toto with Chris' viewpoint simply because he disagreed with yours. Sensitivity is a plus for everyone involved, except when over sensitivity to one's own concerns leaves one insensitive to others.
Of course the racism is not unique. Not much in the world is. But to deny that it exist is just as insensitive as claiming it is universal. And D.. made no statement indicating that he believes in either the uniqueness or universality you are ascribing to him.
But Zionism IS an expression of Jewish supremacist ideas. This does not mean that every Jew is a supremacist, or that the only threads of Judaism, or "Jewishness" more generally, are supremacist ones, or that Jews are the only people who have ideas that put more worth or value on their own affinity group than others. But the idea of Jewish supremacism exists, and it exists among a certain subset of Jews, just as white supremacism exists, and it exists among a certain subset of whites. And Christian supremacism exists among a certain subset of Christians. To deny that any of that exists is not a refutation of Chris but rather the polar companion to Chris's statement that such Jewish supremacism is universal. And on top of that, the argument that Jewish supremacism doesn't exist among some Jews, or have some limited basis in Jewish scripture, is entirely counterfactual to reality, just as Chris' argument of universality was counterfactual.
Thank you very much for that kind statement, Shmuel. It illustrates another reason why your contributions here are valued. Not because you necessarily agreed with what CMI and I were trying to say, but because you were willing to listen to what we said and give it some consideration even though you disagreed with it at first.
I can totally understand how you got caught up in the polar sides yesterday. Its a subject that it is hard to discuss without it degenerating into name calling on all sides. (Which is not to say that you participated in the name calling, because you clearly didn't.) We were dealing with multiple voices yesterday, many with different perspectives, but it is often far too easy for anyone to assume that all other voices one disagrees with are saying the same thing, when that is not really the case. But I suspect that such discussion can be helpful towards moving attitudes and assumptions from all sides, as long as the discussions aren't simply reflexively shut down, or forced into polar patterns of "all" or "none".
I want to thank CMI for clearly and calmly articulating his viewpoint here as well.
How would you react to the statement if "whites" was substituted for "Jews"? This is a real question, not a rhetorical one. I too value your contributions here.
“I think it is essential for whites</b to understand the ways in which their institutional activities conflict with those of non-whites, and that is impossible without making an honest attempt to understand intelligent critics’ points of view.”
I wouldn't have a problem with that statement in the context of race relations in the US. And frankly, I wouldn't have a problem with a similar statement with the word "Arab" inserted if it was made in a discussion about politics and power in Arab countries. (Assuming of course, that the statement was backed up with intelligent examples, rather than just a vague or racist spew.) But I can appreciate hearing alternate viewpoints on this.
Thanks for sharing that, Danaa. The Jewish population of Israel is something like 40% of the Jewish population worldwide. No one that I know, or have read on this bog, is saying that every Jew, or even necessarily a majority of Jews, share this feeling and attitude that you describe, but to ignore the attitude and pretend that it doesn't exist just because it isn't a universal attitude common to every single Jew is to shut down a discussion that is needed in order for these attitudes to change. White Americans had to confront their own culture's racist elements and propensities, not because every white American was or is a racist, which they certainly weren't and aren't, but because the only way to change the cultural biases is to acknowledge them, and then find ways to negate them, or change them. You can't change a problem that you won't admit exists. As Danaa points out, these cultural attitudes and biases among Jews in Israel are rampant, and some of these cultural biases are shared by Jews in America. These attitudes need to be acknowledged, confronted and changed.
Mooser, for someone who claims that he can't understand Americans because he can't understand "racist chickenhawkery ", you seem to have a different set of standards when judging groups of people. I can certainly acknowledge and agree that there are elements of RC in American culture. I could also acknowledge that there are elements of racism and chickenhawkery in Jewish culture and among certain self-identified Jewish groups. However, if we were to take what you said about Americans and say it instead about Jews, you'd be up in arms(and perhaps rightly so), ranting about anti-semitism.
The problem that some non-Jews have with that attitude, as I understand it, is that you are being very hypocritical here. If your comment was OK to make about Americans, just a little harmless overgeneralization, then why is it so bad to make the same kind of broad overgeneralization of Jews? Why is it acceptable to criticize Christians or whites as a cohesive group, when Christians or whites are just as diverse as Jews, if not more so, since they encompass many more individuals, but impossible to criticize Jews as a group? It comes off as if you think that Jews must be treated differently and are an exception to the rule of human behavior and responsibility. And that kind of thinking that you appear to espouse, BTW, is anti-semitic.
If you accuse anyone who questions or criticizes any aspect of Jewish group behavior of anti-semitism, you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for yourself. For the most part, the only ones who will argue with you are anti-semites, because you will have effectively shut down any one else who is not anti-semitic, by your own carelessly thrown epithets.
I half-expect to be called an anti-semite for what I just said. I hope I am wrong about that, but if I have to face an insult (and I do consider it an insult) to make my point, well then so be it. There are negative elements and attitudes in present day Jewish culture and attitudes , in Israel and to a lesser extent in the US, that are providing an underpinning and faulty rationale for the oppression of the Palestinians. Until these are acknowledged and challenged, they will not change. Jewish culture is no different or worse than any other culture in terms of its negative aspects, but that does not mean that it is acceptable to deny those negative aspects,or to shut down any discussion. Sometimes that discussion might lead to anti-semitic remarks being made, but, in my opinion, those can be countered much more effectively than by simply shouting "Anti-semite!".
I think it is an element of it, accepted and embraced by some, and ignored by others. Very similar in a way to Christian values of helping the needy and poor. Some Christians embrace that, some don't, and some interpret it to mean bringing the gospel to the heathens, whether the "heathens" really want it or not.
Are you talking to me, Citizen? As much as possible I try not to let such branding stop me from discussing the issues, but I do admit that sometimes I hesitate and in many instances where I know that I don't have the time to discuss it at length I will avoid the whole question lest someone jump to the wrong conclusion about my attitude or motives. Mea culpa. But on a forum like this I can discuss it, as much as my limited time permits, with Mooser or anyone else here.
I also try to combat the idea that all Jews think the same way or act the same way. In a strange twist, its often not only non-Jewish anti-semites that think that all Jews agree with Zionism, but many Jews as well, especially some very outspoken ones, hence the use of the term "self-hating Jew" to smear any Jew who disagrees or criticizes Israel. Sometimes you have to confront Jews with their own stereotypes about Jews just as much as you confront non-Jews about their stereotypes. Or to put it another way you have to confront both the stereotypes ABOUT Jews and also the stereotypes that some Jews have of gentiles and of themselves.
Ha-ha! I see that my caret marks have disappeared. Put a caret ahead of blockquote and one after, enclosing it, and then the quote and then /blockquote after that.
MRW
I use a "" then the quote , and then the "", and that works for me every time. Of course, eliminate the quotation marks around the carets when you type them. I hope that helps. I've never used the other form with blockquote cite but would guess that you put the quoted material between the two quotation marks and then put a close caret after that. I'm used to the other method so I haven't tried that one.
But one could say the same thing about white culture or even Christian culture. So is it impossible to talk about any group as an aggregate? Of course not. Especially since you seemed to miss my point that Jews, when considered as a group are no worse or better than Christians as a group or whites as a group or males as a group. If your words apply to one grouping, they must apply to all groupings, or else you are leading into a concept of Jewish exceptionalism, which is both Zionistic and anti-semitic. Its not I who is trapped in an either/or but you.
I don't equate Zionism with Jewishness, although there are Jews that do. Nor do I consider someone a Jew who no longer identifies as one as Jewish. Frankly, I think Jewish as a descriptor should really only apply to those who follow the religion, but accept the fact that many self-identify as Jewish when they really have no religion at all, just as most people self-identify as a particular race even though scientist now tell us that there really is no such thing as "race" per se.
Low blow hit and run. I thought you were better than that. I conceive of Jews mostly as individuals, but acknowledge Jewish culture and religion and its impact on those individuals, just as I acknowledge Christian culture and religion and its impact on Christian individuals.
I suspect the subject makes you uncomfortable , thus you use the excuse that any discussion or inquiry must lead down the slippery slope to anti-semitism. I strongly disagree. 'Nuff said for now. Good luck with the honey-do's.
Yes, it was a colonialist adventure, but it was a Jewish colonial adventure. You may not want to reference it to Jewishness or Judaism, but its founders and leaders certainly did so. To claim that one need not inspect the Jewish aspect of it is to put the blinders on. It is as if European colonialism should be studied without looking at European attitudes of superiority over non-European peoples. It was an integral part of the colonial system and to ignore it would be to whitewash and limit ones understanding. Studying those elements of European culture that contributed to colonialism do not necessarily, and for the most part have not, lead to anti-European racism, just as studying those elements of Jewish culture that contributed to Zionist colonialism need not lead to anti-semitism, despite what you fear.
If I wish to analyze the rise in the political power of fundamentalist Christians in the US, one aspect of that analysis is a study of Christianity and the various Christian attitudes. Any analysis without that would be faulty and incomplete. That is not an indictment of everything Christian, just as an analysis of Jewish culture and attitudes would not be an indictment of everything Jewish. One does not have to lead to the other.
I don't consider my statement to be a non-sequitur at all. My point was that Eisen is a Jew who is willing to inquire about his own attitudes and the culture in which he lives. And to some extent that means he's looking at Jewish cultural attitudes. That doesn't mean that every Jew has those attitudes any more than every American or every Christian or every white has those attitudes. You are making a leap that need not be made. To overcome the racism that was overwhelming in American society, it was and is necessary to boldly look at white attitudes and culture that supported that racism in order to change. Likewise, in Israel, where you are dealing with attitudes of Jewish superiority, you have to look at Jewish attitudes. I could try to limit that to Israeli Jewish attitudes and culture, but to be honest there is a large group of American Jews that support those attitudes, so clearly it is a problem that goes beyond Israel.
In my opinion, if you include the Jewish aspects of Zionist colonization in your analysis, you end up with, instead of anti-semitism or Zionism, the realization that Jews and Jewish culture can be just as mean and petty as every other human culture on Earth. What a surprise. Jews as a group are neither superior(morally or otherwise) to nor inferior(morally or otherwise) to any other group. That leads in the opposite direction to both anti-semitism and Zionism which are two sides of a tarnished coin.
As a group, yes, Jews are no worse than any other human grouping. Individually, there are Jews who are worse than a lot of people and those who are better than a lot of people. Its not their Jewishness that determines this, its their actions and attitudes. Ariel Sharon, Avigdor Lieberman-- a lot worse. Jonathan Pollack, Ezra Nawi--a lot better. My personal opinion.
LeaNder,
I didn't judge his statement differently because he is Jewish. The statement by itself, regardless of who uttered it, paints Americans with a broad brush, when its pretty obvious that not all Americans fit that bill. I'm American also, and, in the wide circle that I exist in, racist chickenhawkery does not describe most of the Americans I know (although it does describe a small subset). I'm also sure it doesn't describe every American that Mooser knows, although it may be more prevalent in his circles.
My point is that all of us make over-broad generalizations about groups of people. I wanted to bring this up to Mooser, since he is concerned about over-broad generalizations about Jews, to help him realize that these over-broad generalizations are similar in form to his own. Its a human trait, occasionally useful, but more often a failing and a limitation in judgment.
Mooser, I think you are missing the point. The ones who anointed them with the appellation "Jewish" are the Jews who are the founders and members of those groups. Just because they didn't get an official dispensation from the non-existent Central Temple of Judaism doesn't mean they don't self-describe as Jewish or are for all intents and purposes Jewish in their focus. You seem to feel that describing these institutions as Jewish is somehow anti-semitic but its not.
I think, Mooser, that your point is Phil's point, and a point that many of us try to make, which is that Judaism, or Jewishness, if you wish, HAS been been seized by Zionism. Unfortunately, Zionists have spend decades urging Jews to adopt and adhere to negative stereotypes about Jews, i.e. to embrace a loyalty to Israel even if they are citizens of another country, and to think first in terms of "Is it good for the Jews?" or "Is it good for Israel?" as if those two questions were the same, as well as insisting that Jews everywhere are fundamentally a part of some separate Jewish nation that transcends all geographical boundaries and the huge secular/religious divide. In essence, Zionism has fostered stereotypical behavior and is at its base anti-semitic.
I'd recommend reading Eisen's essay above. Eisen is Jewish and like Phil is interested in self-revelation and inquiry. If you object to the term "Jewish power' I would suggest you look it at by comparison. The fact is that worldwide most of the power is held by white males. This doesn't mean that every white male is part of the power structure. My dear departed Dad was certainly never a part of the white male power structure, nor are any of the white male friends I know, nor even my not so fondly remembered ex-husband. But nevertheless, the white male power structure exists in the world, just as "Jewish power" exists even though not every Jew, or even a significant percentage of Jews, contribute to or are a part of the Jewish power structure.
Again, read Eisen's essay with an open mind. I don't think he is really disagreeing with many of your points, but rather his point is that Jewishness can and has been hijacked by Zionism and that Jewish power exists. To deny it is similar to denying that white males have most of the reins of power just because most white males are not in positions of power.
You feel it is legitimate to criticize Americans as being racist chickenhawks but surely you know that not all Americans are so. So ask yourself, is it also legitimate to criticize Jews as a group for their unthinking support of Israel, even though such blind support is not a characteristic of all Jews? And if not, then how is that different that broadbrushing Americans?
You do realize that you have just uttered the same type of negative stereotype that you are complaining about?
Phil, on the other hand, sees the need for the moral confrontation and opposition. That's one major difference between the two. Another big difference is that Phil is not afraid to self-question his own assumptions and biases. Witty is trapped by his, and is either incapable or unwilling to recognize, let alone confront, his biases.
I remember watching some morning news show about ten years ago or so. On one show segment they had on one of the first black women who had integrated a southern school in the 50's. They also had on a white woman who had, as a teenager, been photographed spitting on this woman in a famous photograph. The white woman, who had previously apologized to the black woman in private, was on national TV in order to sincerely apologize for her much earlier behavior.
Is change possible? Yes. But gentle moral suasion alone will not do it. Bad behaviors have to be confronted and opposed. If the black woman had waited until there was no opposition to integration then there would still be legal racial segregation in the US. That is why Witty's call for gentle suasion is a fantasy that allows Israel to continue its racist ways. Witty is a co-dependent of Israel.
Not to pile on unnecessarily here, wj, but the violence was ongoing well before April of 1948, and even before November 1947.
Lawrence of Cyberia has a comprehensive post which lists a large number of attacks on Arab civilians in Jaffa by Jewish terrorist groups starting from January 1948 through April 1948 as reported by the British.
There is a book available online called the Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem by Issa Nakhleh. In that book he cites British records on Zionist violence and terrorism in Palestine from 1946 onward, much of which was directed at the British, but a significant portion of which was directed at Arab civilians. Its clear from the British records that violence started long before the UN Partition Plan, and that the Zionist terror groups bear the brunt of the blame for that violence.
Except that the "Jewish State" decreed by the UN bears no relationship to the State of Israel which was created by a war of aggression and massive ethnic cleansing. Read the conditions that were to apply in the UN Partition Plan states in
Resolution 181
The creation of Israel is more aptly described as one of the earliest instances of a country giving the big finger to the UN and international law, thus proving how powerless and unenforceable such international legal and moral constraints are when any of the super-powers-that-be choose not to enforce them. To indict Israel is to admit that there is no "world order".
The trouble with that sentiment is that you could apply it to any country's leaders, including the good ol' US of A. Why should anyone care about Americans if they are stupid enough to elect Bush, not once but twice?
And Abbas is no longer legally the President of the PA. Thank the US and Israel for making a new election impossible., and for insisting on dealing only with Abbas. Again, why should anyone care about what happens to Americans? Because they are human, just like Palestinians.
Good find, jimby. I'll try to quote a paragraph or two.
This is an IDF confirmation of the Goldstone report from, to use the expression, the horse's mouth.
Again, Richard, you are taking Landau's description of the report as if that description were fact, instead of reading the report yourself. You want to apply two different standards for determining facts. One very, very loose one for Landau -anything he says can be assumed to be fact because he said it. And one very very stringent one for the report, which you cannot even legitimately apply since you refuse to read it and thus have no idea whether the report meets your much much higher standard. You simply assume it doesn't and can't.
You called Landau's trashing of the report "insightful", even though other posters who have read the report were quick to note that Landau's description of the report and its mission were entirely incorrect. Anyone who had read even a portion of the report would have known that. And yet you judged the report, not by what was actually in the report but by what Landau said, as if he was some infallible authority that absolved you of any responsibility of reading the report before agreeing with his judgment. Thus, Landau was "insightful" to you.
Then there was this:
This is an ignorant comment of yours. Neither the Goldstone Report, nor the earlier IDF soldiers' "Breaking the Silence" report attribute the vast majority of the violations committed by the IDF to carelessness or a lack of discipline. Both make clear that most of the crimes were committed under orders emanating from a high level of the IDF command and thus are the exact opposite of "lack of discipline". The average IDF soldier was following orders. The problem was not the "carelessness" with which the orders were carried out, it was with the orders themselves. Again, if you had read the report, or the BTS reports, you would have known that.
And to tackle your second sentence:
No criticism that I have seen so far has even addressed any of the incidents that are claimed to be reported on in a "careless" manner. So the accusations are so far without foundation or base. Again, I note that you seem to feel a need to set up some kind of moral equivalence that will enable you to "balance" out and thus ignore any moral lapse committed by Israel. Perhaps some of this tendency relates to your job as a CPA, where everything must balance. But a lot of it has to do with your overwhelming desire to blind yourself to what Israel really is and does when it conflicts with what your fantasy Israel is like.
You can comment from a position of ignorance all you like. As they say, its a free country. But in the interest of honest debate I think it is important for other commenters to know the extent of your purposeful ignorance of the report. Thus my earlier comment here.
I'll post this here as well as other places, in the interest of keeping the debate honest. Witty has admitted that he has not read the report and does not intend to read it. Any implication in his posts that he is personally aware of what is in the report is incorrect. He doesn't know and doesn't want to know.
Witty has admitted that he hasn't and won't read the report, but continues to comment on it as if he has.