Nothing extraordinary going on here, folks, just some wholly unrelated events. . .
Sheffield, England - The Alliance for Workers Liberty, which has consistently offered a full-throated Marxist critique of Israeli policy, has to fight for permission to stay at a British demonstration because its habit of saying sensible things (Israel is not a fascist state, nor an apartheid state, and it isn't carrying out a "holocaust" in Gaza, either) might upset Hamas sympathizers.Calgary, Alberta - The neo-Nazi Aryan Guard participates in an anti-Israel demonstration. Rally organizer Shadi Abuid said the fascists were not welcome, but "you can't deny people's right to walk," while the Aryan Guard reports (no linking to fascist sites here): “When we first arrived we were approached by the organizer of the protest who welcomed us and asked for our cooperation in the planned activities. We agreed and refrained from 'acting out'. "
Montreal, Quebec - The slogans that rang out among thousands of anti-Israel protesters - among them trade unionists, Quebec politicians, activists with the Roman Catholic church - included "The Jews Are Our Dogs." Hezbollah and Hamas supporters are also reported to have uttered calls for a genocide against the Jews of Israel.
Paris - At least 55 anti-Semitic acts have occurred across France in recent days, reports the French Jewish Students Union. A letter delivered to a rabbi in Vincennes warns: "You will live in fear, the death of all Jews is to come." In Saint-Denis, nine Molotov cocktails were launched at a Lubavitch synagogue and a Jewish community center.
London - "Kill Jews" was painted on the wall of a children's playground in Whitechapel, and the same words appeared in grafitti painted on a supermarket in Stepney where several windows were also smashed and a Starbucks Coffee shop was firebombed. Elsewhere, rioters from a "Stop The War" demonstration smashed windows, ransacked and looted shops in Kensington, singling out a Starbucks outlet. Starbucks has been the subject of several such attacks, owing to the widespread belief (originating with an anti-war "satire") that Starbucks' CEO Howard Schultz, a Jew, donates money to the Israeli military.
Melbourne - Temple Beth Israel has been plastered with antisemitic posters, and a group of Jewish women at a St. Kilda beach were encircled by youths who taunted them and threw coins at them.
Duisburg, Germany - Police admit that they broke down the door of the apartment of a Jewish student and ripped an Israeli flag from his window while anti-Israel protesters threw objects at the window from the street below.
Copenhagen - Several school administrators say they are actively dissuading Jews from enrolling their children in schools out of fear for the children's safety.
Belfast - For recent events there, better to just read Johnny Guitar's report, How many fascists does it take to burn a flag? and his excellent analysis, Left-Wing Fascism: An Infantile Disorder.
posted by Terry Glavin at 11:16 PM
31 Comments:
Organizers of these demonstrations have the responsibility and the moral obligation to ensure that anti semitism has no place in these rallies. It harms not harms the Palestinian cause, which is just on its own right, and it wrong in all instances. It should be criticised with the same veracity as the open hatred and bigotry celebrated at the "pro israel" rallies which have been documented in a disturbing video produced by Max Blumnethal, who is a jewish progresive
http://maxblumenthal.com/2009/01/547/
Tell me the truth, Yates. You're not "Shokal," are you? The last time the idiot Max Blumenthal was cited in a comment here, it was Shokal.
Unlike you, I don't think the blackshirts should be hidden away so as to avoid harming some cause; I think they should be exposed and fought. You try to make the outrageous and ludicrous case for equivalency between the inarticulate ramblings of Israel-supporters filmed by Blumenthal at some New York demo, and the wave of mob violence by clerical fascists and their supporters around the world.
And so you fail.
Today, apparently the UN headquarters was shelled and set ablaze. UN officials say that only refugees and staff were in the headquarters at the time. The IDF a=say that they were targeting militants. Two weeks ago they said the same thing after killing forty civilians at a UN school, but later admitted that it had been an error.
In the meantime, aid agencies (red Cross, red Crescent) say that 315 children have been killed so far. A coworker of mine who is from Gaza has been frantic this week trying to verify that family members are safe, one teenager in particular who was staying with friends at the time of the attack. They are afraid that his body is in the rubble of a collapsed building, but are not able to check in any way because they will likely be shot if they leave the building they are hiding in.
And yes, Nazis and racists are bad. Disgusting that these views are being expressed as part of the left.
"the open hatred and bigotry celebrated at the "pro israel" rallies which have been documented in a disturbing video produced by Max Blumnethal,"
Where is the open hatred towards Palestinians?
Where is the bigotry?
Can anyone quote one person saying anything remotely resembling "Jews are our dogs"?
A bunch of religious Jews dancing and singing: "The people of Israel is still alive". Yates is offended. Makes sense.
These people were talking about wiping out Hamas. The signs were saying "Hamas". Not "Palestinians", not "Arabs". So where is the bigotry? Are all Palestinians now crazy and blood thirsty as Hamas?
Has any of these people invoked God by way of justification for killing? God was mentioned in reference to the fact that there were not many dead Jewish kids (sorry about that, I know this fact alone riles many good hearted "liberals" out there) and that was imputed to God's grace.
Only someone who supports the genocidal Hamas can find offensive the idea that it should be wiped out. Or that people support the right of Israelis to live free of its violence and cosmic hatred.
And of course Hamas has used schools and hospitals for weapon storage. Max's ignorance about Hamas tactics is quite astonishing, considering the size of his chutzpa.
A father cutting his daughter's head with a knife in an annual celebration of the vanished Imam is exactly like a Jewish circumcision, right. The rabbi comes and with a big big knife simply slashes the baby's penis.
The fetishization of balance.
Have you ever thought of sticking to cat blogging?
Plumper!
Cat blogging, flyfishing, boatbuilding, guitar-playing, and kite flying. All the time.
But I've decided that blogging helps me assemble a very useful research archive repository thingamajig, for "real" writing, and every once in a while there are comments here that make me question my assumptions and re-evaluate or refine my perspective.
So for now, an hour a day, max.
Scary stuff, Terry. Good of you to collate the evidence here.
I've had precisely the same problem with spam commenters, many of which come within minutes or even seconds of each other, often citing precisely the same links and arguments. I got the feeling they were all operating out of the same office, or at least egging each other on through Twitter or MSN messenger.
At first, I felt a little guilty deleting their comments out of a misplaced sense of duty for freedom of speech. I soon realized there was no point in letting my blog become a bulletin board for brainwashed idiots trying to boost the Google search optimization of their own lame videos and blogs.
I'm still posting the odd comment that doesn't seem to come from someone recruited by the pro-Hamas crowd, since it's not all fanatics. But it's getting harder and harder to tell which is which.
"But it's getting harder and harder to tell which is which."
You must read Andy Hume's 'The Protocols of the Elders of Java':
"Radical leftists and Islamists (we really must find an umbrella term that saves me typing all that out every time, so closely do they self-identify these days) are busily spreading the rumour that the Israeli assault on Gaza is being bankrolled by Starbucks. . ."
http://www.jewcy.com/post/protocols_elders_java
One thing that so frustrates me in all discussion about Israel palestine is the way in which the conversations taking place are foten wholly seperated from the lived reality on the ground. The comments made here are a pretty good example of such a phenomenom. We now know that over 1000 Palestinans have been killed with over 400 of those being women and children (stating this often assumes that all Palestinian men are legitimate targets which they are not) and reports on the ground in Gaza speak of mass displacement and terror being inflicted on a civilain population. We now know that Israel has admitted its targetting locations where there hasd been no evidence of rocket fire, although again if we applied similar standards to Palestinian as we did Israelis we'd make the conclusion that military buildings located in Israel near shopping malls for example put Osraeli civilians at risk. The war on Gaza, I call it that because this is the fifth largest army fighting a caged in and defenceless people, has now been comdemned by the UN, Amnesty International and the Red Cross. This is a population lets remember that is subject to a blockade stopping the flow of fuel, medicine and food. An Israeli official recently mentioned that this war is meant to remind people that Palestinians are a defeated people.
It seems to me that anyone at this date in support of Israeli actions are advocating mass murder in practice. They may have wrapped themselves so much in the mantlehood of victimisation that any actions against Palestinians is cheered on. This still doesnt excuse them from the consequences of their opinion, which is mostly motivated by ethnocentrism and a blinding inability to see reality. The same way that we talk about Palestinians desire to "destroy Israel" when non controversial historical accounts will show us that the desire to conquer land, without having to incorparet Palestinian citizens into Israel has been responsible since 1948 for ethnic cleansings and a slow genocide.
People in Max's video weren't simply saying eliminate Hamas, as if on the ground it's not the entire Palestinian population being targetted. They were saying wipe them all out. They had externalised evil and drunk the toxic brew of xenophobia and hatred. They were providing moral support to real policies of pain and domination. I thnk that we ought to be honest about that.
We also ought to be honest about a whole set of other issues. That the Israeli government has appropriated the symbols of Judaism as they wage political and milatry campaigns of cruelty has in fact made jews less safe. It fuels anti semitism. It creates a space where toxic Judeophobes often lash on the the Palestinian issue disengeneously in order to basj Jews. I have been involved with solidarity with Palestinians form a time where even admitting the existence of a Palestinian people, or reffering to their dispossion was not only conterversial but invited a punch in the face. Throughout these years I\ve maintianed that anti semites have in place in the movement. Our support of Palestinian national rights is grounded in a belief of universal jistice and is anti racist by defintion. Their's is not
A "slow genocide"? Do you even know what the word "genocide" means? The Palestinian population has increased manyfold since 1948, in Israel itself, in the Occupied Territories, and in the Palestinian diaspora (Lebanon, Syria, the Gulf states).
And while I think that there needs to be a ceasefire, and that it is appalling how many civilians Israel has killed in Gaza, I am still a supporter of the state of Israel. Not a supporter of mass murder, on the other hand (nor do I think that is what Israel is doing in Gaza).
"anti semites have a place in the movement"
Arendt, are you having a bowel movement? It's certainly not a popular movement.
Call me when you're not full of shite.
According to this report:
"A maximum of 25 percent of the Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip since the beginning of Operation Cast Lead are innocent civilians, the head of the IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA), Col. Moshe Levi, said Wednesday.
Gazan searches bombed home for family.
According to Palestinian medical officials, Israel has killed some 1,000 Palestinians since the fighting began in late December and more than half of them are civilians. The toll included 11 Palestinians killed Wednesday, medical officials said.
Levi told reporters on Wednesday that the CLA had compiled a list with the names of 900 of the Palestinians killed during the fighting. He said that 150 names were of women, children and elderly and that the maximum number of civilians killed so far was 250."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231950849614&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
When I read the inflated numbers quoted by "arendt" I have to wonder why 250 innocent civilians are not enough to generate the sorrow. Why the need to augment the actual numbers? What purpose does it serve?
Levi told reporters on Wednesday that the CLA had compiled a list with the names of 900 of the Palestinians killed during the fighting. He said that 150 names were of women, children and elderly and that the maximum number of civilians killed so far was 250."
As the IDF would have no reason to lie about the number of civilians they have killed, and have certainly never lied before, these figures must be correct and the ones from the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and UN must be in error.
And you're quite right: 250 innocent civilians killed is more than enough to grieve over. I'm hoping that my coworker will not have to grieve over his missing relative, which will bump the IDF's number up to 251. Unless he is classified as a non-civilian, of course.
Our support of Palestinian national rights is grounded in a belief of universal jistice and is anti racist by defintion. Their's is not
-pray tell, how is the survival of Hamas in the interests of Palestinian national rights? Is there any organization and ideology that could do more to make impossible any kind of responsible self-rule? And can you really believe that Israel would not be interested in negotiating its existence and security with a truly responsible sovereignty that recognized the reality of Israel in 2009, and not make peace dependent on some fantasy of turning the world back to 1967, 48, or the 7th C.?
-no doubt your notion of "universal justice", in fingering Israel as "racist", is by necessity itself racist, though you may be too self-righteous to see it. You are obsessed with Israel-Palestine because Israel is the exemplar/scandal of the fully modern nation that (because its survival depend on it) refuses to sign on to your Utopia of universal justice. It recognizes a different reality, i.e. hard reality. This is a scandal unlike any that could muster you to decades of activism to intervene in any of the more deadly disputes pitting more browns vs. browns. Such disputes somehow fail to engage the imagination of those questing for "universal justice" on anywhere near the same scale as does a modern Western state at war.
In short, i'd put it to you that white guilt is not a guarantee of one's anti-racism; quite the opposite. It is the White Man's Burden in new dress.
As a concerned Roman Catholic living in Montreal I would appreciate knowing the names of the activists with the Roman Catholic Church.
double-plus-ungood,
You did not answer my question.
Why 250 innocent civilians are not enough to generate the sorrow.
Why the need to augment the actual numbers?
What was the motivation for the manufacturing of the fake al-Dura's incident?
Why was Jenin battle inflated into a massacre (starting with an allegation of 3,000, going down within hours to 500, and then going down to 52 of whom only 3 were civilians?
Why was the death toll in Qana 2006 inflated, from 28 to 62?
What purpose does it serve, to inflate these numbers?
And judging by what we know now about all of the above, and other recorded incidents, why would you automatically assume, despite the records, that it is the IDF that lies?
"Radical leftists and Islamists (we really must find an umbrella term that saves me typing all that out every time
-fwiw, i just came across "Lefascists"
JOE:
I've seen two reports, the first I believe was in the Montreal Gazette, that referred to "social justice" or "social development" staff with the Montreal Archdiocese being in attendance. Probably CCODP folks. Do bear in mind that I am not faulting them for merely attending a rally. It's the bigger picture I'm interested in, and revolted by.
Now, I’m going to make things as clear as I possibly can. Anyone who comes on a blog like this one to discuss current events in the Middle East and does not express remorse or sadness for the deaths in Gaza but goes straight into justifying Israel’s actions as their primary concern is demonstrating that they do not give a shit about the lives lost. That is the stance of Israeli leaders, that is the stance of the overwhelming majority of Senators and Representatives, that is the stance of George W. Bush, Harper, et al. It’s too bad that it is also the stance of some who blog here.
My few comments here are sometimes hyperbolic so I proceed now with hesitation...
To suggest, like "Arendt", that Israel's leaders don't do a moral calculus about lesser evils when they unleash violence that will touch and kill innocents is at best naive. How difficult it is, in a context like this, to invoke great concern for the victims without yourself engaging in an act of (un)intended scapegoating. And what would it mean, for leaders who had done a moral and strategic calculus justifying war, to then put on a display that passed our standard for "giving a shit". COuld this be done without proving the sentimental falsity either of the display or the justification for war?
I admit the blood on my rhetorical hands, and my remorse for innocent deaths, if it matters. It is the nature of war that it coarsens us. However, perhaps the important thing about focussing on people's resentments and justifications rather than on professions of remorse for victims is that one or the other will prove more conducive to the renewal of some basic human reciprocity in future.
It is the given assumption of most postmodern thought that a focus on the unquestionable status of certain victims is the road to renewing a more or less sane reality. I think this is proving a very limited viewpoint in many ways. For starters, it may be worth remembering that postmoderns are keen to invoke the unquestionable contrast of absolute victim/totally unjustifiable oppression, "Jew/Nazi", because we contest to share in the "meaning" of an event that is contested precisely because it is unquestionable, because it points to a reality so brutal as to destroy our capacity to adequately remember it on any scene we can construct. The lesson of WWI repeats: a lone death is a tragedy; a million a mere statistic. The Holocaust has led to the death of Western high culture, under a cloud of suspicion directed to any form of closure on any esthetic or ethical scene, and the substitution of the possibility of any truly disinterested thought in the universities by a code of politicized sentiment.
There is a reality-destroying quality to our postmodern focus on victims. We put all the symbols, figures, and institutions of the "normal" under permanent suspicion, and replace this with nothing.
There is no doubt something coarse and unspeakably ugly about war and its rhetorics but I would tend to think that any future peace will start from recognition of a shared reality more likely to flow from the expression and negotiation of our resentments, as well as from a cold recognition/acceptance of military winners and losers, than from a certain worship of our victims. I know that's a old-fashioned tragic way of thinking. But what is more dangerous in this world than an ideology that forever demands redemption of our victims in a spirit that is not that of orthodox Christian humility before humans' common victim/humanized god but rather that of the militant or activist approach to redeeming our victims? It is no easy matter for Jews to strike the right note in "giving a shit" about victims. If they prefer more cold expresions of our shared reality, I can sympathize.
"Now, I’m going to make things as clear as I possibly can. Anyone who comes on a blog like this one to discuss current events in the Middle East and does not express remorse or sadness for the deaths in Gaza but goes straight into justifying Israel’s actions as their primary concern is demonstrating that they do not give a shit about the lives lost."
This is the sort of observation expressed by a person for whom bathos and appearances matter more than substance and reason. You crave an appearance of sorrow and remorse instead of asking the hard questions about how to actually help Palestinians. Helping Palestinians means talking to them about compromise, stopping the hatred, and assuming responsibility for their future through making sensible choices. You, however, just wish to coddle them and enable them to continue to see themselves as maximal and supine victims who have absolutely no agency and bear no accountability for their misery.
It is highly ironic that you should call yourself Arendt, after the Jewish philosopher who
regarded pity as “the perversion of compassion.” The kind of pity you demand Arendt maintained that it possesses "a greater capacity for cruelty than cruelty itself”. Pity is exclusive ownership over suffering that fancies itself outside accountability to the basic norms of humanity. Pity contradicts universal responsibility, becomes, as Arendt says “boundless” and bottomless. It is a totalitarian and exclusive passion, and prevents justice. She showed how pity is preceded by intense incitement, with a view to ferment and arouse in people as much of that exclusive pity as possible. I consider much of your comments here an exemplification of Arendt's model.
Arendt’s alternative to pity was solidarity, allied with reason, that is capable of universality. It is clear headed and tough-minded, and translates into the ability to pursue the ideal of justice that will include “the application of the same rules to those who sleep in palaces and those who sleep under the bridges”.
Yet another sterling example of how much you have to suck to get published by Canwest/Goebbels these days. Gotta keep those dimes and dollars rolling in.
Keep up the good work Terry.
Why the need to augment the actual numbers?
I have no idea. It is done with every conflict in human history. It is still done by those inflating the death toll of Hussein, or of Dresden, or of all other conflicts. And often, those who support the side doing the killing do their best to minimize the damage that their side is doing. Some even make the discussion about why some people inflate the numbers. Is suppose that is a better, or easier, way to deal with the issue.
My point was that yes, 250 is more than enough to grieve over. And, if the Red Cross/Crescent and the UN are to believed instead of the IDF, the number is closer to 1,200, with a third of those deaths being children.
"It is done with every conflict in human history"
No, it isn't. Israel has kept a meticulous body count of its fallen soldiers and civilian deaths throughout its conflicts in the last 120 years. There has never been any attempt to inflate numbers or to deflate them. Israelis know exactly how many were killed on which occasion.
I suspect the same holds for many other nations.
Why do you think that is?
Why do you feel you need to speak of 1,200 civilian dead with a third of them children?
BTW, how does the UN define a child in such circumstances?
I once saw an interview with Raghida Dergham of Al Hayat, who defined as a child anyone under the age of 20.
Of course what matters most is the death of children, little children. Children are the ultimate innocents. They are completely dependent on their adults for protection. What have Palestinians in Gaza done to provide protection for their children?
The children in Sderot are targeted daily. The reason why they are not dead is because they were not in school when the qassams that aimed at their killing were launched. As it happens, it was a lucky thing they were not in school, since qassams did hit a kindergarten and a school. The parents in Sderot demand that their government provide safety for their children.
Have Palestinians ever demanded the same from the government they elected?
You can't have read my comment, since you are again auctioning for pity, which is not a reliable parameter for justice, in my opinion.
Take the pity out of the discussion and start offering some cool-headed solutions. When your mind is fogged with pity, and exclusive pity at that, you are no good for the Palestinian cause.
http://contentious-centrist.blogspot.com/2007/03/pity-kindergarten-children.html
No, it isn't. Israel has kept a meticulous body count of its fallen soldiers and civilian deaths throughout its conflicts in the last 120 years. There has never been any attempt to inflate numbers or to deflate them. Israelis know exactly how many were killed on which occasion.
I see that I was unclear. Let me try again. I did not mean that there were no accurate accounts, nor that all nations exaggerate the death toll. What I meant were that for every conflict, there are those who minimize the death toll, and those who exaggerate it.
Does that clarify?
Why do you feel you need to speak of 1,200 civilian dead with a third of them children?
Why would I not? Is it of no concern?
BTW, how does the UN define a child in such circumstances?
Stunning.
"BTW, how does the UN define a child in such circumstances?
Stunning."
Why? Don't you think it is imperative to know what they speak of when say "a child" if they define a child as any anyone under 20 years old?
According to Raghida Dergham's definition, a sizable part of the IDF is a child army, since 18 year old boys are conscripted as per law. When my father immigrated to Israel, just as the state was born, he was not yet 17 years old and he joined the army. Was he a child? The Hagana accepted 16 year old boys, before the state was born and the law passed. Were they children when they got killed, or armed combatants?
Why do you pretend to be shocked by the coldness of the question? Isn't it the way international laws are configured?
You don't seem shocked when someone reminds you that kindergarten kids in Sderot are routinely targeted for killing.
All you do is cite the number of children killed by Israel, out of the context of other children being hunted down for the kill..
I find that stunningly callous, because you know that these ARE kindergarten kids, every one of them.
What hypocrisy.
What hypocrisy.
Let's see. I mentioned the number of children that have been killed in the current military action.
In response, you brought up an incident that I can't read about, as you haven't tested your links, you have claimed that the UN counts all people under 20 as minors (without providing the details of the age groups that have been killed, by the way), have accused me of fishing for pity, have provided IDF numbers that are in severe disagreement with the numbers provided by the UN, the Red Cross, and the Red Crescent, have wondered why I am mentioning casualties at all, and have started throwing around insults.
This is what I wrote:
"I once saw an interview with Raghida Dergham of Al Hayat, who defined as a child anyone under the age of 20."
This is what you report that I'd written:
"you have claimed that the UN counts all people under 20 as minors"
I think this example alone should suffice, as to the level of credibility of any of your facts, arguments or pity.
"I once saw an interview with Raghida Dergham of Al Hayat, who defined as a child anyone under the age of 20."
Ah, I see. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I became confused when you brought this up in a discussion about the UN's estimates. So the question would then be "why are you bringing up Raghida Dergham's opinion about what is a child in a discussion about the UN's estimates?" It seems to have literally nothing to do with what was being discussed.
Do you think that she is providing the figures to the UN and to the Red Cross/Crescent? Or that the UN is using her definitions? Or that she works for them or something? Please clarify.
I think this example alone should suffice, as to the level of credibility of any of your facts, arguments or pity.
Perhaps instead of these ongoing ad hominem attacks, which make the basis of your opinions weak, you could instead concentrate on the actual topic. For example, if you think that the UN is biased, or wrong, or malicious, or has skewed the numbers, or is in error, perhaps deal with that, as they are not "my facts", they are the UN's.
In the hopes of clearing the confusion somewhat, it looks like the figures are UNICEF's, and that they use the age of 18 as the dividing line between child and adult when measuring things like child sexual exploitation, child soldiers, and casualties. UNICEF also places the child death toll in Gaza at over 300, and the number of wounded children at around 1000.
I do know that at least one IDF sniper has claimed that children over 12 are considered legitimate targets in the occupied territories, so obviously the definition of "child" varies somewhat.
Post a Comment
<< Home