Why I'm Proud To Call Stephen Hume A Friend.
Many, including Jews, who question Israeli policy, play down anti-Semitism as a factor. Yet anti-Israel rhetoric appears to grant permission to growing numbers to express anti-Semitic sentiments.
Classic anti-Semitism targeted Jewish religion or people. Former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, himself a victim, defines a new anti-Semitism that's more subtle. It lurks behind legitimate criticism of Israel. It's insidious. When challenged, the new anti-Semites cloak themselves in aggrieved counterclaims that supporters of Israel just seek to stifle legitimate debate about Israel.
posted by Terry Glavin at 6:14 PM
93 Comments:
I'm very disturbed by the notion that people would refer to "Jew lover" and "Jewish run media" as part a legitimate debate. I'm also curious as to what role you think anti Arab and anti Palestinian racism plays in shaping our discourse. Phillip Weiss mentioned the other day that of all the article and op ed pieces on the flotilla, the NYT has not presented one piece by a Palestinian. Little is known at all about the Palestinian narrative and until decades the very term Palestinian was not used. We hear little at all about every day experiences under occupation. I really feel that this racism, insidious and overt, has badly distorted the dialogue in the media and public in North America. Yet it doesn't ever get discussed
The fact that Natan Sharansky himself a victim of inprisonment is now a right wing politician in Israel with hawkish and frankly racist views towards Palestinians, has called them "new" to the land, and calls for the expansion of greater Israel is itself a sadly ironic development. In the mouth of someone who is in position of power and support of the oppression of another people, "anti semitism" can be used as a weapon against the legitimate critic. Wish Hume didnt cite Natan
RE I'm very disturbed by the notion that people would refer to "Jew lover" and "Jewish run media" as part a legitimate debate.
Really? You can read it every single day in the comments section on any story on CBC, the Guardian, Huffington Post, Alternet etc etc. need I go on. In fact, Hume only listed the milder stuff you can read daily on those sites.
So you can stuff your perfunctory line about being "disturbed" by it. YOu're so disturbed you can barely spend a sentence before going back to the same mantra about anti-Arab Anti-Palestinian racism.
As for the Palestinian narrative not being discussed, you have to be blind and deaf not to notice how the Palestinian narrative is the dominant one in many sectors, such as Universities, NGOs, much of the media, etc. Thankfully, most leaders of govt haven't bought in, presumably because they're well aware how they would behave in similar circumstances.
"When challenged, the new anti-Semites cloak themselves in aggrieved counterclaims that supporters of Israel just seek to stifle legitimate debate about Israel."
- Hume.
Davies says she personally supports boycott, divestment and sanctions [i.e. the collective punishment of Israelis for the crime of being Israelis], then she approvingly cites the conspiracy theory that "fear and self-censorship" are preventing a political debate about BDS
because "somehow you're also branded as being antisemitic."
The "aggrieved counterclaim" in action.
I've never encountered a single instance of a reputable Zionist or Jewish organization or individual branding someone as antisemitic for merely expressing a legitimate criticism of Israel, either. I don't believe it happens.
Still, Davies attempted to shield herself from rebuke for her atrocious remarks by posing, in advance, as a victim
of persecution and "the new McCarthyism."
Judenstatrein is the new Judenrein. And it comes with its own free "I'm the victim" pass.
Methinks Hume doth protest too much. Anyone who thinks that the Asper print media empire's (and the present NP) Op-eds didn't tilt towards Israel needs his head examined. Or perhaps it was merely a coincidence that Izzy was an outspoken rightist-leaning zionist, and rarely was an op-ed even mildly critical of Israel to be seen. Gwynne Dyer, Richard Gwynn, Greg Felton black-listed. Things have improved, marginally, lately. As for the NP's letters page...well the less said about that, the better. Has anyone ever once read a letter on the page critical of an NP op-ed regarding Israel? I certainly haven't. The G&M at least attempts a semblance of balance. The tilt is hardly a "conspiracy" though, since there's no secret to it.
Since Israel is, as it continually trumpets, a democracy, aren't Israelis collectively responsible for the conduct of their government? Was the collective punishment of white south africans to end apartheid a travesty (Margaret Thatcher thought so; I disagreed)? I supported the NATO campaign against Serbia, and that doesn't make me racist against Serbs; but I wouldn't be surprised if I get called an anti-semite because I support BDS.
JC: YOu would no doubt LOVE to be called an anti-semite... i won't oblige. But by including Greg Felton in your list of Canwest undesirables, you're indirectly defending someone who is clearly an anti-semite. Just visit his site and tell me I'm wrong: He implicates Israel in 9/11, says AShkenazi Jews are Khazars (denying Jews their own history, and based on nothing more than book or two he skimmed). For instance his latest drivel:
"“Alan Sabrosky, former director of Studies at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, says he has found conclusive proof that Israel was responsible for the [9/11] attack: “I have had long conversations over the past two weeks with contacts at the Army War College and at Headquarters Marine Corps, and I have made it absolutely clear in both cases that it is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation…. period.” If war were still respected as a rational instrument of national policy, a premeditated, co-ordinated attack on Israel would be an entirely justified and justifiable war. It is, after all, the modern analog to Nazi Germany, and like Nazi Germany we the virtuous, democratic, peace-loving West are responsible for its creation. It is time to consign German fascism to history and pay attention to the modern threat posed by Jewish fascism.”
YOu don't think that's anti-semitic and that he deserved to keep his little job at the Courier. Give me a break.
And so what if Canwest papers tilt toward Israel. Do you complain that the Guardian and Independent tilt the other way? That's what newspapers are supposed to do in their editorial pages: represent a position. By the way you're wrong about NP letters page. They do print anti-Israel letters; of course, there is always a robust response to such letters, as their should be. And given how the media rushed to judgment in the flotilla affair before knowing any of the facts, it's a bit silly for you to talk about media tilts toward Israel at this time.
Nice of you to remember that democratically elected regimes represent the will of the people. Next time, apply that to Hamas, which as folks like you keep reminding us, was also democratically elected.
And don't even get me started on the BS known as BDS.
And Terry: you are correct. It doesn't happen. It's a total myth. The kernel of truth in it is that there are right-wing crazies out there who do label criticism of Israel as anti-semitic, in fact they would label me anti-semitic and pretty much anybody else who didn't share their exact views. But they represent no one but themselves. No serious Zionist scholar or official has ever uttered such crap. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "criticism of Israel." There's an excellent article by Howard Jacobson written last year that addresses that very issue. It's at
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/howard-jacobson/howard-jacobson-let8217s-see-the-8216criticism8217-of-israel-for-what-it-really-is-1624827.html.
The "bravery" Davies speaks of is entirely in her own mind. What's the worst that has happened to "critics of Israel"? A few letters by angry Jews? Gimme a break. The truly brave are people like Irshad Manji, Tarek Fateh and Hirsi Ali, and other Muslims and former Muslims who risk their lives to warn of the Islamist/Jihadi menace, which in Palestine is represented by Hamas and its ilk.
Greg Felton is certainly a crank, as are all 9-11 conspiranuts, and likely an anti-semite too. Richard Gwynn and Gwynne Dyer, hardly.
If people or states want to boycott or sanction Hamas, more power to them. That's their decision. I don't support Hamas, so I don't know why you'd expect me to be upset. But starving kids, restricting the necessities of life and withholding medical supplies is not a boycott, it is a crime against humanity and international law.
And while you can expect a single newspaper to have a tilt, when what, 95% of the daily's in Canada (were) owned by the Aspers and the tilt is enforced uniformly, that becomes a concern.
"Judenstatrein is the new Judenrein. And it comes with its own free "I'm the victim" pass."
Jeez Terry, it sounds like you are implying Libby is a Nazi. Doesn't that rather prove her point?
And Sharansky, christ what a downer. He embodies the depressing paradox that someone so concerned with human rights in the Soviet Union seems to have absolutely no empathy for the human rights of Palestinians in the slightest. I don't know if it's cognitive dissonance or mere hypocrisy, but it is a depressing indictment of the human condition.
The grand old patriach of the Israeli peace movement Uri Avnery wrote a delicious takedown of Natan Sharansky some years back. Its still well worth reading
http://tinyurl.com/2d5dqcd
"Davies says she personally supports boycott, divestment and sanctions [i.e. the collective punishment of Israelis for the crime of being Israelis]"
Ironic since this is the exact policy that Israal itself practices towards those in Gaza. Israel itself is one of the world's prolific boycotters. Not only does it boycott, it preaches to others, at times even forces others, to follow in tow. Israel has imposed a cultural, academic, political, economic and military boycott on the territories. At the same time, almost no one in our mainstream political discourse utters a dissenting word questioning the legitimacy of these boycotts. Yet the thought of boycotting the boycotter? Now that's inconceivable. Israel not only blocks goods from entering Gaza but it prevents human contact-barring Doctors, professors, artists, jurists, intellectuals, economists, engineers. In the face of this intragience and the ongoing disavowal of international law-I say boycott the boycotters.
Terry I've seen first hand how mainstream Zionist organizations attempt to stiffle legitimate critiques of Israel. Part of the sort of speech codes Judy Rebick refers to. Mention that Israel was founded through the disposession of 700 000 Palestinians and the implication will be that you're denying Israel's right to exist. Hysterical campaigns will follow driven by an always compliant media. Meanwhile an endless deluge of statements of support for the actual, calculated, methodical dehumanization of Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular goes without comment. What we have is a cultural racism embedded in our society which systematically devalues Palestinians lives.
Another example of speech codes involves the orchestrated attempt against those who raise the issue of "aparthied" Heck, yesterday Jeffrey Goldberg one of the more "pro Israel" voices in American media who write for the Atlantic, in a dialogue with Jeremy Ben Ami said "the West Bank is apartheid-like". In the Israeli media such claims and comparisons are widely made. Yet those in Canada who say the same thing are routinely attacked as bigoted, anti semitic, and toxic.
ps Terry I'm wondering if you've read the Tel Aviv University/Stephen Roth Institute’s released study on anti-Semitism in 2009? It was widely reported on and corrected dissed for being propagandistic and making the eact claim that you say you've not seen. That is legitimate criticisms of Israel were deemed or linked to anti semitism.
While the focus was mostly European the report narrowed in rather hilariously on other targets. Widely praised American writer Ali Abunimah and the students who heckled Michael Oren were named in the report. The self proclaimed Zionist with long ties to Israel Richard Goldstone was also placed amoung the Insitutes list of dangerous anti semites. Check out this shoddy sentence-“In November, extensive criticism of Israel in the media following the release of the Goldstone Report probably served as a trigger for another spike in hate crimes against Jews,” the report states. Since there is no evidence to back their claim up, the authors slipped in the word, “probably.”
Attacks on academics drven by lobby groups, including moves to deny tenure, or sack professors have been widely reported. From pernicious groups like the eerily sounding "Campus Watch" to campaigns against people like Joseph Massad and Nadia El Haj. The tendency here is the policing of "acceptable" lines of dialogue as a way of curbing legitimate crtiques of Israel.
"I've never encountered a single instance of a reputable Zionist or Jewish organization or individual branding someone as antisemitic for merely expressing a legitimate criticism of Israel, either. I don't believe it happens."
Okay this may not count since its hard to consider Alan Dershowitz credible but he certainly makes a lot of noise. Dersh compared the international jurists Goldstone, who is a political liberal and a Zionists, to the authors of the Protocol of Zion, called him "an evil man" and a "traitor" to the Jewish people. Surely ths counts. So you now have at least one example and there's plenty more
http://www.haaretz.com/news/dershowitz-goldstone-is-a-traitor-to-the-jewish-people-1.265833
I agree with the one poster who states that Greg Felton is a strong anti-Semite. But I disagree with one other poster who suggests that Gwynne Dyer is a respectiable journalist.
Were I live (in New Brunswick), the left-wing, Irving-owned Brunswick News papers (a virtual monopoly in my long-suffering province) feature Mr. Dyer as the sole commentator on foreign policy.
And Gwynne Dyer, on June 14 and 15, contributed two consecutive rants against Israel in the Fredericton Daily Gleaner. In the first rant, he compelete distorted the flotilla incident -- claiming falsely that the Turkish IHH thugs has only "one or two knives", and that the IDF anti-blockade-runners were "arrogant". Dyer spends his column advocating that more leftist blockade running should be done, and proposed tactics to do the blockade running. In this column, in other words, Dyer supports the IHH pro-Islamism.
In his second column, published the following day in the Daily Gleaner, Dyer takes the extremist position that Iran is not undertaking any program to develop nuclear weapons. He attacks the UN Security Council for its ultra-modest sanctions! No responsible journalist would defend Iran -- and parrot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Needless to say, the small Jewish community in Fredericton is up in arms. A representitive of the Atlantic Jewish Congress has submitted a letter-to-the-editor. The small shul wants to send a delegation to meet with the Daily Gleaner editor. And I (as a non-Jew) has submitted an op-ed essay in response. (The acting editorial-page editor only said to me that he would "consider" my submission).
So trust me. Here in New Brunswick we suffer from a steady diet of Gwynne Dyer. He is an anti-Western, pro-fascist extremist. He spends each column supporting authoritarian, human-rights abusung governments.
-- David Murrell
Ahmed: Like i said, it all depends on what you call "criticism of Israel". Incidentally, these days Dershowitz sounds considerably more credible than Goldstone. Other than to folks like you of course.
By the way, I see your perturbation has dissipated rather rapidly, as predicted and already noted. Talk about one-trick pony.
Thanks for this Terry.
Fidel Castro recently was quoted as saying: ""The hatred felt by the state of Israel against the Palestinians is such that they would not hesitate to send the one and a half million men, women and children of that country to the crematoria where millions of Jews of all ages were exterminated by the Nazis. It would seem that the Fuehrer's swastika is today Israel's banner."
Anti-semitism? Come on, no way. It's just more "criticism of Israel." Perfectly legitimate. Just ask Ahmed.
"Incidentally, these days Dershowitz sounds considerably more credible than Goldstone."
Thanks for the very self revealing comment. Tells me a lot about you, vilde
Ahmed: I might have said the same about your comment, but all was already revealed in your previous comments, which all come straight out of the new leftspeak talking book. Enjoy your time in the bubble.
Ami Isseroff on the Goldstone report. This is a snippet from a brilliant article that showsjust how absurd it is. See especially the part about the footnote 593:
Beyond all its irregularities, the Goldstone report made one claim that cannot be refuted: That Israeli policy and war tactics were deliberately designed to kill civilians. It can't be refuted because it is not logical or based on any facts. Like medieval accusations of well poisoning or the blood libel, it is obvious that the persons making the accusation already have all the information needed to refute it, and simply ignore it because of malevolent mendaciousness. The man claims your sister is a lady of easy virtue. But you have no sister, and he knows it!
Goldstone's report claimed:
1211. Statements by political and military leaders prior to and during the military operations in Gaza leave little doubt that disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy.593
In a real report, one might expect that reference 593 would include the statements by political and military leaders that left no doubt etc. Instead, the footnote (like much of the Goldstone report) simply references a report by an anti-Israel NGO:
Highlighting the pattern of military actions targeting civilian shelters and shelter seekers, the Habitat International Coalition concludes: “The official statements that accompany these actions […] seem to reflect a presumption that any source of brutality against the indigenous inhabitants would convert the victims into agents of the attackers’ preferred outcome: defeat of resistance” (submission, cited, p. 40).
One unsupported conclusion is used to support another and the Hamas terrorists, who seized power illegally, are elevated to the dignity of "resistance.
Read the rest at:
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000719.html
Dershowitz at least sources properly.
Attacking civilian infrastructure was deliberate policy in Lebannon. "We will turn their clocks back 20 years" (IDF Chief of staff). And it was clearly deliberate policy in Gaza (for instance, destroying sewage works...in case Hamas develops shit-powered bombs, presumably). Try again, vilde.
Dershowitz is unrepentant Nazi. If Great Britain has followed his advice (A New approach to Palestinian terrorism, Jerusalem Post 2002) during the troubles, for every IRA bomb or act of violence the UK would have razed a republican village to the ground.
The Goldstone report is absolutely is line with what all the independent human rights organizations reported about the fighting in Gaza, and for that reason alone its merits more trust than what its opponents claim. But that wasn't my point. Surely its legitimate to critique Goldstone. But in calling him a traitor and comparing this international jurist with a lifelong ties to Israel, who has been delegated to produce international reports on Yugoslavia, to the authors of the "Protocols of Zion" Dersh does what Terry says he has never seen. Surely this counts. Here's Dershowitz on Goldstone.
Galey Tzahal: Do you hint Prof. Dershowitz that he is a moser, someone who betrays his own people?
D: Absolutely. There is a prayer that is said every day for people like him: La-malshinim al t’hi tikvah (“there shall be no hope for the betrayers”). He is a man who uses his language, his words against the Jewish people. I regarded him as a friend. I now regard his as an absolute traitor.
Enough said. Despicable. An accusation of antisemitism made to deflect critiques of Israel. That Vilde suggests Dersh has credibility is, as I said, revealing. In Dershowitz suggested in 2002 that Israel summarily empty and then bulldoze an entire Palestinian village as a punitive measure each time it was attacked? This is to advocate a form of collective punishment which is illegal and cruel. More so the same policy carried out by Palestinians would be wisely categorically denounced. Here's where the very real issues of racism and double standards apply
I see you didn't actually read what Isseroff pointed out about the Goldstone report, which naturally was supported by thoswe other human rights groups -- who after all were the source of much of the report, rather than real evidence, as Isseroff clearly points out and shows a good example in footnote 593.
As for Dershowitz, I'm not exactly a fan, i don't agree with him about bulldozing (though he said it when Israel was facing a terrorist attack a week-of course that little bit of context escapes you) and I certainly didn't agree with him about torture or what he said about Goldstone. That being said, at least he sources what he claims are facts. Goldstone obviously wasn't bothered to do so.
And hooray, you found the exception that proves the rule. Find more. Even better, find a reputable Jewish organization that does so. And again, it all depends on how you define "criticism of Israel". If you head into Greg Felton territory, for example, you'll definitely hear accusations of anti-semitism, because that's what he writes.
Oh Vilde you make me laugh. Thanks for your highly qualified disagreement with Dershowitz-a man you find more "credible" than Goldstone-on the issue of bulldozing entire Palestinian villages. Of course the "context" of violence against Palestinians never occurs to you perhaps because you view the decades long occupation of Palestinian land of benign, or see any and all attempts by Palestinians to resist their oppression as expressions of irrational hatred. Terry said that he has never, not once, from a prominent individual or organization heard legitimate criticism of Israel called anti semitic. I easily, off the top of my head, came up with an example. In a way you're right though that going further we'd probably enter into a debate about definitions. I also mentioned that obscene and routine dehumnanizations of Palestinians is the norm in our political discourse and this racism is rarely highlighted.
ps you dont have to like Max Blumenthal or appreciate his methods to notice that a lot of those attacks, against Obama hardly a fire breathing critic of Israel, are made in this video. They include representatives of organizations and individuals. Terry's challenge could be met over and over again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R611drTEHPA
Ahmed: That video is a joke. All I see are a bunch of Obama-hating crackpots. Is this the best you can do? No organization, no serious representative, rather, a bunch of yahoos? Kind of makes my point does it.
"any and all attempts by Palestinians to resist their oppression as expressions of irrational hatred"
No. Just the ones that involve blowing up innocent Israelis in cafes, hotels, schools and buses. I'm also not fond of officially bestowing hero status on individuals who bash little children's heads in. But hey, that's just me.
I pointed out my disagreements with Dershowitz because they exist. Goldstone is not just an individual, like Dershowitz, but a report. As such, what he said and did is more far-reaching. And his report, as Isseroff points out so well, is a pile of crap and has been recognized as so by all but the anti-Israel NGO gang that did anti-racism so well in Durban and Geneva. (i.e. the guys you keep quoting).
And do keep blathering on about racism against Palestinians in Canada, which apparently you find a much more "disturbing" phenomenon than the real anti-semitism exhibited on blog after blog day after day, complete with Jews control the economy, the govt of Canada, U.S., media etc. What a joke.
Actually, Vilde, it seems that the best that you can come up with against Goldstone is that his report was inadequately footnoted. Bravo!
Can I remind you that Terry put out the challenge and i've since answered. Dershowitz is a widely quoted and well known "advocate"/attack dog for the "pro Israel" position in American who readily speaks at APIAC conferences and dialogues with high profile American and Israeli politicians. He is very much mainstream. There's plenty of "pro Israel" representatives in that video. More so, one of the speakers, Dov Hikind, comes off as a raving Islamophobe nutcase when he says that Barack Obama has proved himself to be "Barack Hussein Obama" because he has tepidly asked Israel to stop building new settlements. Worth mentioning that Obama has not in any way changed gears on US policy towards Israel. Who is Dov Hikind? A raving extreme marginal figure? Nope. he is the Democratic New York State Assemblymen, a position he's held since 1983. The problem here is that routine expressions of hatred towards Palestinians and the fundamental denial to self determination is entirely within mainstream discourse and enforced by an existing system of occupation. We need a conversation about these double, nay, triple standards.
"anti-Israel NGO gang"
Oh Vilde. A simple yes or not will do. In your opinion does this "gang" include B'tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch USA, Human Right Watch Israel, the International Red Cross and the like.
Yes. Particularly human rights watch USA, whose founder, Robert Bernstein, took out an oped in the NYTimes to take them to task specifically on this issue. I guess you haven't been keeping up on HRW, have you. They're pretty discredited. Amnesty, meanwhile, has taken a lot of justifiable heat for sacking its women's rights officer because she criticized how cozy AA was getting with an Islamist group.
I think it's lovely that Israel has watchdog groups like B'tselem and the like. Too bad the surrounding countries don't have (or allow) the same. Then maybe we'd be getting somewhere.
Oh, and the democratic congressman certainly sounds like a flake (I like Obama) but he is neither a representative of the jewish community, saying anyone is "anti-semitic" and, most important, not expressing, how did you put it, "routine expressions of hatred towards Palestinians and the fundamental denial to self determination". Nor is the rubbish about Barack Hussein Obama within mainstream discourse. Try again.
JC: "Inadequately footnoted" is a pretty mild way to describe a very serious statement about deliberate maswsacre made without any corroboration whatsoever passing off as a well-researched and documented fact. I didn't know you had such little regard for truth, facts or scholarship. Nice try though.
"Oh Vilde. A simple yes or not will do. In your opinion does this "gang" include B'tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch USA, Human Right Watch Israel, the International Red Cross and the like."
Of course. They are all chock-full of raving anti-semites.
Somehow I get the strong sense that your animus towards the asortment of human rights groups I've named and Goldstone has to do less with their "credibility" and more with the fact that they regularly document facts that you'd rather run away from. Btw, that bizarre hate from Max's video was organized by an assortment of groups-the Republican Jewish Coalition, the Zionist Organization of America, Z Street, Americans for a Safe Israel, members of Christians United for Israel, and Manhigut Yehudit.
ps By the logic of Libby's detractors, Canadian MPs who are silent on the blockade, the wall, the children in detention camps, the checkpoints and the flotilla raids clearly believe that Palestinians don't have the right to exist, and should therefore resign
Still waiting for evidence of this terrifying "New McCarthysm" that has everyone quaking in their boots, afraid to speak, living in far of being subjected to cowardly smears and false accusations for merely expressing legitimate opinions. I have asked for evidence that there is something to be afraid of. Specifically, I have asked for evidence of a single reputable Zionist or Jewish organization or individual villifying someone as an antisemite for merely having uttered a legitimate criticism of Israel.
That is a request for something very specific. It is said to be everywhere, like snow on the ground in winter. Where is it?
All I've seen here is Dershowitz has called Goldstone a traitor or something and some retarded people on the streets of New York have expressed opinions that were enthusiastically recorded by that exceedingly creepy little man, Max Blumenthal.
How terrified of these great powers Libby must be!
I'm just saying: Evidence, please. We should just come clean. Libby and all those who make this claim might also clear the air from their side. What are these opinions they have been keeping to themselves and are afraid to utter lest they be called antisemities, exactly? Grow a spine. Tell us.
Lastly, on the absence of evidence owing to it being so ubiquitous as to be unnecessary to even cite: If "everyody knows" that this false accusation is made all the time, then how can it have any power? What's to be afraid of?
JC says: Of course. They are all chock-full of raving anti-semites.
Putting words in my mouth, JC? Has it really come to that?
Ahmed says: I get the strong sense that your animus towards the asortment of human rights groups I've named and Goldstone has to do less with their "credibility" and more with the fact that they regularly document facts that you'd rather run away from.
Based on what, Ahmed? Is the founder of HRW also taking aim at its anti-Israel bias for the reason you state. Did Gita Saghal not get sacked for complaining about AI bias? Did I in any way slag off B'tselem or the other Israeli HR groups, or did i merely express a wish groups like those existed in Arab states? (Isn't it handy there are no homegrown HR groups busily documenting much greater HR abuses in hmmm, Gaza, Syria, Hezb-land, Iran, Saudi, Egypt, etc. etc.) Finally, Ahmed, that collection of nutcases (jewish republicans, etc.) do not represent "mainstream" Jewish opinion, they are all fairly far-right organizations, even the ZOA. You must have had to dredge pretty deep to find some of them, since I'm fairly well versed in this area, and I'd never heard of a few, like "Z street" and "manhugit yehudit".
Both of you, stop putting words in my mouth. It's no way to win an argument, but I guess desperate men resort to desperate measures.
Sigh, Vilde. For what its worth I'm not in absolute support of everything Amnesty does. For years, to their everylasting shame, they refused to declare Mandela a political prisoner on account that the ANC had not fully renounced armed struggle. My point is that on Israel/Palestine they are credible. I read the New York Times piece and the subsequant rebutals, and did not find the attacks to merit much serious attention. More so I'm shocked that you arent up in arms about B'tselem. I visit their website regulalarly and what they say is absolutely consistent, in fact it often goes much further, than what the "biased" Amnesty, Human Rights Watch USA, Human Rights Watch Israel, the Red Cross put out. B'tselem information, for example, on Gaza doesnt differ in substance that much from Goldstone and certainly comes far cloder to his view than that of the man you find more credible-Dershowitz.
Terry I'm curious about what would qualify even as a single example for you. Does what Dershowitzs said count? I say that because Im interested in your definition here. When Dershowitz calls Goldstone a "traitor" to the "Jewish people" such language, responding the a credible critique of the Israeli state, is meant precisely to stiffle debate. It suggests that loyalty to the "jewish people" means parrotting Dersh's line and that Goldstone for his documented critiques of the attacks on Gaza, and not being sufficienty "pro Israel" for a man who calls for the wholescale destruction of Palestinian Villages, has made himself an enemy of the jewish people, or in the demented mind of Desh an "evil, evil man".It is a circling the wagons philosophy described aptly on Peter Beinarts, writing as a "liberal Zionists" shapeshifting attack on the "Jewish Establishment" in a recent copy of the NYTRB. I also quoted a spurious report which directly accused Ali Abunimah is being an anti semite.
The fact that we have a national political outrage over Libby Davies support for boycotts and her nod towards 1948- while our political and media class can not work up any such energy over the sieges, massacres, walls, checkpoints, colonial settlements is telling. Our discourse around Israel operates under the framework of racism and ethnocentrism. A willful ignorance about what the occupation is compounded by a denial and distortion of history. The article you posted was telling. Discussing the "new antisemitism" on the left, it quotes with no awareness an advocate for unreconstructed occupation, and then not once even mentions that the Palestinians are occupied both a lived reality and under international law. What we have here is such a heavy dose of denial that the voices attempting to break out of this stupid box are always deemed marginal, cranky, suspect, or hate driven.
Part of the problem as Antony Lerman says is that what anti semitism has been in many ways radically redefined to include legitimate critics of ths Israeli state, and under such a definition anti zionism=anti semitism becomes a kind of orthordoxy. We need a muc broader discussion as the way this phenonemon operates.
ps When Jason Kenney speaking about the Christian social justice group KAIROS says "the Canadian government has now "implemented a zero tolerance approach to anti-Semitism in Canada. What does this mean? In part, it means . . . we have defunded organizations, most recently, like KAIROS" he most certainly is making use of the accusation
"If "everyody knows" that this false accusation is made all the time, then how can it have any power? What's to be afraid of?"
Everybody knows is a variation of an exagerated expressions which makes a nod the the thankful fact that the "accusation" becomes less and less believable as more people become aware of Israel treatment of the Palestinians. Its really hard, morally, to defend hijacking boats delivering aid and human contact to a people under a grotesque and immoral siege. Gaza in many ways acted as a turning point, too. But its an overstatement obviously "everyone does not know." Heck people write whole articles about the "new antisemitism" on the left, such as the one you posted, which doenst once mention the conditions of the occupation or Palestinian experiences or voices. We get instrad blind and silly worhsip of a state rigorous in its "self intewrogation" as it plainly violates international law. Ironically that article proves the point that racism and ethnocentrism on this topic still runs deep
Ahmed: You misunderstand me re: B'tselem. I believe they come from the same misguided ideology system that Ilan Pappe and the Israeli masters student whose thesis was that israelis are racist because they DONT rape Arab women. I am, however, nonetheless glad they are there as a watchdog against Israeli excesses, even if I don't agree with most of their conclusions or de-contextualizations. I think their view on Gaza is a disgrace. I'm sure they take a view on the flotilla is one i could not support either. That said, I'm happy israel is a democracy that allows divergent groups to investigate and issue statements and opinions, however silly and even repulsive I may find them sometimes.
What's really telling is your unwillingness to engage the rather more significant point about B'tselem et al -- which is that they exist at all, whereas such organizations are conspicuously absent among the Palestinian entities, the neighboring Arab states and Iran. This is a very major, if not the most significant, factor in the ongoing state of hostilities (and Israeli security fears). Of course I don't blame you for not mentioning it ever -- it's embarrassing, humiliating, something you can't blame on the Israelis; and there really is no comeback to that, is there?
RE: Kairos: The issue is the groups that Kairos funds, some of which go far beyond "legitimate" criticism of Israel, certainly in my books. Would you say, for example, that those who maintain that Little Israel controls U.S. foreign policy and CAnada's govt are making legitimate criticism. To me, that's clearly anti-semitism, particularly with the protocols of the Elders of Zion barely 100 years old.
RE: racism and ethnocentrism on this topic still runs deep.
It sure does. Israelis and Jews are demonized to such an extent in the Arab/Muslim world by governments, mass media and professional organizations that many immigrants to Canada from those countries, never having met a Jew in real life before, are shocked and puzzled as to why they have horns (metaphorical or otherwise) and actually are capable of kindness and non-malevolent rational thought.
"The issue is the groups that Kairos funds, some of which go far beyond "legitimate" criticism of Israel, certainly in my books. Would you say, for example, that those who maintain that Little Israel controls U.S. foreign policy and CAnada's govt are making legitimate criticism. To me, that's clearly anti-semitism, particularly with the protocols of the Elders of Zion barely 100 years old."
Of course too many Arab regimes are dictatorial and soul crushing, afraid of their own people and unwilling to tolerate dissent. But its simply not true that civil socioety groups committed to greater freedom and documenting the crimes of the state dont exist. Nor is it the case around the press. In my time in Cairo I noticed that I could pick up all sorts of information and the dizzing amount of opinions on offer far exceeded the concensus driven American media. Again this is to discuss the willpower of the people, not the nasty regimes. And in Palestine civil society groups, womens organizations, commited and brave advocates for human rights often working in opposition to Hamas and Fatah have been the backbone of society. Keeping socieoty in tact in the face of an Israeli occupation menant in every way to break peoples will and suffocate hope. I think that your generalizations are too broad.
And since you find Dershowitz who calls for illegal collective punishment namely the bulldozing of whole Palestinian villages more credible than Goldstone and you once said you view IDF reports on thier own behaviour as more honest than Amnesty, somehow I get the sense that what you view as "legitimate" criticism of Israel acts as a mechanism to shield Israel from critique.
The debate about the lobby's power is a contentious one with a dizzing amount of positions. Noam Chomsky for example believes that the lobby wields no real power while foreign policy "realists" far to his right like David Petreus has recently said that Israel often threatnes American interests and distorts its foreign policy. Walt and Mercheimer believe a wide-ranging coalition that includes neoconservatives, Christian Zionists, leading journalists and of course the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, exerts a "stranglehold" on Middle East policy and public debate on the issue. While supporting the moral cause for the existence of Israel, the authors said there was neither a strategic nor a moral interest in America's siding so strongly with post-occupation Israel. Many Americans thought the Iraq War was about oil, but "the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure." Again this is a contentious issue amongst liberals and leftists but one that merits a frank discussion.
You on the other hand has reduced that debate to a characature.
Ahmed this is getting very tiresome, as you seem to be purposefully changing the subject on each issue i bring up. Namely:
1-I'm sure there are lots of groups in Egypt, the Palestinian territories etc. doing good human-rights and other work. However, if they publish their work or make it public, they risk imprisonment or worse. That's the point, as you should well know, but choose to obfuscate.
2-"Many Americans thought the Iraq War was about oil, but "the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure." Again this is a contentious issue amongst liberals and leftists but one that merits a frank discussion."
Perhaps many Americans believe that. Perhaps a concern for Israel even does motivate some American actions (though I doubt it in the case of Iraq). But again, that isn't what I was referring to, and you know it. I specifically was referring to the widespread belief that Israel (ie. its govt and people, and by extension, Jews in America and elsewhere) actually DETERMINE American foreign policy. Given your awareness of ME issues, i'm sure you've heard the expression "wag the dog," a far different assertion than "wanting to make Israel more secure." Well, in the context of Israel population 7 million wagging the U.S. (richest most powerful country in the world population 300 million) the "wag the dog" assertion is anti-semitic. I don't think that merits a "frank discussion" except on Stormfront, and unfortunately increasingly, on many so-called Left web sites.
And buddy, if you don't think wag the dog reduces the debate to a charicature, I'm afraid there's really no hope for you.
Finally, to address this bit of nonsense:
"I get the sense that what you view as "legitimate" criticism of Israel acts as a mechanism to shield Israel from critique."
Really? I think it's legitimate criticism to say Israel's attack on Gaza was disproportionate. I disagree with it, and think it's a wrong-headed statement for several reasons that I don't care to elucidate here right now, but it's legitimate criticism. What is not legitimate criticism -- and what the Goldstone report you revere unfortunately was filled with and has since enabled, was that "Israel deliberately targeted the Palestinian population" or the use of words like "slaughter" or "Warsaw Ghetto" etc. I'm sure you see things differently (more's the pity) but it has nothing to do with shielding Israel from anything. Also, your implication that my thoughts and opinions are somehow gang-pressed into defence of Israel is not only wrong and offensive, but stupid. I could say the same about you, but it wouldn't occur to me to imply that you are a volunteer agent of a foreign power. You're almost straying into Greg Felton territory, who believes that anyone who criticizes his drivel is part of a "zionist conspiracy" sent by Zionists ageants to monitor him and shut him up.
And believe me, you don't want to go there.
". . .anti semitism has been in many ways radically redefined to include legitimate critics of ths Israeli state."
Gibberish.
Still no evidence, I see. Just the same old bitching and whining, pouring the same old salt into the same festering wounds.
"Stifling debate" my rosy Irish ass.
Geez Terry, I go on and on and then you just cut to the chase in 10 words or less. I'm jealous.
People in favor of the old, tired, status quo always flail accusations of bitching and whining at their critics. Terry I just hope that, unlike Vilde, you don't find Dersh more credible than Goldstone. Or view Amnesty, B'tselem, HRW Israel, HRW USA as all bring in on the nefarious plot to undermine the Israeli state. Libby's decades long commitment to ending the occupation which has included countless trips to Israel/Palestine puts her critics to shame. Or maybe you view the Rae's and Harper's who gave critical to the brutal invasions of Gaza as morte credible "anti war" voices. Hope not
RE: Or view Amnesty, B'tselem, HRW Israel, HRW USA as all bring in on the nefarious plot to undermine the Israeli state.
Putting words in someone else's mouth is no way to win an argument or influence people. I don't recall every using words like nefarious, plot or undermine, or, for that matter, hinting at a conspiracy of any kind. That seems to be a well-used tactic of your side of the debate. Perhaps you're just projecting.
And perhaps someday you might actually explain why Dersh is wrong and Goldstone is right, instead of expecting us to take your word for it. I doubt most outside the Lefty bubble that comes up with stock phrases like "routine expressions of hatred towards Palestinians and the fundamental denial to self determination is entirely within mainstream discourse and enforced by an existing system of occupation," your assertions are taken as gospel truth. It also would be nice if you would actually address points (2 examples: Wag the dog, and Bernstein HRW, there are lots more), rather than continually resorting to "I get the sense that..." "it seems to me that you are..." based on little or nothing and continualling harping on about Dershowitz. You end up sounding like a clone, and it's very tedious.
ABout the only positive thing I can say about you is that you had the decency not to mention that Bob Rae's wife is Jewish. Maybe you can build on that.
Oh, and JC: someone who believes that cries of "anti-semite" are the new "wolf" really shouldn't go around calling people "nazis" (i.e. Dershowitz). It would be nice to hear you justify that slur on Dershowitz (and on the Israelis, who you call Nazis by implication with that remark (your IRA analogy, not mine). Incidentally, even the European HR Commission considers hurling the Nazi slur at Jews as anti-semitism.
Dersh a Nazi? Because he advocates collective punishment of the innocent, and torture. Sorry, but suggesting leveling entire villages as collective punishment fits the bill in my books. I visited Oradour-sur-Glane when I lived in France. At least Dershowitz didn't advocate machine-gunning the inhabitants. But still.
And it's not just Dersh. I've also levelled the "Nazi" epithet at Serbs who started telling me how Srebrenica was justified because of something that Muslims did to Serbs 200 years ago, or some such nonsense. I think "Nazi" fits the bill for people who talk this way. "Fascist" sounds so undergrad.
Excellent JC: Dersh says a few things that piss you off, and he's a nazi, comparable to the Serbs who slaughtered 8,000 in Srebrnica, no less. Must be a lot of them around...
Talk about cheapening a term. I strongly advise remedial lessons on what Nazism is and what the Nazis did. "Collective punishment" doesn't even begin to describe it.
Whatchu talkin bout, Vilde. Funny thing is that despite being a horrible premier, my feelings towards Rae aren't entirely negative. Having read his book, it's obvious that he he a very well read, thoughtful, interestign man, much more so than most of his colleagues. But my personal opposition to his shameful pandering attack on Libby couldn't possible be motivated on the basis of principle could it? No, you insinuate, the grudge has gotta be aobut his jewish wife. Pathetic stuff, Vilde. Terry what's about critics of Israel being accused of being anti semitic. Case in point!
Ahmed: I was "insinuating" exactly the opposite. In fact i wasn't insinuating it, i made it quite clear. If you want to accuse me of shouting "anti-semite" or "anti-semitic" at criticism of Israel, at least find an example where it actually occurred.
That being said, I suppopse my original remark does require some elaboration. I have already come across several remarks in other blogs where individuals supporting Davies' position go after Rae and remind readers that he has a Jewish wife. So I was glad you hadn't resorted to that, and I thought I said so clearly. If you took a different meaning from it, I am sorry, but i don't really see how you could have gotten that impression, given my remark was "ABout the only positive thing I can say about you is that you had the decency not to mention that Bob Rae's wife is Jewish."
Forgot to mention. You will never find an example of me calling someone an anti-semite because they criticized Israeli policy or actions. Never.
I'll accept your explanation even if it's odd that you would even bring up the issue of Rae's wife. And saying that I have the decency to "not to mention that Bob Rae's wife is Jewish" opens itself up to the interpretation that my critique is, in fact, motivated by his Jewish wife. I'm just "decent" enough to not openly say so.
"Rae target of anti-Semitism in leadership contest"
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061207/bob_rae_061207/20061207/
Elsewhere, evidence for something more closely resembling a "New McCarthyism" than the fiction Ahmed would have us believe:
http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/tabid/66/Articlsid/281/currentpage/6/Default.aspx
"A curtain of fear has descended on the intelligentsia of the West, including Canada. The fear of being misunderstood as Islamophobic has sealed their lips, dried their pens and locked their keyboards." So wrote eleven Muslim-Canadian academics and community leaders in a declaration published in the Toronto Star, Canada's largest-circulation daily newspaper, in the spring of 2006. [31]
The declaration was written at a time when embassies around the world were still smoldering, and families were still mourning their dead, following the riots that erupted after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons that were said to be a blasphemous affront to the dignity of the Prophet Mohammed.
"Islamism is not the new revolutionary movement against global forces of oppression, as a section of the left in this country erroneously perceives," the declaration asserted. But in Canada's "anti-war" circles, another view of the cartoon affair was circulating. . .
Ahmed, that's a paranoid interpretation, and it wasn't my intention. I already explained why I mentioned Rae's wife. I will concede that, in retrospect, I shouldn't have included it, because what I read in other blogs should not have impacted our conversation. Sorry about that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ok Vilde, I accept your criticism that "Nazi" is too much. Mea culpa. But kindly suggest a different term for me to use with respect to those apologists for ethnic cleansing, torture, and collective punishment. Really. There seems a shortage of good epithets.
Terry I fail to understand your point about Rae. Are you somehow tying me to those who attack him because he has a jewish wife? Wouldn't that be akin to saying Vilde is responsible for the "pro Israel" sentiments of the people videotaped by Max Blumenthal-someone who wields the same polemical video tools as the Libby Davies interviewer. Or maybe in your books a self described "pro Israel" type must wear Israeli foreign minster Avigdor Lieberman's badge-who said in 2004 that Palestinian citizens of Israel should “take their bundles and get lost.” What about Mike Huckabee who Israel to deport the Palestinians from the West Bank, so Israel could complete settling it. That's ethnic cleansing, folks. Yet no one called for his resignation and his now fills up the airwaves with his blather.
When it comes to calling out racism and hatred our culture caries two sets of books. And many a legitimate critic of Israel is falsely hit.
ps Terry I am curious only because I want to be better informed about your criteria for a "single incident". When Dersh says that Goldstone has made himself an "enemy of the Jewish people" and directly comopares him to the authors of the "Protocols of Zion"-this doesn't in your mind qualify as an accusation of antisemitism, in this case of the "self hating kind." I quoted the exact transcript
kindly suggest a different term for me to use with respect to those apologists for ethnic cleansing, torture, and collective punishment.
Why don't you use whatever term you use to describe yourself, since you too apologize for supporters of ethnic cleansing (of Jews from Palestine), collective punishment (BDS), and Hamas (torture).
Beyond that, like I said in the other thread, i see no benefit whatsoever in continuing this discussion now that you've taken it into bonehead territory. cya.
"Still no evidence, I see."
Terry you were interested in finding a very specific example and I've cited the accusation made by Dersh-a very vocal public "defender" of Israel-made against Golstone. Still waiting to hear whether this qualifies
"So you now have at least one example and there's plenty more. . ."
"All I've seen here is Dershowitz has called Goldstone a traitor or something and some retarded people on the streets of New York have expressed opinions that were enthusiastically recorded by that exceedingly creepy little man, Max Blumenthal."
Terry no wonder you claim to have never witnessed a single case of legitimate criticism of Israel being being antisemetic. Your criteria is staggeringly blind. A recap Alan Dershowitz calls international jurists Goldstone a "traitor to the Jewish people" and directly compared him to the authors of the "Protocols of Zion". A plainfully obvious case of the antisemitic charge being depoyed-this time of the self hating variety. Critiquing Goldstone is quite different and apart from depravingly calling him an "evil man" and turning him into some sub human character. Again look at the transcript. Terry you're obviously being stubborn, blind or both. Never seen a single case, eh?
D: The Goldstone Report is a defamation written by an evil, evil man. Goldstone is an evil man. No one should mince words about it. He allowed his Jewishness, the fact that his name is Goldstone, and that he has connections to Israel–he allowed himself to be used to give…a heksher, a certification of purity to a defamation.
It would be as if the Czar when he wrote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion he asked a prominent to Jew to edit the report and sign the Protocols in order to show that it had credibility.
Galey Tzahal: Do you hint Prof. Dershowitz that he is a moser, someone who betrays his own people?
D: Absolutely. There is a prayer that is said every day for people like him: La-malshinim al t’hi tikvah (“there shall be no hope for the betrayers”). He is a man who uses his language, his words against the Jewish people. I regarded him as a friend. I now regard his as an absolute traitor.
Ok Ahmed, you have managed to find one case and continue to bang that Dershowitz drum incessantly. You did mention you found it "off the top of your head." So why don't you find a few more, or is that too difficult? Otherwise, Dershowitz' comments are the exception -- the sole exception so far -- that prove the rule.
The real point, of course, is that accusations of anti-semitism are not tossed out routinely at critics of Israel until their "criticism" goes way over the top and becomes anti-Semitism. It could in fact be argued that the Goldstone report fits this bill -- since it strays from legitimate critcismof the Gaza war into unfounded unsubstantiated allegations against Israel while ignoring substantiated allegations of using human shields by Hamas.
My view, for what it's worth, about Goldstone personally, is that he is not an anti-semite or self-hating jew or any of that. Instead, he was either a dupe (for taking an assignment from an organization like UNHCR, which by any standard could be construed as anti-"zionist" nudge nudge wink wink), or a careerist. He himself has said the allegations against Israel in the report would not stand up in a court of law. So why put his name on this flawed, unsubstantiated, pre-determined report? If that description of the report and my characterizations of Goldstone bother you, so be it.
Vilde, I'm banging on this case because Terry said that he has not seen "one case" of criticim of Israel being deemed anti semitic. Neither Goldstone nor Dersh are marginal figues so I thought that this was a good case. Insaningly, even though it is plain as day (Goldstone copared to the authors of "The Protocols of Zion"-called a traitor to the "jewish people") Terry says that even this case doesnt count. Im now convinced that for him at least, if he cant acknowledge such an obvious case here, then its obvious he is the issue-not the lack of evidence!
Ahmed. OK. Fine. I'll leave Terry to explain his position, though I think he's done that already. But even assuming you're correct, it's time to either find another example to bolster your contention, concede the larger point, or simply move on.
What I wanted was an example of a single reputable Jewsh or Zionist organization or individual alleging "antisemitism" against a legitimate criticism of Israel.
I didn't get anything of the kind.
The Goldstone report, whatever its merits, is regarded widely in Israel as an over-the-top, grossly biased, unfair and outrageously one-sided attack on the integirty of Israel itself, engineered by Israel's sworn enemies. Whetever its merits, it is hardly just an ordinary criticism of the kind that is everywhere in the ordinarily robust and full-throated debate in Israel, and among Jewish intellectuals in the Diaspora, about Israel's Operation Cast Lead.
Dershowitz, a long-time friend of Goldstone's, is furiously reaching (note that he doesn't once use the word antisemite and not once insinuated that Goldstone was an antisemite) for the most hyperbolic language he can to buttress his "traitor" allegation, using a deliberately hyperbolic and purposely fantastical hypothetical case.
That - and a bunch of semi-literate crackpots in New York of the sort Blumenthal likes to portray as some kind of significant body of opinion - is all I've seen here. That's it.
That's nothing remotely like the simple straightfoward evidence I'm looking for - evidence of this thing that we are all supposed to see happening everyday and everywhere, and which is so powerful that is has effectively terrified Libby Davies and her Parliamentary colleagues into silence.
That's what you get when you ask for "evidence." That's the extent of the "New McCarthyism" we're all supposed to be living in fear of provoking. It's what all these poor honest big-hearted people are allegedly bullied by and silenced by; it's how "legitimate debate" about Israel is "stifled."
This is why it has been the case for some years now that all any dimwit needs to say is "The Zionists are trying to stifle me" and she gets all the attention she wants, all the sympathy she wants, she can say anything she wants, and she gets a free pass. Well, no free pass from me, and as things are turning out, in the case of Davies, no free pass from the Conservatives, the Liberals, not even from Jack Layton, and even Davies has apologized for her crazy remarks.
Anyone who can't see this should not be expected to see the difference between legitimate commentary and common bullshit-mongering.
"The Goldstone report, whatever its merits, is regarded widely in Israel as an over-the-top, grossly biased, unfair and outrageously one-sided attack on the integirty of Israel itself, engineered by Israel's sworn enemies. Whetever its merits, it is hardly just an ordinary criticism of the kind that is everywhere in the ordinarily robust and full-throated debate in Israel, and among Jewish intellectuals in the Diaspora, about Israel's Operation Cast Lead."
Notice the trick here. You mention how it's regarded in Israel, where support for the attack on Gaza was over 80 per cent. Where a right wing government which told the Americans that they will not stop building new illegal settlements hosts a foreign minister who owns property in areas beyond Israel's national borders, and has mused that Arab Israelis should be subjected to a loyalty oath and perhaps should be evicted from the country. That the report was well received in Israel is not a surprise. That Israelis like American, Canadian, and any other country maybe dismissive of the acts of their state being critiqued is hardly shocking. It doesn't do away with the criticism.
The Goldstone report was in fact welcome by many Israelis as individuals and organizations. Even fairly tepid liberals like "J Street" in the US applauded its findings. When you read the report what you get is an accurate, fairly moderate and factual accounting of breaches of international law. These findings are well documented and jive with what a whole bunch of other human rights groups have documented. That Goldstone is a lifelong Zionists, with deep institutional connections to Israel, and an impecable record (he investigated the crimes of Milosevic) matters.
Dershowitz is not some marginal figure. He writes best selling books "in defence" of Israel, meets regularly with Israeli and US politicians and speaks anuallly at congregations hosted by AIPAC. He also works the campuses. Lets repeat then. He is of course within his rights to mount a disagreement with Goldstone. But in calling him a "traitor" to jews, an enemy, and comparing him to the authors of the protocols of Zion he absolutely, without a doubt, accuses Goldstone of anti semitism for the crime of engaging in a criticism of Israeli state behaviour. That you refuse to concede the point makes it appear that you wouldn't recognize the "accusation" is it was right in front of you. Its crystal clear. In denying it in here perhaps you gloss over the dynamic in other places. Dersh is after all engaged in this case in a discourse which goes beyond this once instance. Call out someone as a anti semite and you get others to back off
"The Goldstone report, whatever its merits, is regarded widely in Israel as an over-the-top, grossly biased, unfair and outrageously one-sided attack on the integirty of Israel itself, engineered by Israel's sworn enemies. Whetever its merits, it is hardly just an ordinary criticism of the kind that is everywhere in the ordinarily robust and full-throated debate in Israel, and among Jewish intellectuals in the Diaspora, about Israel's Operation Cast Lead."
Notice the trick here. You mention how it's regarded in Israel, where support for the attack on Gaza was over 80 per cent. Where a right wing government which told the Americans that they will not stop building new illegal settlements hosts a foreign minister who owns property in areas beyond Israel's national borders, and has mused that Arab Israelis should be subjected to a loyalty oath and perhaps should be evicted from the country. That the report was well received in Israel is not a surprise. That Israelis like American, Canadian, and any other country maybe dismissive of the acts of their state being critiqued is hardly shocking. It doesn't do away with the criticism.
The Goldstone report was in fact welcome by many Israelis as individuals and organizations. Even fairly tepid liberals like "J Street" in the US applauded its findings. When you read the report what you get is an accurate, fairly moderate and factual accounting of breaches of international law. These findings are well documented and jive with what a whole bunch of other human rights groups have documented. That Goldstone is a lifelong Zionists, with deep institutional connections to Israel, and an impecable record (he investigated the crimes of Milosevic) matters.
Dershowitz is not some marginal figure. He writes best selling books "in defence" of Israel, meets regularly with Israeli and US politicians and speaks anuallly at congregations hosted by AIPAC. He also works the campuses. Lets repeat then. He is of course within his rights to mount a disagreement with Goldstone. But in calling him a "traitor" to jews, an enemy, and comparing him to the authors of the protocols of Zion he absolutely, without a doubt, accuses Goldstone of anti semitism for the crime of engaging in a criticism of Israeli state behaviour. That you refuse to concede the point makes it appear that you wouldn't recognize the "accusation" is it was right in front of you. Its crystal clear. In denying it in here perhaps you gloss over the dynamic in other places. Dersh is after all engaged in this case in a discourse which goes beyond this once instance. Call out someone as a anti semite and you get others to back off
Bla bla bla. No evidence.
Plus you forgot to mention white phosphorous, Jenin, bulldozers. .
t
"white phosphorous"
It's kind of weird and somewhat creepy that you say this in passing. The IDF claimed, when confronted, with the charge, that it did not use white phosphorus in Gaza. Just as we hear all sorts of cliams now put out by the IDF and its apologist about the "defensive" hijacking of the flotilla. Guess what white phosphorus was used on Gaza and was called a war crime by HRW, interestingly enough Goldstone too documents its use but is more moderate in language than HRW. So what is the stuff anyway? I scanend what they wrote.
Although it is used primarily to obscure military operations on the ground—white phosphorus ignites and burns on contact with oxygen generating a dense white smoke—it can also be used as an incendiary weapon: when making contact with skin white phosphorus causes “horrific burns,” sometimes to the bone, as it reaches temperatures of 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit (816 degrees Celsius). HRW concluded that Israel “repeatedly exploded white phosphorus munitions in the air over populated areas, killing and injuring civilians, and damaging civilian structures, including a school, a market, a humanitarian aid warehouse and a hospital,” and that such use of white phosphorus “indicates the commission of war crimes.” It further found that insofar as Israel wanted an obscurant for its forces, it could have used smoke shells (manufactured by an Israeli company); that Israel’s persistent use of white phosphorus where no Israeli forces were present on the ground indicated it was being used as an incendiary weapon; that in its targeting of the UNRWA headquarters in Gaza City, which warehoused vast quantities of humanitarian food and medical supplies, the IDF “kept firing white phosphorus despite repeated warnings from U.N. personnel about the danger to civilians”; that Israel targeted the U.N.’s Beit Lahiya school despite the fact that “the U.N. had provided the IDF with the GPS coordinates of the school prior to military operations”; and that Al-Quds hospital, also a target, was “clearly marked and there does not appear to have been fighting in that immediate area.” It deserves special emphasis that the U.S. manufactured “all of the white phosphorus shells” recovered by HRW in Gaza.
Its weird that you refer to all this so casually. Terry I've provided you a specific transcript and clear cut proof of the "allegation" as straightforwrd as possible. You wanted "a single case" and you aked for evidence. Even Vilde who comes at things so differently than me agrees that in this one case I cite the accusation you mention is broought up. Your utter denial is stunning
"Dershowitz, a long-time friend of Goldstone's, is furiously reaching (note that he doesn't once use the word antisemite and not once insinuated that Goldstone was an antisemite)"
Right he just says that he is an "evil man" and not just a traitor but a traitor to the jewish people. He then goes on the compare him to the authors of "Protocols of Zion". I understand stubborness in not conceding a point but this is pushing it beyond reason.
Your stupidity is hilariously predictable, Ahmed.
We'll let fair minded readers be the judge of that. I just noticed, too, how sliperry your language is. The Goldstone report is regarded as all sorts of hideous things, "whatever its merits", and thus is not "ordinary" criticism judged by what you imagine is the give and take of Israeli discourse. Forget that you make invisible Israelis or those in the Jewish diaspora who supported the report. Or that to make what Isrealis think of the report as standard bearer for "ordinary criticisms" negates what Palestinians may feel. Or our opinions. This is a kind of ethnocentrism and suspension of critical thinking which is astounding. Anyways, nice to know you think comparing someone-a lifelong committed Zionist, and international jurist, no less-to the authors of the "Protocols of Zion" and saying he is "evil" a "traitor" to jews is a-okay. No wonder you've never noticed a single instance of the "allegation". Now its obvious.
That such a hideous charge was made by Dershowitz, someone who opnely called for the destruction of an entire Palesdtinian village for every attack on Israel, an act of terror and collective punishment is an interesting footnote. But maybe such incitement for you is much more along the lines of "ordinary criticisms". Astounding
"Anyways, nice to know you think comparing someone-a lifelong committed Zionist, and international jurist, no less-to the authors of the "Protocols of Zion" and saying he is "evil" a "traitor" to jews is a-okay."
Stupid, illiterate, dishonest - or a combination of these? Can't you read, Ahmed?
I asked for evidence of a very specific alleged phenomenon that is supposed to be ubiquitous. You have provided me with no end of amusement, I admit, but not a shred of evidence.
This makes me "ethnocentric."
You're a caricature, Ahmed. You're a parody. Either that or some sort of Zionist having us all on for a laugh.
I would like to chime in on Ahmed's repeated insistence on how accurate the Goldstone report was, and the fact that it agreed with what the HR organizations like HRW also reported.
That's exactly the point. It wasn't accurate, and it's not just Israelis who don't think so, it's Jews everywhere (vast majority), and most fair-minded people. As I have noted and you have never addressed, the "facts" reported are not facts at all, but assertions backed up by opinions. Goldstone et al accepted as evidence stories without checking whether the people telling the stories were Hamas operatives, or, more likely, intimidated by Hamas. It verified claims by citing other HR organizations making assertions. However, when it came to Hamas using human shields, it said there was no evidence, when in fact the evidence was clearly there. In short, it applied a double standard to evidence about Hamas and evidence about Israeli supposed misdeeds. Those are serious charges to level against a supposedly "impartial" report, particularly when the report was commissioned by an organization that spends more of its time investigating Israel than all the other countries in the world combined. As for HRW, its leadership has been seriously compromised on the question of Israel. Its only military analysist Mark Garlasco, was suspended for wearing "cool" nazi regalia; Its director, Kenneth Roth, solicits funds from Saudi Arabia whichare used to disproportionately attack Israel; he also recruited longtime anti-israel activists Joe Stork and Sarah Whitson as HRW officials. HRW has 0 credibility on Israel/Palestine issues and yet its reports on the Gaza war were one of the main sources for the Goldstone report. NOt to mention how HRW founder Robert Bernstein has publicly lambasted HRW for focusing more on "open" societies like israel instead of looking at "closed" societies where outside HR work would be more useful.
Plenty of reasons, then, to consider the Goldstone report inaccurate, unbalanced, biased, and unfair; one might even say, without merit.
There is always a rush to judgment where Israel is concerned; the Goldstone report is just more of the same.
As for "suspension of critical thinking," you seem to leave all critical thinking at the door on these subjects, since Israel comes in for all the calumny, whereas Hamas, Hezb, Iran, and the rest of the actors on the Palestinian side of the Israel/Palestine story are studiously ignored -- not even glossed over... completely and utterly ignored. How's that for "suspension of critical thinking."
Sigh. What I said, very clearly, was that to claim the report went beyond "legitimate critcisms" of Israel because Israelis and disapora Jews (a category apparently doesnt include many voices on the Israeli left like Uri Avnery, Peace Now, J Street, Tikun Magazine, et cetera-who all lauded the report) thought it was unfair is indeed ethnocentric. You just saying its one sided and defacto dismissing itrs claims and that of a barrage of human rights groups without a scanitilla of evidence is very weird. And, yes, that the barometer is, always, what Israelis think or what discussions they have again makes Palestinians who were after all the primary victims of the Gaza campaign, who have lived on their own land now for decades under a foreigh military occupation, invisible.
Also there's an important thing you're doing. Delegating while not providing your criteria what is "legitimate" criticism and what is not. Go too far, like Goldstone, and you are summularily dismissed. You asked for the hundreth time for a specific example and I provided one. A crystal clear one of a promiment individual deploying the charge. Its important that doesnt say that Goldstone is a traitor to the Israeli state or something along those lines. No he is a traitor to the "Jewish people" and compared to a jewish author who would sign on to the anti semetic protocols of Zion. Yet you still have never seen a specific example. This is, in fact, a revealing dialogue. A whole bunch of people and groups as diverse as members of the left Zionist party Meretz, MJ Rosenberg, Richard Silverstein, Uri Avnery, Bernard Avishai (who has a current Nation piece against BDS), Peace Now and others all called Dershowitz's allegation hate speech, incitement, and a form of antisemitism. Whether its stubborness or dismissal you're positioning yourself well to their right!
"Kenneth Roth, solicits funds from Saudi Arabia whichare used to disproportionately attack Israel"
Ah the protocols of Arabia. Do you even believe half of what you write and at what point does the blame the messanger bit get stale. If Human Rights Watch is getting jiggy with the Saudis, you'd think they lighten up a bit of this, eh?
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/79258
"The government systematically suppressed the rights of 14 million Saudi women and an estimated 2 to 3 million members of minority Shia communities, and failed to protect the rights of foreign workers. Thousands of people received unfair trials or were subject to arbitrary detention. Curbs on freedom of association, expression, and movement, as well as a lack of official accountability, remain serious concerns."
ps as for "ethnocentrism" the dynamic that Im calling out was nailed best by Christopher Hitchens, in a moving obituary for Israel Shahak, a man who in Terry eyes presumingly went far past "legitimate" criticisms. He makes Goldstone look weak. Hitch gets the main principle beautifully
"That was well said, and I hadn’t at the time read his (Thomas Friedman) then-most-recent column, so I didn’t think to reply. But in that article he wrote that Chairman Arafat, by his endless double-dealing, had emptied the well of international sympathy for his cause. This is a very Times-ish rhetoric, of course. You have to think about it for a second. It suggests that rights, for Palestinians, are not something innate or inalienable. They are, instead, a reward for good behavior, or for getting a good press. It’s hard to get more patronizing than that. During the first intifada, in the late 1980s, the Palestinians denied themselves the recourse to arms, mounted a civil resistance, produced voices like Hanan Ashrawi and greatly stirred world opinion. For this they were offered some non-contiguous enclaves within an Israeli-controlled and Israeli-settled condominium. Better than nothing, you might say. But it’s the very deal the Israeli settlers reject in their own case, and they do not even live in Israel “proper”. (They just have the support of the armed forces of Israel “proper”.) So now things are not so nice and many Palestinians have turned violent and even – whatever next? – religious and fanatical. Naughty, naughty. No self-determination for you. And this from those who achieved statehood not by making nice but as a consequence of some very ruthless behavior indeed.
He detested nationalism and religion and made no secret of his contempt for the grasping Arafat entourage. But, as he once put it to me, “I will now only meet with Palestinian spokesmen when we are out of the country. I have some severe criticisms to present to them. But I cannot do this while they are living under occupation and I can ‘visit’ them as a privileged citizen.” This apparently small point of ethical etiquette contains almost the whole dimension of what is missing from our present discourse: the element of elementary dignity and genuine mutual recognition.
Only the other day, I read some sanguinary proclamation from the rabbinical commander of the Shas party, Ovadia Yosef, himself much sought after by both Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon. It was a vulgar demand for the holy extermination of non-Jews; the vilest effusions of Hamas and Islamic Jihad would have been hard-pressed to match it. The man wants a dictatorial theocracy for Jews and helotry or expulsion for the Palestinians, and he sees (as Shahak did in reverse) the connection. This is not a detail; Yosef’s government receives an enormous US subsidy, and his intended victims live (and die, every day) under a Pax Americana. Men like Shahak, who force us to face these reponsibilities, are naturally rare. He was never interviewed by the New York Times, and its obituary pages have let pass the death of a great and serious man."
RE: "without a scanitilla of evidence is very weird"
I have presented evidence, there's lots more. you choose to ignore it. I am tired of repeating it.
RE: because Israelis and disapora Jews
I did also mention all fair-minded people, a considerably larger category. And this habit of reciting those anti-Israel jews without acknowledging they represent, at best, 5% of the Jewish population, is creepy at best. Why not post pics of neturei karta while you're at it.
RE: Making Palestinians invisible.
Actually you do that, continually, since this conflict to you appears to be a one-trick pony "israel bad". Palestinians never mentioned except as victims. Now that's invisibility.
RE: Dersh.
All dersh, all the time. ridiculous. simply shows up that you can't find another example. exception that proves the rule? Certainly.
RE: the protocols of Arabia.
What protocols. simply mentioned a fact (you know, those things you rarely bring up), and you turn it into some kind of historical parallel with no evidence (you know, that other thing you rarely mention). FACT: They took their money in exchange for writing nasty anti-israel reports. It's documented. So they write a piece of two noting saudi violations. That's their job. Did they write more reports about saudi or Israel? Are the two countries even comparable in that regard? Women can't even drive in Saudi. Canadian women are held prisoner against their will by their dads with the consent of the saudi govt. Jesus christ! What a friggin' apologist you are.
RE: Ovadia Yosef, himself much sought after by both Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon.
Sought after because israel's DEMOCRACY uses proportional representation, so Shas, Lieberman's party and any other that can help cobble together a coalition is sought after. No other reason. As for Yosef's hateful remarks, this is the perfect example of how flippin' blinkiered you are. I can find statements by Palestnians and Arab statesmen about the Jews like that every day of the week. Assad told the pope the Jews killed Christ. Hamas TV uses mickey mouse to glorify killing of jews. Do you really want to compare these kind of anecdotes? It won't go well for you.
I am so sick of this. My final word:
the basic premise of your arguments are flawed. If the palestinians truly are victimized to the extent you maintain, they should be hungering for talks, negotiations, peace, not a "loser take all" scenario, egged on by folks like you.
All the arguments try to obfuscate that simple fact. Make peace. Accept terms. That's the way it's been done throughout history. If that isn't acceptable, none of what you say is real.
And you know what, that's my starting premise, and always has been. None of it is real. It's a giant con that you are supporting, based on demographics, dozens of supporting states, and a population NOT desperate enough to make peace.
It's a defensible option, if it's out there in the open. Stupid, but defensible. But let's stop pretending this is about suffering Palestinians. Unfortunately for those individual Palestinians who really do face hardship, suffering and loss, they are nothing more than a sad sideshow. And you are an enabler.
Good night, and good riddance. I've had enough of this for a while.
"all fair-minded people, a considerably larger category. And this habit of reciting those anti-Israel jews"
The language here is Stalinist. I mentioned a number of individuals and groups who read the comment the exact some way as myself. They range front left Zionist like Meretz, to Tikkun, and long time activists such as Avnery. From what perch do you decide who is and isnt a "anti Israel jew". Disgusting. What interesting is that for years you could hear claims on the blogoshere, and they still arise, that Human Rights Watch USA with their considereable liberal jewish donor base, afraid to lose funding softpeddles human rights abuses when Israel commits them. You simply reverse this claim by saying the Saudis are doing the trickery and speaking through their puppet Kenneth Roth. That's absurd. And neitehr HRW USA nor myself claim that Saudi Arabia is a better observer of human rights than Israel. That's absurd. Its you who implies that the despotism on the Arab world justifies or negates the fact that as 1.5 million Palestinians live in another type of imprisonment in Gaza, and 10,000 Palestinians are imprisoned inside Israel. That Palestinians are an occupied people.Your rhetoric and apologetics are increasingly shameful. What irks you about HRW, or B'tselem, Goldstone, or people you patheticallt refer to as "anti Israel jews" is that in the name of universal justice, honouring the best spirit of humanity, they call crimes by their name and they're getting a hearing. Your paranoid squeels are becoming ever more isolated as people wake up and see the reality around them. A good thing
"You asked for the hundreth time for a specific example and I provided one."
You did not. Not even one.
"I've never encountered a single instance of a reputable Zionist or Jewish organization or individual branding someone as antisemitic for merely expressing a legitimate criticism of Israel, either. I don't believe it happens."
"You did not. Not even one."
Is Dershowitz a prominent "individual" (your term) who regularly trumpets the "pro Israel" cause? Yes. Is he reputable. Amongst serious people he is widely understood to be a deceitful propagandist but within our toxic discourse about Israel/Palestine he finds his way into many conversations/campuses/booksellers lists/political dialogue. So yes. Does he brand "legitimate criticism" of Israel, by way of Richard Goldstone (international jurist who was deployed in Rwanda and Yugoslavia-lifelong liberal Zionist) as anti semetic. Yes and again you're way to the right of the cast of characters I mentioned who agreed with me. For pronouncing his views on Israel's actions in Gaza seconded more strongly by a barrage of human rights groups, Goldstone is said to be an traitor to JEWS (not Israel but Jews), an "evil man", and compared to a Jewish author of the Protocols of Zion. Case absolutely closed. As I said if this doesnt fit then its likely that you'd never agree to a single example, or that you;re operating under some conception of "legitimate criticism" which is both wrongheaded and yes ethnocentric. It's goal to dismiss offhand critiques that go beyond some arbritrary goalposts. The wierd thing being that Goldstone's observation and personality are firmly within the mainstream. You've dug yourself an awful hole here and are unwilling to get out
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Long-banned wanker. As daft as Ahmed, besides.
As a stubborn bugger myself I sympathize with your predicament here. Hard to admit you're wrong no matter how damn obvious it appears to even the minimally sensible. Oh well
just can't deal with the truth hey Terry . O by the way did a cat get your tongue,I notice you have nothing to say about Ben Gurion's description/quote of the Jewish takeover,anyway here it is again.
...“Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
~David Ben Gurion, Prime Minister of Israel, to Nahum Goldmann, President of the World Jewish Congress, in 1956
The most revealing aspect of this dialogue occured when Terry stated that he does not consider the Goldstone report a "legitimate" crticism of Israel, whatver its merits (he didnt describe them)beause of the robust dialogue in Israel or something like that. What's strange is that Terry ascribes no agency to Israel and is deadly silent on all the relevant issues. Which Israel is he tlaking about. The same Israeli voices, in gov't, which demonize Israeli Arabs also want to attack Israeli human rights groups. Goldstone becomes an "evil" man.
In the real Israel,2008, in a poll cited by Yediot Ahronot, 40 percent of Jewish Israelis did not believe that Arab Israelis should be allowed to vote. Among Jewish Israeli high school students surveyed this March, the figure was 56 percent. We cannot wish this away, and we cannot blame it all on Israel’s foes. Does Terry associate with the small minority who dissent vigorously from the siege like policies Israel imposes in Gaza or is he more in line with the right wing government and population at large. He really should spell this out
In the real Arab/muslim world], any year, in poll after poll after poll, 90+ percent of citizens of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi, Iraq, Libya, etc etc expressed severely anti-semitic views, blamed Israel for all the wars in the world, supported its extermination. We cannot wish this away, and we cannot blame it all on Israel. Does Ahmed associate with the extremely tiny minority who dissent, however timorously ( as dissenting 'in a vigorous way gets you killed) from the hateful, anti-democratic, anti-peace policies all the Arab countries impose on their own populations, thereby perpetuating the conflict, or is he more in line with the brutal and dictatorial governments and the hatefilled, ignorant, belligerent population at large. He really should spell this out.
Of course, what's really strange is that Ahmed (and virtually all the bash-Israel onlly crowd) ascribe no agency to Israel and is deadly silent on all the relevant issues.
(Bloody cheek to talk about Israel being ascribed no agency, when in fact it's the other way around, and folks like Ahmed continually and shamelessly make out the Palestinians to be victims only, as though 8000 rockets has no relationship to Gaza war, arms smuggling has no relationship to so-called "siege", etc. Nor does he recognize Israeli agency -- in exiting Lebanon and Gaza, much less Hezb and Palestinian agency in how those withdrawals resulted in rockets, raids and kidnappings.
And all this with a smug, superior tone based on nothing except the approving nods from the echo-chamber/bubble that passes for "discourse" on this issue. Pathetic.
AS for Dirty Bumhole's supposedly revelatory quote (assuming it's real -- and its veracity is in question), he obviously is too ideologically blinded and/or thick to discern how it indicates that BG had an awareness and insight into Israel's adversaries that was sadly absent on the other side. Had a statesman with similar insight emerged from the Arab side (rather than the vicious anti-semite Al-Husayni, for example), this conflict would never have gotten to this point.
Post a Comment
<< Home