I happen to be in New York this week. Now, I’ve always known that New York was a strongly pro-Israeli city, but I was honestly really surprised to learn that the eminent historian of Europe Tony Judt has now been subjected to a heavy-handed attempt to silence him from speaking out here on the topic of the strength of the Israeli lobby.
That article, by Michael Powell in today’s WaPo, tells us that,
- Judt was scheduled to talk Oct. 4 to a nonprofit organization that rents space from the [Polish] consulate. Judt’s subject was the Israel lobby in the United States, and he planned to argue that this lobby has often stifled honest debate. [!!]
An hour before Judt was to arrive, the Polish Consul General Krzysztof Kasprzyk canceled the talk. He said the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee had called and he quickly concluded Judt was too controversial.
“The phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure,” Kasprzyk said. “That’s obvious — we are adults and our IQs are high enough to understand that.”
Judt… noted that he was forced to cancel another speech later this month at Manhattan College in the Bronx after a different Jewish group had complained. Other prominent academics have described encountering such problems, in some cases more severe, stretching over the past three decades.
The pattern, Judt says, is unmistakable and chilling.
“This is serious and frightening, and only in America — not in Israel — is this a problem,” he said. “These are Jewish organizations that believe they should keep people who disagree with them on the Middle East away from anyone who might listen.”
He is darn’ right it’s chilling.
The heads of the two organizations involved both made weaselly excuses about the actions of the groups they lead. Powell writes that they,
- denied asking the consulate to block Judt’s speech and accused the professor of retailing “wild conspiracy theories” about their roles. But they applauded the consulate for rescinding Judt’s invitation.
“I think they made the right decision,” said Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “He’s taken the position that Israel shouldn’t exist. That puts him on our radar.”
David A. Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Congress, took a similar view. “I never asked for a particular action; I was calling as a friend of Poland,” Harris said. “The message of that evening was going to be entirely contrary to the entire spirit of Polish foreign policy.”
We could note, of course (as Powell does) that Judt is Jewish; he was “born and raised in England and lost much of his family in the Holocaust.” (Though note, too, that Powell also quotes Judt as making the quite non-remarkable observation that, “”For many, the way to be Jewish in this country is to aggressively assert that the Holocaust is your identification tag… I know perfectly well my history, but it never occurred to me that my most prominent identity was as a Jew.”)
Also, while Abe Foxman might accuse Judt of saying that Israel “shouldn’t exist”, actually Judt’s position is that the best outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is probably a secular, binational state. Again, that should be quite non-remarkable… But not, apparently, in this stewing mass of ultra-Zionist intolerance that is New York City.
Okay, I know I shouldn’t do the whole city down. Some of my very best friends, after all, are New Yorkers…
Actually, I think this childish over-reaction from Foxman, Harris, and Co, may well be just another example of what I remarked on recently here, with respect to Tom Friedman and Henry Kissinger, namely that,
- the bloody nose that Hizbullah was able to deal to Israel’s once-‘famed’ military in South Lebanon this summer [seems to have had] the effect of driving some long-time American supporters of Israel almost batty?
Poor old Tony Judt. But his point that the pro-Israeli organizations have done a lot to stifle open discussion of Israeli-Palestinian issues within the United States seems now to have been well demonstrated.
Criticism and debate over Israel is alive and well in the U.S. and “ultra-Zionist New York” (Read: too many Jews for Helena’s liking, but of course “some of my best friends are” is always a convenient refrain to hide bigotry).
The fact that we have debate and discussion over this issue in the papers, in universities, et al, does not mean that every wannabe Israel basher gets the forum of their choosing to issue their screeds about “the lobby.” The Polish consulate concluded that their house, which is there for the purpose of diplomacy and friendship, should not be hosting people with such a hateful agenda.
Telling is Helena’s claim that Judt’s call for a “secular binational state” which means the end of Israel is we know it, is “unremarkable.” Forcing a sovereign state into confederation with neighbors who have called for, alternatively, dhimmitude, expulsion, or extermination of the majority population is normally quite remarkable. But apparently Israel is the one place on earth whose right to exist is still questioned. Indeed, more remarkable is that a diplomatic facility would consider hosting a speaker who calls for such a hateful course of action.
Tony Judt gets his articles published with no problem. He is regularly featured in newspapers and other media. His right to speak is alive and well. But when you start engaging in smear tactics such as painting advocates of support for Israel as a nefarious lobby, call for elimination of a soveriegn state (or say, “gee, it’s just inevitable”) you are going to provoke objections. And don’t be surprised if certain places decide that such speech is not appropriate for their house.
Are you really concerned about free speech Helena? What did you say when an unruly mob physically prevented Benyamin Netenyahu from speaking at Concordia University? What did you say when just the other day, a bunch of “peace activists” assaulted Zion Evrony, the Israeli ambassador to Ireland, after a speech at a university? What did you say to the AUT academics who try to call for boycotts of Israel academics by holding votes on the Eve of Passover so Jewish faculty can’t attend the meeting? What have you said about the plight of Salah Choudury, who faces charges of “sedition” and potentially may face the death penalty, for calling for friendship between Bangladesh and Israel? What have you said about the fact that “Zionism” is a capital crime in Iran?
These are real examples of the suppression of free speech and stifling debate. The fact that Tony Judt can’t speak to a semi-secret “Leaders of Tomorrow” organization in a building devoted to diplomacy and friendship is not.
I predict two things: Joshua’s comment will be deleted or redacted, and Helena will [once again] fail to notice the irony.
First, you fight oppression.
Then, you fight competition.
Finally, you fight dissent.
In the end, there is nothing left to fight for.
joshua and Vadim could profit from reading about the squelching of the Judt event today’s Washington Post, that organ of vile antisemitism.
here’s a taste:
There is an often organized and often spontaneous attempt to marginalize anyone in the Jewish world who offers a critique of Israeli policy,” said Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of the liberal magazine Tikkun. “It’s equated with anti-Semitism and Israel denial.”
If they care to unblinker themselves further, perhaps they could familiarize themselves with of some of the long history of ADL activities that came to light about during various criminal and civil proceedins against the group, as detailed in an article by 2 of the plaintiffs in one such action, reported in Counterforce:
The ADL Spying Case Is Over,
But The Struggle Continues
By Jeffrey Blankfort, Anne Poirier
and Steve Zeltzer
Plaintiffs in the of ADL Spying Case
In 1993, the District of Attorney of San Francisco released 700 pages of documents implicating the Anti-Defamation League, an organization that claims to be a defender of civil rights, in a vast spying operation directed against American citizens who were opposed to Israel’s policies in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza and to the apartheid policies of the government of South Africa and passing on information to both governments.
Under great political pressure, Smith later dropped the charges. One wonders what would have happened had an Arab-American or Muslim organization been caught spying with the names of 10,000 people and 600 organizations in their files.
Not only were critics of Israel under ADL’s surveillance,including thousands of Arab-Americans, but labor organizations such as the San Francisco Labor Council, ILWU Local 10, and the Oakland Educational Association, and civil rights groups such as the NAACP, Irish Northern Aid, International Indian Treaty Council and the Asian Law Caucus were also found in the “pinko” files of ADL’s undercover operative, Roy Bullock.
Moreover, Bullock, who had worked, off the books, for the ADL for more than 25 years, admitted that he had been reporting on the activities of black South African exiles and American anti- apartheid activists for South African intelligence.
Bullock, pretending to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, came to the founding meeting of the Labor Committee of the Middle in 1987 at the home of plaintiff Steve Zeltzer, having met Zeltzer at meetings of the Free Moses Mayekiso Defense
Committee, a South African labor solidarity committee in which he also infiltrated under false pretenses.
Having been responsible for exposing Bullock as an ADL agent to the media, we joined together with other Bay Area activists in filing a suit against the ADL for violation of our privacy rights as provided in California law.
Almost a decade later the suit has been settled with a significant cash payment by the ADL and, we wish to emphasize, without our signing any agreement for confidentiality which the ADL had previously demanded. Our efforts to expose the organization’s work in defending the policies of the Israeli government and stifling its opponents will continue, using new information gained in the pursuance of the suit.
The ADL spent millions of dollars preventing this case from coming to trial through costly appeals and exploiting the judicial process but, at the end, it had to give up..
During the course of the suit we learned that:
Bullock, the ADL’s top “fact finder” had sold confidential information to a South African intelligence agent in San Francisco for $15,000.
Ten days before he was assassinated in South Africa, Chris Hani, the man who would have succeeded Nelson Mandela as the country’s president, was trailed by Bullock on a trip through California who reported on it to the South African government.
ADL agent Roy Bullock was discovered to have a floor plan of murdered Los Angeles Arab American leader Alex Odeh and a key to his office.
The ADL supplied confidential information to foreign governments that it obtained from police and federal agencies in the US,
Having infiltrated the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), the ADL’s “fact finder” performed a COINTEL-type operation at the convention of the Holocaust-denying Journal of Historical Review when he put ADC’s literature on convention tables as a way of smearing the committee for “working with anti- Semites.”
The ADL has organized to silence and eliminate all critical voices of Israel from academia and the media and has targeted professors , particularly those who are African American, and who are critical of Israel.
That at least 51% of the activities of its San Francisco office were devoted to defending Israel.
The ADL provided secret files to police agencies when these police agencies were prevented by law from collecting the files themselves,
Many questions must still be answered about the activities of the ADL and it’s non-profit status as an “education organization”. The settlement offered by the ADL is recognition on its part that it could not afford to go to a trial in front of a jury and face the likelihood that more of its dirty secrets would be revealed.
We call on all people to make sure that these practices on the part of the ADL are not allowed to continue and that the double standard that presently dominates this country on issues dealing with Israel be eliminated.
Finally, we wish to thank our attorney, former congressman Pete McCloskey, himself a victim of the ADL and the Israel Lobby, for his years of work on our behalf and his steadfast commitment to the pursuit of justice.
I’m with Rabbi lerner, quoted in the WP above.
I’m not sure what Rabbi Lerner is complaining about. He’s been publishing his own magazine for years. He even got invited to the Whitehouse. But that backfired when he started bragging to the media how he was real close with the Clintons, and they distanced himself from him.
Most of the people saying “I’m being censored” really should say “I can’t seem to force everyone to accept and laud my views by fiat.”
Of course, there was one group that “censored” Michael Lerner. He was barred at speaking at antiwar rallies because he had written that he believed International A.N.S.W.E.R. to harbor antisemites. Jeez, I never knew the Zionists were so good that they infiltrated the antiwar movement as well!
“some of my best friends are” is always a convenient refrain to hide bigotry
Posted by: Joshua at October 9, 2006 06:21 PM
I predict two things: Joshua’s comment will be deleted or redacted, and Helena will [once again] fail to notice the irony.
Posted by: vadim at October 9, 2006 07:07 PM
Joshua and vadim (dependable knee-jerkers that you are),
Maybe you too/two have contracted that dreaded post-Lebanon batty bug. Or perhaps years ago you spawned the spores that now sicken Israel’s leadership.
We all note the lack of irony above. But it shows in your own comments.
Helena actually wrote that some of her very best friends are “New Yorkers … dot, dot, dot,” as if waiting for your knee jerk reaction.
Have you totally lost touch with reality? The London Review of Books publication of the Walt/Mearsheimer paper … the London Review of Books debate last week at Cooper Union … the significance of British-American Tony Judt’s participation in this debate?
Are you completely unaware of the momentous change in the intellectual and political landscape taking place all around you?
For how long will you persist in calling every advocate of Middle East peace a bigot, every proponent of Jewish-Christian-Muslim reconciliation a peddler of “hate agendas”?
When will you realize that there is no way to peace in Israel’s relations with the Palestinians and the wider Arab-Muslim world?
Peace is the way.
One day Israelis will come to terms with this basic yet profound truth. And they will finally come to terms with how awful their political leadership has become.
Apparently only then will you too/two begin to realize how Israelis can live together with Palestinians, both Muslims and Christians, just as Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in peace for centuries prior to the mistaken creation of an exclusive Jewish state in 1947.
After World War I the original British plan was for a Jewish homeland that would not compromise the livelihoods of the Palestinian Christian and Muslim majority. And once the Brits were driven back to London by Jewish terrorists (future Israeli prime ministers) after World War II the UN plan for partition still meant the land of Palestine had to be shared in common since Jerusalem was intended to remain a neutral internationalized city.
These original British and UN plans are still worth pursuing because they make rational sense. The main barrier, as more Americans are beginning to realize, comes from those like yourselves who have such narrow minds and are incapable of appreciating true irony.
Now, I’ve always known that New York was a strongly pro-Israeli city, but I was honestly really surprised to learn that the eminent historian of Europe Tony Judt has now been subjected to a heavy-handed attempt to silence him from speaking out here on the topic of the strength of the Israeli lobby.
What a load. Perhaps Tony can speak at the Polish consulate in Dearborn!
Joshua, your response was absolutely correct.
Why don’t you go express yourself Helena in more friendly venues like Iran or Turkey. Both Holocaust deniers (moslem countries of course), with official denial verisons. Even the slippery French have had it with Turkey and are demanding change regarding the Armenian genocide denials. Or maybe they are looking for convenient excuses to torpedo the injection of a huge mass of moslems into the EU. Imagine the next Paris intifada.
Check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6033713.stm
A top EU official has urged France not to push ahead with a bill which he says could sour relations between the EU and aspiring member Turkey.
French MPs are due to discuss the bill – which would make it a crime to deny that Turkey perpetrated a genocide against Armenians – on Thursday.
Turkey’s foreign minister threatened economic sanctions against France if the bill succeeds.
Let’s do a simple freedom of expression test.
Joshua, would you please express here Shirin’s real name and background?
I support Helena in this completely. And after listening and watching the debate at Cooper Union the other night, this sort of attack by Likudnicks pretending to be Americans makes me very angry. Even out here on the left coast it is VERY apparent that there is NO discussion or reporting in the media on the VERY one sidedness of US policy toward Israel. This is NOT an accident. The power of AIPAC and the Israel Lobby is VERY evident in many things if you are looking. The way congress votes. The way the news is slanted. I know it is not PC to say this but I am SURE that there is a deep and old conspiracy among certain circles of Israeli supporters to control the media and intimidate critics of Israeli policy, in this and other countries. Don’t be ridiculed out of this knowledge, THERE IS A CONSPIRACY !! (LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. DO THESE THINGS HAPPEN BY CHANCE??) Many of these people are NOT loyal Americans they are traitors and criminals who pretend to be Americans in order to subvert our democratic process in favor of their Zionist/Likudnick agenda, which is racist, and detrimental to the best interests of this country and the people of the middle east. Many of these people hide behind their cries of anti-semitism, trying to invoke the guilt of the holocast to shield them from their lies and crimes of sedition. This Lobby is at least partly resoponsible for the Iraq war and has worked hand in glove with the Mossad and different Israeli governments to lobby congress and to feed selected information to US intelligence services in order to shape US policy in the middle east to their own agenda, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE TREASURE AND LIVES IT WOULD COST THIS COUNTRY.
Israel is NOT our friend. Israel uses US.
The Palestinians deserve JUSTICE and TRUTH!!
“Dont forget the Liberty!!
I support Helena in this completely. And after listening and watching the debate at Cooper Union the other night, this sort of attack by Likudnicks pretending to be Americans makes me very angry. Even out here on the left coast it is VERY apparent that there is NO discussion or reporting in the media on the VERY one sidedness of US policy toward Israel. This is NOT an accident. The power of AIPAC and the Israel Lobby is VERY evident in many things if you are looking. The way congress votes. The way the news is slanted. I know it is not PC to say this but I am SURE that there is a deep and old conspiracy among certain circles of Israeli supporters to control the media and intimidate critics of Israeli policy, in this and other countries. Don’t be ridiculed out of this knowledge, THERE IS A CONSPIRACY !! (LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. DO THESE THINGS HAPPEN BY CHANCE??) Many of these people are NOT loyal Americans they are traitors and criminals who pretend to be Americans in order to subvert our democratic process in favor of their Zionist/Likudnick agenda, which is racist, and detrimental to the best interests of this country and the people of the middle east. Many of these people hide behind their cries of anti-semitism, trying to invoke the guilt of the holocast to shield them from their lies and crimes of sedition. This Lobby is at least partly resoponsible for the Iraq war and has worked hand in glove with the Mossad and different Israeli governments to lobby congress and to feed selected information to US intelligence services in order to shape US policy in the middle east to their own agenda, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE TREASURE AND LIVES IT WOULD COST THIS COUNTRY.
Israel is NOT our friend. Israel uses US.
The Palestinians deserve JUSTICE and TRUTH!!
“Dont forget the Liberty!!
Chaps
what an interesting exchange of views.
I would like to try and introduce something of the long view into the debate.
Yesterday Ian Paisley sat down in the same room as the Cardinal and talked about the politics of Northern Ireland. That probably makes him a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize and I might start to believe in miracles again.
Perhaps someone can help me with the question of how long to remember the Holocaust and to use it as a justification for what is quite unaceptable treatment of the unfortunate Palestinians and the inhabitants of Gaza.
The Northern Irish went on fighting the religous wars of the 1600s until the 1990s. The annual remembrance of a few minor incidents during the final stages of a change in the sucession of the British monarchy gave away the bankruptcy of the social system. There are reports in the early 1970s of a British General watching in disbelief as the Orange (after the Dutch Royal House) Order paraded past him, and saying “But these are grown men!”
It is now 60 years since the end of the second World War and very few of the particpants in that war are still alive. The events described during the Eichman trial are well documented and are impossible to deny. They are even more difficult to deny after you meet a survivor who shows you their number tatooed on them.
But there must be some point where historical remoteness removes the force of the memory as a justification for action. It is unlikely that the Dubliners are going to come and massacre the Presbyterians in Northern ireland in a similar fashion to the massacres of 1641.
The founding of the state of Israel was helped by a wave of sympathy and a general agreement with the argument that there was a need for a safe home for the Jews. The film of British Army buldozers shovelling emaciated bodies into mass graves at Bergen Belsen sears the imagination.
However this sympathy may have diminished over time to be outweighed by the pictures from Lebanon of dead children killed by the onslaught of the strongest forces in the Middle East against what was essentially a holiday resort without air force or air defence and destroyed fifteen years of development in a month.
So perhaps someone can tell me when the Holocaust will recede from its present prominence to reach a significance similar to the Dreyfus Affair, the Battle of the Boyne, or indeed the massacre of the Jews in York in 1190.
Before everyone dives in to damn me for a fool, just please think of Ian Paisley sitting down to talk to the Cardinal.
Frank, you ask an exellent question.
I would ask why, in almost every account in support of Tony Judt’s political positions that I’ve seen, the authors find it necessary to include something like the following from the Washington Post:
“Judt, who was born and raised in England and lost much of his family in the Holocaust, took strong exception to the cancellation of his speech.”
Likewise, why do Norman Finkelstein and his supporters find it necessary to ritually preface each discussion with the fact that Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors?
I too lost family in the Holocaust, as did virtually every Jew with roots in Eastern Europe, but I don’t find that fact particularly relevant to my position concerning Israel.
True, Norman Finkelstein has been – falsely, in my opinion – labeled as a Holocaust “denier” in light of his work on the purported “Holocaust industry”, so there might be some relevance in that particular vein, but Tony Judt has not ventured into that area of the argument or been accused of Holocaust denial to the best of my recollection.
I think that holding these men up as having suffered loss during the Holocaust to somehow justify their positions on Israel is no less cynical than what you seem to be implying Zionists are doing.
The Polish consulate concluded that their house, which is there for the purpose of diplomacy and friendship, should not be hosting people with such a hateful agenda.
First of all, the Polish Consul didn’t cancel the talk because he decided that Judt had a “hateful agenda”. This is what he said:
An hour before Judt was to arrive, the Polish Consul General Krzysztof Kasprzyk canceled the talk. He said the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee had called and he quickly concluded Judt was too controversial. “The phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure,” Kasprzyk said. “That’s obvious — we are adults and our IQs are high enough to understand that.”
The fact is that we have far less “debate and discussion” over the Israel lobby than we should in this country largely because of the tactics of that lobby.
Tony Judt gets his articles published with no problem.
This isn’t true. It’s hard to believe that a mainstream American publication would ever publish an article like Judt’s Bush’s Useful Idiots, which recently appeared in the London Review of Books. In it Judt makes the unremarkable point that many of the liberal supporters of the invasion of Iraq and the suppression of civil liberties here are also supporters of Israel. This has been obvious since 2002. Yet very little has been said about it in the US media.
why do Norman Finkelstein and his supporters find it necessary to ritually preface each discussion with the fact that Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors?
It’s because anyone who consistently critiques Israel is liable to be accused of being anti-semitic, as in this outrageous but fairly typical example:
. . . too many Jews for Helena’s liking, but of course “some of my best friends are” is always a convenient refrain to hide bigotry
“Likewise, why do Norman Finkelstein and his supporters find it necessary to ritually preface each discussion with the fact that Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors?” – JES
I think it’s because they are expecting the usual hyterical charges of “anti-semitism” to be hurled at them for expresing highly critical views of Israeli actions, so they do it in a mistaken pre-emptive attempt to seek immunity. Pointless of course, the zealots then just go for the “self-hating” label.
Doesn’t matter whom it is, negative-labelling to shut-down discussion of the issues is the game plan.
Bravo No Prefernce! You have just given us some prime examples of circular reasoning.
The fact is that we have far less “debate and discussion” over the Israel lobby than we should in this country largely because of the tactics of that lobby.
To agree with this, one must accept the a priori assumption that (a) there is such a thing as “The Lobby” (in the Mearsheimer & Walt sense)- precisely what the discussion is supposed to be about,and that (b)that this “Lobby” is somehow effective in stifling discussion. If you could provide some evidence here, that would be great. Seems to me there’s been plenty of discussion, and that Mearsheimer & Walt, as well as Judt, Finkelstein, and others have received a wide range of fora for discussing their views.
It’s hard to believe that a mainstream American publication would ever publish an article like Judt’s Bush’s Useful Idiots, which recently appeared in the London Review of Books. In it Judt makes the unremarkable point that many of the liberal supporters of the invasion of Iraq and the suppression of civil liberties here are also supporters of Israel. This has been obvious since 2002. Yet very little has been said about it in the US media.
It may be hard for you to believe, but did Judt try to publish this, or other articles, in an American publication and not succeed? Perhaps, because his assertions are so “unremarkable”, they simply aren’t compelling material for publication? Perhaps Judt preferred to publish in the London Review, or maybe they are simply more receptive for reasons not related to “the Lobby”. And resorting to telling others what is patently “obvious” is the number one tactic of a demagogue, rather than “proof” that the assertion is correct.
It’s because anyone who consistently critiques Israel is liable to be accused of being anti-semitic….
Again, one has to accept your assertion as a statement of fact in order to accept your conclusion I think that there are many people who consistently critique Israel who manage not to be seriously accused of being anti-semitic. I don’t think that anyone, with the exception of the wacko fringe, has accused either Judt or Finkelstein of being anti-semites. By the same token, I think that one would have to be a fool to maintain that there aren’t people who “consistently critique Israel” who are, in fact, anti-semites.
These groups also intimidated the New York Theater Workshop into cancelling their production about Rachel Corrie.
In Israel itself, there is a robust debate on all issues affecting Israel. In the US, there is an insistence on monolithic views.
It is truly hilarious to read Joshua, JES, David (under whatever paranoid guise he’s writing under these days) and others claiming there is no organized attempt by some ultra-Zionists to silence free speech on the Israel issue in the US. I have been the target of such attempts firsthand for more than 20 years now.
Also amusing to see how Joshua truly didn’t “get” my playful refashioning of the “some of my best friends” trope.
I am interested, though, to know why public mention by Judt and others of the option of a secular binational state in Israel/Palestine should arouse such ire… Just as does the call by many Israelis for Israel to become “the state of all its citizens” as opposed to its presently defined (by Zionists) role as being “the state of the Jewish people” (wherever they happen to currently be; and relegating the country’s many non-Jewish– primarily ethnic Palestinian– citizens to a determinedly second-class form of citizenship..) I truly do not see how anyone who claims to be a democrat can oppose the call that Israel be “the state of all its citizens”.
That might mean, though, that pro-Israeli Jewish Americans like Joshua would have to wean themselves away from the personal safety net they now have that assures them that if they experience professional or financial failure wherever they currently are, well, they can always go to israel and start over. Yes, they can do that though people who were born in that same land 60 years ago are still barred from returning to it… And heck, if Joshua or his Jewish friends go live in one of the ultra-subsidized settlements in the West Bank they can even enjoy highly preferential mortgage rates and levels of social service for themselves and their families. Nice deal!
Democracy and the fundamental notion of human equality on which it is built is a wonderful thing. Zionist preferentialism is something very different indeed.
John Sang,
You are going too far there. I agree with all condemnation nof the Israeli aggressive and injust politic toward the Palestinians. Of their refusal to return to the table of negotiation and of their unilateral withdrawal of Gaza, of illegal construction of the wall, you name it.
I do also think that there is a new current of Israelians who tries to stigmatize any critic of the Israelian politic as anti-semitism. However stating that there is an Israelian plot in order to curb the US policy that is the kind of accusation which were made during the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis and other antisemites during the thirties and fourties in the EU. This is also wrong.
Each secret agency tries to manipulate other powers. This is part of the political game. However to try to make the Israelians the scapegoat for the failed US policy in ME that is wrong IMO. If the US invaded Iraq, it was for her own interest, for oil, mainly. If that (seemed) to serve Israel interest, that was a by product. Israel dominance is part of the new ME the neocons wants to redraw and the US uses Israel as much as Israel is using the US. THey are two consenting partners in this imperial attitude toward the arab population.
Speaking of Judt and Finkelstein JES wrote :
I think that holding these men up as having suffered loss during the Holocaust to somehow justify their positions on Israel is no less cynical than what you seem to be implying Zionists are doing.
You are comparing apples and orange here. Finkelstein and Judt need to make reference to the holocost in order to show that it is possible to have suffered through the holocaust and still be critical toward the likudniks attitudes; it is justified because it shows that the criticism is coming from inside the group which is criticized and thus that they aren’t doing it in a destructive way, but in a constructive way.
On the other hand when the Likudniks uses the holocaust as a way to justify the bad treatment and harm done to another people for which there is no justification.
Like Tony Judt, Helena deftly plays word games to avoid the issue.
She mistakenly, or perhaps deliberately, misportrays the idea of a “Jewish State” as being somehow incompatible with a democratic state or one that gives full political and civil rights to minorities. Israel, despite its flaws, does a pretty decent job in this regard. Certainly better than either supposedly enlightened Europe or its neighboring middle eastern states. Should it do better? Of course. Because we all should do better.
What Israel is not obligated to do is to admit several million people citizens of a different country, who tend to harbor a significantly different nationalism. That is why true peace advocates have been calling for two states for two peoples. Helena, Judt, and other faux-peace advocates, on the other hand, somehow think their demand to abolish a sovereign state is somehow peaceful. It’s amazing how Orwellian Helena can be!
Zionism, at one time, included formulations which included a single state. That option was foreclosed when the Arabs took all measures to bar Jewish immigration during a period where it was necessary to save lives, and declared war on the Jewish community of Palestine. All of that happened, of course, well before the occupation. I could point out exactly how long it has been, but Helena, who suddenly fancies herself as an advocate of free speech and dialogue, tends to delete posts which point out inconvenient truths to her.
Helena also quite obnoxiously degrades those with Zionist aspirations. She portrays them as being personal, financial, or social failures who are looking for generous welfare benefits. Not intending to move to Israel, I haven’t fully looked into the matter. But most people that I know that have gone there have gone for significantly differnet reasons. As a refuge, Israel tends to be one for those fleeing bona-fide persecution (because, despite what helena and her “Palestine Uber-Alles” crowd say, antisemitism does in fact exist outside of scare quotes). Then there are those who, while not in iminent danger, see Israel as a chance to live life as a Jew as they believe it should be lived, or a chance to live in a small portion of what was the Jewish ancestral homeland.
And Helena wonders why people consider her an antisemite? Perhaps if she showed the smallest iota of respect. Perhaps if she could go through a single post on Israel Palestine without shrieking about the shortcomings of the Israeli government and society. Perhaps if she didn’t serve as a pathetic cheerleader for hate groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Lastly, one has to note helena’s blatant hypocrisy. I would note that on this “courteous” forum, personal attacks are regularly leveled against dissenting commentators. Including one which falsely accuses myself and other Americans about lying about my background and really being a “Likudnik” from Israel. Helena lets such hateful bile stay on her courteous comment forum. On the other hand, when I have pointed out that a certain forum member had been lying about her background in order to justify often racist screeds, this was considered a “personal attack” and against the forum rules.
But we’ve all known that helena’s calls for “human equality now,” and “courtesy” were never serious, right?
Helena,
I get some pretty good guffaws out of a lot of your statements, so I’m more than happy to return the favor!
Christiane,
Could you please explain to us what you mean when you throw around the term “Likudnik”. Do you know what this means, or are you just winging it?
The lack of meaningful political debate in the US is certainly not limited to our relations with Israel. The leaders of the only two political parties capable of winning national elections agree on 95% of the major issues. A few other examples:
1. The War on Terror. Both parties agree there is such a thing, that it is the number one foreign policy challenge facing the country, and that we can and must “win.” Actual evidence for these propositions is shaky at best, but no one wants a critical examination.
2. The Military Budget. Nobody wants to reduce it significantly. Everybody agrees that it makes perfect sense for the US to spend as much on military assets as the rest of the world combined, and that we need to maintain a global network of bases and the ability to intervene forcefully anywhere, anytime, in order to protect our “strategic interests.”
3. Nuclear Weapons. No one suggests just getting rid of them. No one questions the hypocrisy of claiming a right to possession of weapons that we try to deny to other nations.
4. The Private Health Insurance System. Inefficient, wasteful, inequitable, ineffective, and universally supported by both parties’ leadership.
5. Taxes. The only argument today is over how much more of a break rich people should get, and whether some of the most recent huge giveaways might have gone slightly too far. Just compare today’s top bracket federal income tax rate of 35% to what it was during the Eisenhower administration – 91% – and you can see that what now passes for tax policy debate is just the illusion of controversy.
I could go on, but I’m already breaking the rules. The point is, there is no opportunity to change any of this through elections. As Emma Goldman said, “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”
The leaders of the only two political parties capable of winning national elections agree on 95% of the major issues.
I think that the point you are missing here is that they are capable of winning national elections because people willingly vote for them. It is also quite possible that there are positions that counter yours that are at least equally valid, and that it is not simply an issue of John C. and the small minority who think like him being “smart” and everyone else being “stupid”.
Emma Goldman said a lot of things. What I wonder is how she felt about the US after living a few years in the Soviet Union. She sure didn’t stick around very long after witnessing firsthand the “joys” of a people’s revolution. I don’t think that she ever stopped trying to get back to the US, and she was quite happy to live off the generosity of the children of capitalists who had made their money by exploiting the masses.
Gosh JES, still ticked off about that stinger missile thing?
If you are going to respond to my post, then why don’t you address the actual point I was making, instead of pretending that I said something completely different? Of course the Republicrats win elections because people vote for them – about 30% of eligible voters elected Bush in 2004. So what?
I certainly said nothing about people with views opposed to my own being “stupid.” If they were stupid, they wouldn’t be running the country, would they? No indeed. My political opponents are very smart, very determined, and very successful in getting what they want.
At 8:15AM, Joshua wrote: “Zionism, at one time, included formulations which included a single state. That option was foreclosed when the Arabs took all measures to bar Jewish immigration during a period where it was necessary to save lives, and declared war on the Jewish community of Palestine.”
But wrote earlier in the same post: “What Israel is not obligated to do is to admit several million people citizens of a different country, who tend to harbor a significantly different nationalism. That is why true peace advocates have been calling for two states for two peoples.”
So Zionism doesn’t allow a single-state solution because the previous inhabitants refused their immigration…
But “Israel is not obligated … to admit several million people citizens of a different country, who tend to harbor a significantly different nationalism.”
Do you not see the hypocracy?
“Never again” happens all the time.
“She mistakenly, or perhaps deliberately, misportrays the idea of a “Jewish State” as being somehow incompatible with a democratic state or one that gives full political and civil rights to minorities. ” – Joshua
No mistake. It’s of course a contradiction to have a Jewish and democratic state. Palestinian-Israelis have amusingly parodied the idea; Israel is a Jewish and democratic state! – democratic for Jews and Jewish for Palestinians.
“Helena, Judt, and other faux-peace advocates, on the other hand, somehow think their demand to abolish a sovereign state is somehow peaceful. It’s amazing how Orwellian Helena can be!” -Joshua
No doubt fanatical supporters of apartheid South Africa were somwhat put-out when it was ‘abolished’. They also percieved how Orwellian it was to view that as a peaceful change.
“And Helena wonders why people consider her an antisemite?” – Joshua
Joshua, having advised us that anti-semitism really does exist, shows just how serious an issue it is by slingling that particular mud in Helena’s direction….for being critical of Israel.
Thnak you Joshua for demonstrating the ‘Tony Judt effect’ so neatly (and inadvertantly, I presume).
If I were an Israeli and I wanted a future there for my grandkids I’d be shouting from the rooftops for 1) our American Ship of Fools “friends” – the whole pack of them – from Perle to minnows like Joshua – to back off; and 2) for someone – anyone – to come along and lead us out of the wilderness – i.e., start mending fences with our neighbors (though it’s probably too late). And as for the form the fence mending exercise would take, well you can pick a card, any card. But a good start would be high tailing it off the land we’ve tried to steal in the Occupied Territories. Every last hectare. The way things are going the American game in the “Middle East” could well be up before the decade’s out. It’ll certainly be up when the oil runs out. And then…
To agree with this, one must accept . . . that this “Lobby” is somehow effective in stifling discussion. If you could provide some evidence here, that would be great.
This is hilarious. Read the heading of this thread.
Yes NP (laughable name), the thread says that Judt was “censored.” This was after he had the op-ed page of the times for his forum, after he spoke at Cooper Union, after his writings have been published, cited, forwarded, re-forwarded, and linked everywhere.
But a diplomatic consulate devoted to building bridges between countries agreed that it might not be a good idea to host a speaker that has a) portrayed supporters of a fellow democracy as some nefarious conspiratorial “lobby” and b) called for that country’s existance to be ended as we know it. Perhaps the Polish Consulate realized that the idea of a “return” of Palestinian refugees (a misnomer, really) and a binational state in the Mideast made as much sense as the return of the descendants of Germans expelled from World War II and a forced condeferation between Germany and Poland.
Michael,
I think your posts demonstrates the “special pleading” that Israel bashers think that they are entitled to. Supporters of Israel are regularly tarred as racists, and yet when the accusation comes the other way (which tends to be much more accurate), the Israel haters squeal that “debate has been suppressed.”
Derek,
There’s nothing hypocritical about the formulation. Many Zionists were willing to give the “binational” state a go. But the Arabs rejected it, declared war, and lost badly. Since then, they have repeatedly sought to undo the hugely successful project of nation building that Zionism has done, often with genocidal and eliminationist rhetoric and actions.
The other difference, of course, is that the proponents of a Jewish state were also willing to accept an Arab state.
Quite simply, the door was closed on the bi-national state a long time ago. Hopefully, if two states arise, then eventually the hatred and distrust will recede, and the parties can have more open economic and cultural ties. If these are successful enough, then perhaps there can be something along the lines of the EU.
But given the current state of affairs, that’s a long way off. No state should be forced into confederation with a belligerent neighbor. And if that’s wrong, then why don’t we simply call for Jordan to annex the territories. It makes much more sense.
Gawlee No Preference, that sure is funny. Because Helena says so in the title of the thread, then it is so.
That’s exactly my point, how can we discuss it if ya’all insist on the conclusion at the start of the discussion?
John,
Then what was your point? Perhaps you can explain.
My point is that you can always point out that Bush was elected by only 30% of the eligible voters (what percent of eligible voters elected Clinton or your buddy Jimmah?), but that was still a majority and, in a democracy, not showing up to vote is a vote. By way of contrast, in the Soviet Union Brezhnev was elected by nearly 100% of the eligible voters – and they even brought the ballot to your house if you didn’t show up to vote!
About the stinger thing, you never did show that the Reagan administration armed or supported Bin Laden (which they didn’t). You also never indicated why it was good that Jimmy Carter did essentially nothing to counter the Soviets in Afghanistan, while it was bad that the Reagan administration did operate against Soviet agression. You might want to explain yourself there. Or are we to conclude that you are implying that a Soviet victory in Afghanistan would have been a good thing? Or perhaps you are implying that the mujahedeen use of US arms against the US (which hasn’t really been the case by the way) was a foregone conclusion?
‘And Helena wonders why people consider her an antisemite?’
And Likudniks (yes Likudniks – get over it) like Joshua wonder why we consider them hysterical fools, or worse.
You’ve had a pretty good run you Zionistas, a good 40 years of influence shading into control of US policy in the Middle East, but the vaulting ambition has gone a tad too far this time and unfortunately the natives are getting too restless to be fobbed off with accusations of antisemitism. Each passing week more of them realise the unhealthy level of Israel-oriented appointees in this administration is one reason why it is responsible for the greatest foreign policy disaster in US history.
If that dog manages in time to bite the collective hip pocket, things could get interesting. Pass the popcorn.
You guys should read what Soundofdistantdrums said. Again and again, until you get it.
“Special pleading” Joshua? How so?
As for your point about “racism” and accusations of it, you’ve got yourself quite confused.
Critics may well have a point about the racist nature of Israels policies and behaviour; that’s part of the debate, you know, issues to be discussed. But when those people are labeled as “anti-semites”, that’s primarily an effort to have those views silenced by associating the holder of them with a phenonenom that is outside the bounds of rational discussion. And that is the crucial difference, it’s not about a critique of a particular idea, but an attack on the person. Hence, you have used this approach twice to attack Helena (eg “no wonderpeople think you’re an antisemite”) for expressing views you don’t like.
That’s not to say that the efforts are sometimes counterproductive, which they are, it’s the attempt that is instructive.
And Likudniks (yes Likudniks – get over it) like Joshua wonder why we consider them hysterical fools, or worse.
Again, what do you mean by this term? If you can’t state it, then your use of the term is meaningless. If you don’t understand what the term means, then you’re full of it by trying to use it. If you’re not prepared to do your homework and understand what the Likud is, what its history is, and who its members are and have been, then I think you should stop throwing around terms and say what you actually mean.
From what I’ve seen of Joshua’s positions, he is not at all a “Likudnik”, and neither am I.
Oh, don’t you just love the non-specificity and the general smearishness of the formulation, “Helena wonders why ‘people’ consider her an anti-semite….”?
So what “people” are those, Joshua? For example, do you consider me an anti-semite? If so, please provide your evidence and we can all examine it together. If you personally don’t consider me anti-semite, tell us that, and tell us who does and on the basis of what evidence.
Then we can all jointly examine the issue.
If you don’t want to do this, than perhaps you should desist from propagating general slurs about my character.
But Helena, that would deprive Joshua of his preferred debating strategy.
I disagree with the one-state solution. But the intentions behind Helena’s one-state solution are admirable. Helena has made it explicitly clear that she respects the humanity and culture of both Jews and Palestinian Arabs, and that she feels her idea will be just for both sides. It is then a mischaracterization to describe her solution as “the destruction of Israel”, and to brand her an antisemite. Joshua’s first sentence in the first post was a defamation that merited admonishment. From what’s been written here about Mr. Judt it sounds like his intentions are similar. Neither Joshua nor anyone else has produced any convincing evidence that Judt has anti-Israel goals. I therefore don’t see the ADL’s concerns as reasonable.
Helena et al.’s one-state solution is not something that anyone actually involved in the peace process is proposing. All actually proposed one-state solutions instead call for the destruction of one side. Hezbullah and Hamas have one-state solutions that have none of the reconciliation that Helena wants, anymore than Meir Kahane’s one-state solution did. I disagree with Helena because I think right now the only possible one-state solution always involves the extermination of either Jew or Arab. The occupation of the territories must end, and restraints on Israel’s military power must be put to prevent it from calously trampling over neighbors as it has done to Lebanon. The State of Palestine must then be formed and supported so that political stability, security and prosperity can be established there. I’ve read nothing from Joshua, David, or even JES to indicate that they want this State of Palestine to exist ( So they’re one-state solution supporters, too ). After years of stability and prosperity within both states, maybe the populations will consider a merger. It’s ultimately their decisions. But then again maybe they’ll be happy with two states. We shouldn’t treat either one-state or two-state solutions as the mandatory goal forever.
I feel we’re only being offered two extremes about anti-semitism. There’s of course the extreme that every critic of Israel or even Likud is an anti-Semite, which has been called out thoroughly here. But the only alternative people offer is the other extreme, that there’s no such thing as anti-Semitism. That no one who’s critical of Israel or Jews could possibly be anti-Semites. I worry than that truly anti-Semitic people will then be legitimized and lionized. David Duke has often criticized Israel. So has Matt Giwer. Are they our heroes now? Is Mel Gibson? If you read newsgroups like rec.arts.movies.current-films you always read spams railing against Israel, usually warning about the “Leftwing Jews” we have to crush. The posts on this board by John Sang and Glenn Condell are anti-Semitic; they talk about “conspiracies” of “you Zionistas” that are out to get us. A them that are pretending to be Americans, controlling the media, and whom we have to bite in their hip pocket. I want someone to acknowledge that these anti-Semites do exist and are using the Israeli-Arab conflict to achieve their sick goals. They do exist, and that’s as true as “NOT every Israel critic is one of them.”
“But the only alternative people offer is the other extreme, that there’s no such thing as anti-Semitism.” – Inkan1969
Inkan, I don’t recall any argument that there is no such thing as anti-semitism. Who made it?
But Helena, that would deprive Joshua of his preferred debating strategy.
Right, whereas terming those who oppose a unified state ‘Likudniks’ is so much more dignified and persuasive.
Never mind that “a binational state on all of historic Palestine” is (per JMCC polls) preferred by only 22% of Palestinians, maybe they’re also Likudniks? And as far as “secular” goes — the large majority of Palestinians who (per CSS) believe that “Sharia must be the only source of legislation” can perhaps be re-educated. Sounds “reality-based” to me!
It must be a perfect plan, since it appeals to neither side of the conflict.
Vadim, if you knew my work, you’d remember that back in 2001 these were almost exactly the same arguments I made here back in 2001. Since then, I’ve moved closer to an “agnostic” position on the advisability of a one-state vs. a two-state outcome; and really, Inkan, not yet into the pro-one-state camp. (Though of course, this is not a subject on which any of us who are not either Israeli or Palestinian has any standing to have a decisive view; the rest of us can express opinions.)
Right now, the frenzied resumption of settlement-building throughout the West Bank, including in the “outposts”, that has taken place since Olmert dropped even his “convergence” plan, makes the establishment of a viable Palestinian state yet harder to bring about.
But the broader point here is that it should certainly be possible to have a discussion of the one-state vs. two-state issue on its merits, without people who argue for a one-state outcome (like Judt) being excoriated and ruled beyond the pale for that reason. It’s an issue on which reasonable people can disagree.
Getting back to Joshua’s little earlier formulation of “Helena wonders why ‘people’ consider her an anti-semite”, I could add that bwhat Joshua seemed to be doing there was to wrap up his smear “Helena is an anti-semite” in not just one but two layers of padding… The proposition I was asking him to substantiate was this one: “People consider H an anti-semite”. Um, no answer from him yet.
The proposition I can speak to best is “Helena wonders why… ” No Joshua, I don’t “wonder why” in that regard. The true weasel word there is “why”, which simply assumes the truth value of the proposition that follows. Maybe I wonder “whether” people consider me an anti-semite. But if I were to wonder “why” they do so, then first I would need to be persuaded “that” they do do so. And if so, which “people”, and on the basis of what evidence.
Inkan, I certainly know there are many people in the US and elsewhere who are anti-semitic, and sometimes virulently so. There are also people who are Islamophoic; anti-black; anti-white; or who suffer from other forms of corrosive and damaging racism… But I don’t think it helps the effort to identify and counter the propganda of the anti-semites if the use of this “diagnosis” is distorted to the extent that it is applied indiscriminately to anyone who criticizes particular policies of the government of Israel, who seeks to analyze the role of pro-Israeli organizations within the US body politic, or to explore various different kinds of outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio. Yes, anti-semites may also seek to engage in these activities; but that a person does so by no means in itself provides “proof” of anti-semitism.
With regard to what other national group would such an argument even be entertained? (E.g., that to criticize particular policies of the Blair government makes one “anti-British”; or to examine the role of the Greek lobby in US politics makes one Hellenophobic… ) The desire of the Zioniosts was to normalize the role of the Jews as a people among the world’s peoples. I give them the respect of doing so.
Well, Michael, you say that the anti-Semite accusation is “primarily an effort to have those views silenced by associating the holder of them with a phenonenom that is outside the bounds of rational discussion.” It’s often that effort, but I’d want to count up the instances of the use of that anti-semite assertion before I’d say primarily. I’m not convinced that this is the case more often than not. And, Michael, you do acknowledge that there are people out there campaigning against Israel who really are anti-Semites. Such as the newsgroup spammers.
Vadim, I don’t think Helena herself used the word “Likudnik” in this comments board. You also actually make the point that Helena’s idea is very different from the one-state nonsecular idea of the hardliners.
I should say “you do acknowledge that there are people out there campaigning against Israel who really are anti-Semites, don’t you?” Sorry.
“Well, Michael, you say that the anti-Semite accusation is- ‘primarily an effort to have those views silenced by associating the holder of them with a phenonenom that is outside the bounds of rational discussion.’
It’s often that effort, but I’d want to count up the instances of the use of that anti-semite assertion before I’d say primarily” – Inkan
I think you’ve misunderstood me slightly. I made that statement in relation to the question of debate over “Israels policies and behaviour” and how it is primarily used against those who are critical, just as Joshua did. It wasn’t in reference to the general phenomenon. I probably could have said ‘almost always’ and been quite safe.
“you do acknowledge that there are people out there campaigning against Israel who really are anti-Semites, don’t you?” – Inkan.
Of course. Bigots are a universal problem. I’m sure there are anti-semites who delight in the opportunity to criticise Israel, just as there are anti-Arab bigots who enjoy criticing Palstinians.
At 1:11PM on October 11, Inkan1969 (in a very well-balanced post, btw) described some posters as anti-semites because they engaged in talk of conspiracy. I don’t know them, they may be anti-semites, but engaging in conspiracy talk shouldn’t automatically make them such. Granted, the derrogatory name-calling is simply immature.
Conspiracies could involve any number of groups, but considering them (not necessarily believing them) does not make one a racist. There are conspiracies about Christian Evangelicals, the Council on Foreign Relations, Turkey (see Sibel Edmonds), Communists, etc. People fear mentioning Israel because of the anti-semite label.
No particular group should be automatically immune to healthy suspicion.
Here’s an irony:
The national leaders who direct the embassy in New York City that censored Tony Judt actually subscribe to right wing Catholic views of a true anti-Semitic character.
The Kaczynski twins, known on some weblogs as the “fundamentalist teletubbies,” certainly throw 100% Polish support for the American/Zionist “war on terrorism.”
In fact polls show the Poles hold a higher approval rating for George Bush’s foreign policies than Bush’s own citizens, and nearly as high as the Israelis. Is it possible foreign citizens can be more imperialist than the Empire?
With friends like these … sort of reminds you of Israel’s comfortable old alliance at the southern tip of Africa before Nelson Mandela was set free.
It may not bear mentioning that today in Iraq many former South African death squad members fight as paid mercernaries along with Yanks and Brits. And of course Poland has contributed its own soldiers to the noble cause.
The Israelis, we must “assume,” only offer moral support from the sidelines, since they are preoccupied drubbing the Palestinians and Lebanese.
‘The posts on this board by John Sang and Glenn Condell are anti-Semitic’
No they’re not. They are anti-Likudnik, just as any emission from me about fascism had I been living in the 30s would I hope have been anti-Nazi, rather than anti-German. (Wow, I mentioned Germany, how naughty of me, I must be a raving Jew-hater, eh?)
I’d be happy to see Russ Feingold as President with Howard Dean as Vice; Wes Clark running the Army; Joe Stiglitz could guide a revamped IMF/WBank; Krugman to run the domestic economy; Blumenthal as Press Sec.. you get the picture.
So, no problems with Jews per se, just the activities of one rather significant group of them, which for reasons of economy, lots of us now call Likudniks, just as we tend to label a vast and motley collection of less than gruntled Muslims ‘Islamofascists’. If it’s good enough for the goose it’s good enough for the gander.
I’m not going to define it for you JES; this invitation to parse irrelevant minutiae is a companion tactic to the bald accusation of antisemitism. I know what I mean, and you do too, so let’s ‘move on’.
From the Foxmans on downstream to the comment boards, it’s all about limits. I don’t expect you to subscribe to mine, and I’m buggered if I’ll subscribe to yours. Ain’t democracy grand?
Helena,
I’m quite surprised at your question. You have been among those vociferously arguing that “the lobby” has been stifling debate and discussion on Israel’s policies, in part by accusing Israel’s critics of antisemitism.
So I’m quite happy to see that, despite your rather steady “criticism of Israeli policy” you do not believe that anyone has tarred you as an antisemite or has prevented you from participating in debate and discussion.
I suppose we could go over your comments which have displayed animus toward Israel, disrepect towards its citizens, and the double standards and special pleading and the like. But I’m content with the fact that you have acknowledged that your claims of the Israeli “lobby” censoring people by claiming antisemitism are way overblown.
As for why I didn’t respond? Generally I don’t have a chance to do so during the daytime. Although I did note that on the occasion that I did try to respond, I discovered that you had banned my ISP from that computer in response to a conversation where I countered some of your factual misstatements.
Rather ironic, considering you accuse others of censorship.
Too, right Glenn Condell. Don’t waste your time trying to satisfy JES with a definition of Likudnik. It is time for him to move on from his Hasbara Handbook.
http://www.wujs.org.il/activist/campaigns/hasbara.shtml
Prevaricate, obfuscate, digress, dissemble but never address the substance of the issue.
1,000,000 cluster bombs in southern Lebanon? Twaffle from JES about providing artillery cover for withdrawing IDF troops. Response to an account of a Palestinian left to bleed to death by the IDF in the Gaza Strip? http://www.counterpunch.org/weir10062006.html None from any of the pro-Israeli propagandists in this forum. Nevermind. Victimhood is the default state of mind for this lot. They won’t admit that David has become Goliath.
Sheer intellectual dishonesty.
Joshua, I never said that I have not been subject to censorship campaigns. Indeed,. I’ve frequently said the opposite. I did say that i want to find out who has accused me of being an anti-semite, and on what basis– so that then, we can all examine this evidence together.
You failed to respond to that invitation to identify who calls me an anti-semite. All you did was make a very vague reference to (some of) my comments that, in your view, have displayed animus toward Israel, disrepect towards its citizens, and … double standards and special pleading and the like.
Are you saying that to do this is to display anti-semitism? That would be interesting.
But your claims about my “displayed” animus, disrespect, etc are also completely vague and unsubstantiated.
I consider an accusation that I’m an anti-semite, or even the progataion of the general “suggestion” that I am one, to be a serious matter. (Because, as noted above, we all know that there are real anti-semites out there, and this is not a purely intellectual exercise.) So please provide your evidence for the suggestion you propagate in this regard, so we may all examine it together. Otherwise, just quit propagating these slurs.
“Twaffle”. That’s a good one Dipyang. ROFLMAO.
No response to the Weir article because none is warranted. I haven’t seen any evidence (and she wasn’t helpful in providing any, or even specifying what sources she used to come up with her highly emotive “reportage”) that any of the circumstances involved in the regrettable death of that woman were as she described. But you can keep flogging it if you want.
As to the WUJS handbook, I don’t think that it says anything about demanding that people define the generic terms they use to try to bully their way out of an honest discussion of the issues. Fact is, if you or Glenn were to have to apply the term “Likudnik” accurately, half of your argument would go straight down the drain. As it is, you simply throw it around in a way that’s really quite analagous to the way you claim that “The Lobby” uses charges of antisemitism.
But, again, I really did like the “twaffle” bit. Really made my day. “Twaffle”. That’s good!
The lid is off – mostly. The catalytic heroism of Mearsheimer-Walt is largely responsible. It is now respectable and ordinary – not heroic – to righteously counter the Jewish crazies in the US – at least outside Congress and the White House. Why “Jewish”? Because, just as Dennis Ross justified his use of “Islamic” as a modifier of “radicals” – “because that’s who they are”.
The final step to the liberation of objective thinkers in the US from Jewish radical coercion will be when a Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee in either house actually entertains hearings on the wisest course for US policy toward the Palestinians.
This day is a’coming!
“Good ones” by Hasbaristo JES:
No one, least of all I, have ever called anyone here an anti-Semite. In fact, I don’t recall seeing anyone here making accusations of anti-Semitism to support their arguments…
Posted by: JES at March 19, 2006 09:40 AM
Hey Seymour, Geh vaxen vie a tsiboleh! … And while you’re at it, take the rest of the Bundist shlobs with you.
Posted by: JES at March 19, 2006 11:38 PM
Fortunately for you, your self-soilings will shortly be rolling off the bottom…
Posted by: JES at March 25, 2006 11:41 PM
Sd, Sd…
“Geh vaxen vie a tsiboleh…” Is Yiddish for “Go grow like an onion,” which is a contraction of a Yiddish expression usually directed to a fool: “Go stick your head in the ground and maybe you’ll grow like an onion.”
As I recall, this was quite an appropriate response to Seymour at the time, who was spouting the Bundist line. Calling someone a “Bundist” is in no way accusing them of antisemitism. The Bundists were not antisemites, rather they were Jewish socialists who were also anti-Zionist Yiddish culturalists.
My reference to your “self-soilings”, as I recall, had nothing to do with antisemitism.
And did I imply that they were … or they did?
Why do you feel compelled to give such trite lessons?
I merely compiled a list from your past ramblings in order to make the same point Divyang made, concerning the way you:
“prevaricate, obfuscate, digress, dissemble but never address the substance of the issue.”
Surely you learned this in your Hasbara training program. It is a great way to avoid the greater truths in life.
Oh, Sd, Sd…
“prevaricate, obfuscate, digress, dissemble but never address the substance of the issue.”
Why do you put this in quotes? Do you think you’re citing something from some mythical “Hasbara” training program?
I doubt that either you or Dipyang have gone to the trouble to read the WUJS hasbara guide, or even know what the word “hasbara” means. It means to explain. That manual tries to present cases on certain issues. You may not agree, but I think that that is prevarication, ofuscasion or digression. However, your citing random things that I may have written certainly is.
If you want to discuss things, then please do.
As it is, you simply throw it around in a way that’s really quite analagous to the way you claim that “The Lobby” uses charges of antisemitism.
Absolutely correct! Reminds me of the red-baiters decades ago who’d lump all political figures of the left together as ‘commies.’ The word as used means nothing. It’s a slur thrown around among bigots.
JES-
Your following line of argument makes no sense:
“…what the word “hasbara” means. It means to explain. (…unh huh…) That manual tries (but fails) to present cases (do you mean distortions? perhaps in that case, yes, it may try and succeed) on certain issues. You may not agree, but I think that that (???) is prevarication, ofuscasion (sp?) or digression (we have a choice? but what does “that” refer to). However, your citing random things that I may (sic) have written (you mean to say that “you wrote”) certainly is.”
Huh? My advice: lay off the bottle, JES.
Every regular reader of this comments section is fully familiar with the “WUJS hasbara guide” and other false advocacy by the Zionist Jewish Agency. This and other hasbara guides are full of that old false propaganda about Israel…false propaganda that has successfully been refuted by the leading historians at Israel’s own universities.
And you, the chief Hasbaristo here at JWN, continue to spread these lies.
The truth is out. The jig is up.
It is time for Israel and the wider Zionist movement to face the realities of their own making. Stop blaming the Brits, and the American Arabists, and all the Gentiles, and the entire world for your own makings.
Return all the occupied Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem, and allow Palestinian refugees to live in the illegal settlements built in the West Bank and East Jerusalem suburbs.
Maybe then there will be a chance for a legitimate two-state solution, with the possibility of it evolving into a one state federation some time in the future.
Remember, JES, peace is the only way.
“Reminds me of the red-baiters decades ago who’d lump all political figures of the left together as ‘commies.'”
Speaking of commies, I wonder where our friend Dominic has been lately?
Please understand that JES suffers from dyslexia which can on occasion inadvertently cause him to seem childish.
I am starting to count, slowly as I await Helena’s deletion of Mark Regev’s comment, which is neither courteous, fresh, helpful or to the point (not to mention insulting to those who, through no fault of their own, are dyslexic).
And Mark, the translation of your last name – “clod” or “lump of earth” – seems quite appropriate!
I officially pardon this man… JES. He is not a liar, nor is he dyslexic. He may be a Hasbarito propagandist, but I believe along with many others in this great nation of ours that JES deserves a second chance. May he be allowed to live out his life in peace.
My son, JES-
My advice to you is lay low for a few days. Remember the nationalist lessons we learned in our Betar youth camps: always speak in coded language!
Listen, JESie my little son, never let them link you to those fools in Avraham’s gang. I don’t care what “Michael” accomplished in his life. Yitz, what an ugly toad! We, the children of Israel are the Chosen people, but never, never use this language. Yiddish, okay! But no imperial language.
Remember: CODES, always speak in codes! We, for instance, “more than any other people on earth,” know and understand the meaning of “peace, justice, brotherhood, freedom, and secular democracy.”
So what if the “Palestinians” were right from the beginning. It is true we came back to the land to reclaim Zion, to reclaim our beloved eternally united capital Jerusalem, that Ya***h promised us. But Golda’s coded language sounds better in the councils of the world that matter most: “a land without people for a people without land.”
Yes, of course, we came to establish a Jewish majority here. Let those Arab bedouin go live in the desert! But always remember to talk about Haifa. Yes, of course, this is a religious national project, just like any other religious national project that means a grab for political power.
Look at Karl Rove today, and how he serves George Bush by skillfully using coded religious national language to hide his grab for power. Only W slipped up. Good, I say. Like father, like son.
We never slip up! So what if we always intended to recover the Temple Mount in the Old City! Good for that little “Napoleon” to push Arafat-scum with idea we have horizontal sovereignty in the basement. Let the bedouin have their religious endowment office above. The important thing is we keep total political sovereignty in united Jerusalem. And now the Palestinians get nothing more. Good for Barak, he always with us, like “Arik” and “Gandhi.”
Yes, yes, if we develop Temple basement this is clear to all the world that we intend a religious national project, but always use the CODES! Coded language is the key!!!
My little son, JESie, you are still learning.
If you need, go back and read your Hasbara manual. If you need break, why not go vacation. In one more week Eilat will be real nice this time of year. If you need to leave country, go to Caribbean somewhere! They have nice girls for you!!! Even now in Castro’s Havana…Whoa hoh!! Chicas!! That Commie will be gone soon, just like all the rest. Then we move in again, set up some hotels and casinos. Good times ahead!!!!
Keep up the honest work, JES!
Yours,
B
I forgot to mention: check’s in the mail. I got “Bibi” to sign yours early. What a lil’ piece of schmegma he is.
Oy vey! What can I say.
Anyway … you’ll get your funds in a few days, and you can take that vacation you need.
One day Likud rules again!
B
A short response to Sd, aka Michael Regev, aka Gerald Ford, aka Menachem Begin.
Middle Finger-
Why do you always use obscenities?
It’s a good thing Index Finger is standing between us because I would jab you right in your eye.
Both of you are so hostile. If we are going to live together on the same hand, we must learn to dialogue in rational ways and resolve all our problems without resort to violence.
We concur with Little Finger. Motion passed by majority vote.
“There are only ten of us and
there are ten million fighting somewhere in front of you,
so get your onions up and we will
throw up the truce flag.”
-Dutch Schultz
Dutch-
Check mate. You’re done. There are no truces in the blogosphere. Just like “there’s no crying in baseball.”
In the future when anyone comes to JWN to discuss things about world politics, especially pertaining to Israel and the Middle East, the only proper response to comments by JES is the following:
“Ignore him because he is Israel’s Hasbaristo propagandist”
Of course the same applies to your cohorts like Arthur Flegenheimer, Menachem Begin, Gandhi, Napoleon, Michael, Mark Regev, vadim, Joshua, DVD, Davis, WarrenW, David, etc.
We up with that!
Us too!!
JES-
Take your vacation now! That’s an order!!! And take Dutch and Flegenheimer with you. They could use the down time in the Caribbean on the only island where Bibi could book your reservations.
If you delay any longer you will have unified the left and right together with the political center. And then we would have to rewrite the whole damn Hasbara manual for the seventh time!
B
Oh my. Is anyone else confused by the crashing of this discussion by sundry reincarnated dead politicians and dystopic digits?
Crashing, but brilliant stuff! Great material for a political cartoon strip like Doonesbury, don’t you think? Reminds me of “Duke” and friends.
Imagine the visual impression of those dystopic digits!! Obscenity and hostility just disapper when the informed majority stands up and expresses itself through the voice of reason!!
Who is this “Little Finger”?
And who is “Menachem Begin”? Is he the same as JES? Is JES the one behind all this? And is he spoofing himself, or does “Begin” really express the same ideas held by JES?
It is all such a mystery, but terrific character development!! JES seems down for the count, and it makes you wonder whether he will ever appear again. And if he did, what would he have to say? How could he explain himself?
It is similar to the position held today by the Israel lobby inside the US, given the continued spread of Walt/Mearsheimer’s paper. Now this paper has been updated and republished in the US academic press. (So much for the idea that it is “bad scholarship,” and could not find a publisher outside the literary circles of LRB.) The paper is now available online at the Middle East Policy Council’s website. See the Fall 2006 issue of the council’s influential academic journal.
Also the London Review of Books now has made available an online video recording of the Israel Lobby debate at NYC’s Cooper Union. It is well worth watching, and it’s very telling to watch the body language of the participants. Mearsheimer, Judt, and Rashid Khalidi are all able to speak about the Israel lobby with a calm and rational demeanor. Meanwhile Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, and Ben Ami can’t speak without popping the veins in their neck and their faces frequently turn “beet red” with anger … or perhaps it is embarassment at the positions they take. Maybe the entire Israel lobby needs to “take a vacation”!!
Clearly the Walt/Mearsheimer paper represents a major breakthrough in the ability of all Americans to openly discuss the causes of so much trouble in the Middle East.
Just a few points here.
First of all, I am currently viewing the debate. About halfway through, and I still haven’t seen any “vein popping”. My overall impression is (a) that they are debating the wrong issue (I don’t think that any of the panelists or other serious critics of the piece ever accused either Mearsheimer of Walt ant-Semites), and (b) that by listening to the audience, this debate appears to be the academic/liberal equivalent of a professional wrestling match.
This leads me to the second issue: the supposed “vein popping”. I think it’s important in dealing with “scholarly” debates to bear in mind that it should be the content of the arguments arguments and not how the parties comport themselves that’s important. This said, did anyone else notice Khalidi’s major gaff in the second segment?
As to the publication of their paper (or a version of it) in the Journal of the Middle East Policy Council. Okay, we can let this pass as the “academic press”. I find it interesting here, however, that the argument as morphed, according to “Gary Trudeau” to the following:
So much for the idea that it is “bad scholarship,” and could not find a publisher outside the literary circles of LRB.
I don’t think that this was ever the issue, and it certainly wasn’t the issue brought up by Mearsheimer and Walt themselves. They claimed that they had to go to the LRB (hardly and “academic” journal itself) because they could not get the paper published in the US in any forum due to the nature of the argument. So, I guess it’s as their critics pointed out at the time: the dynamic duo apparently just didn’t try.
As for your personal attacks, “Gary”, let me just state that they are out of line, in my humble opinion. I would also point out that I never found Doonesbury even remotely amusing and that Jane Pauley always impressed me as being a pretty worthless airhead, so thank you very much, and good night.
The Atlantic Monthly originally commissioned the article that became W&M paper but declined to run it, presumably because of “the nature of the argument” which made it unpublishable in the US. As the most recent Judt/ADL imbroglio would seem to indicate, the silencing reflex remains intact in the “(un)lobby” (as Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross and one or two others would have us believe).
And so, we have come full circle on this thread.
And for the quibblers, this just now via Kevin Drum “Another Judt Appearance Abrubtly Canceled” (http://www.nysun.com/article/40962). From the article we have Rabbi Avi Weiss of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale stating: “Judt calls Israel an anachronism, and today being anti-Israel is essentially being anti–Jewish.”
What is the proper response to a statement like this?
What is the proper response to a statement like this?
The “proper” response is whatever you feel it is, short of physical violence.
As far as I know, Rabbi Avi Weiss of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale (whoever he is and whatever that is) is pretty much as insignificant as you and I.
BTW, those who have called for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions are pretty much trying to do to Israeli academics what you and others here claim “The Lobby” is trying to do to Tony Judt. I certainly haven’t seen anybody getting their knickers in a twist about that on this forum.
The two are not analogous.
On one hand we have:
– a particular interest group attempting to stifle debate in the US regarding that country’s foreign policy with respect to a third country, Israel, and the larger ME.
One the other hand we have:
– a boycott of academics from a particular country as part of a broader economic and cultural boycott of country, Israel, in protest against its policies and actions that violate international law and ethical norms common to modern democracies. Think embargos against apartheid-era South Africa.
Is this another try at diversionary argument?
I don’t know, are you trying to raise a diversonary argument?
I think that the analogy is quite appropriate. If you think that attempts to boycott Israel and its academy are not an attempt to both stifle debate and affect foreign policy, then you’re pissing strawberries and whipped cream.
In both cases we have interest groups trying to shape the dialog to their positions. I don’t think that either is inappropriate in a free society. I also do not think that either is particularly helpful in creating a meaningful discourse.
Frankly, I don’t see that Tony Judt making statements or publishing articles really makes a difference one way or another (certainly no more than do the statements of some obscure New York rabbi). Checking back, I see that Judt has published a defence of Mearsheimer and Walt in the New York Times and that his opinion piece on Israel was published in the New York Review of Books. I don’t think that that indicates he has been “silenced”.
JES — Shame on you! You are just a pig-head calling people names, people you don’t even know. Before you start demanding apologies from others, you need to stop offending everyone you encounter. — Jane
Why thank you Jane. From a pig-head to an air-head, I very much appreciate the attention, and, for the record, I really never did find Doonsebury very entertaining.
Did I ask anyone for an apology?
Dear Jane,
Good news! I suddenly remembered when it was that I realized that you are an air-head.
It was back in 1984 when you were hosting the Today show. Yelena Bonner’s daughter-in-law had just arrived in the US to be reunited with her husband after his step father Andrei Sakharov had nearly died from a hunger strike to win her release from the Soviet Union.
What was your first question to the couple? “How does it feel to be the most famous couple in the US today?”
Great interview. I remember that they looked at you like you were an air-head, and that’s when I realized….
Talk about offending people!
“…I very much appreciate the attention…”
JES, do you often feel the center of attention? Is it really Jane Pauley who just tracked you down? Or am I just a figment of your creative imagination? Does the world thirst for your creative genius? What would happen if you just ceased, JES?
My diagnosis is that you are a paranoid schizophrenic who needs sympathetic medical attention, not the cyber-attention you think you are receiving here on the internet. All of us on JWN are sympathetic to your illness, and we want you to get better. There are people who can help you, people who care, people who are trained to help.
You appear to be experiencing some sort of psychotic breakdown. Please make an appointment, and come see me soon.
Geez Siggie. I know it’s not really Jane. It’s the resident troll and part-time yoga instructer.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I see. Well, if its the cigar complex that fascinates you, and you clearly have hostility toward women (Jane, Amira, Helena, Naomi, Joan, etc.), and perhaps anyone with a tender heart disturbs you because your mother did not show you enough love, then this is quite revealing. Do you have problems forming relationships with others? Is there something hiding in your closet? How many are there in Israel like you? Everyone here on the internet is really interested in you, JES. This is very informative for all of us…what you reveal by your Rorschachian choice of words. There must be tens of thousands of us who regularly follow what you have to say each day. And we are all watching you now. We are all interested in trying to help you. Please tell us more, otherwise make an appointment with Dr. Freud.
Er… what do they call that? Ah, yes, projection.
Well, anyway, it’s been nice not having a discussion with you Sd. Goodbye now.
JES-
You will be okay.
It is of course weird that you make up these characters and talk to yourself, especially that strange last bit with Oedipus.
This is a bizarre unique form of anger-driven schizophrenia, multiple personalities, characteristic of many Israelis who rationalize state violence against unarmed civilian disobedients, often Palestinian children, due to the suffering of European Jews in the Holocaust during the 1930s and 1940s. These instances of Jewish suffering are generations old now, and they need finally to be healed so that they may rest.
There are doctors in Cairo and other Arab capitals who write on this unusual schizophrenic condition. I am sure you have seen their articles. These Arab doctors are willing to help when and if help is sought. The problem is that many Israelis project their constant fears outward onto Arabs and Muslims, imagining that ethnic bigotry exists where in ordinary times none can be found.
You should visit Cairo or Damascus some time. Wear your civilian clothes, of course, and leave behind your Uzi. Otherwise, if you prefer not to travel at this time, please make an appointment at my office, and please do so soon. Your condition needs immediate treatment.
My poor, poor, JESie, my poor son-
Now look what you’ve done.
You missed the flight to St. Thomas. Dutch and Flegenheimer left without you. And now you have professional advice to see a doctor in Cairo?
Are you out of your mind?!?
You set one foot across the border into Egypt and those “Qaida-Qooks” will do you dead.
You know you can’t trust Arab people. Back-stabbers, all of ’em.
JESie, look. All you needed was a vacation, and now Siggie’s gonna put you in one of them shirts with sleeves that buckle in the back and lock you in a rubber room.
B
Look Herzl, JES thinks we’re all characters created by the same person!
Ha! Ha! Haaaaa!
Jessie-When you get out of the fun house, can I play with your big cigar?
That’s my cigar!
Postcard from St. Thomas, Virgin Islands:
Yo Jes, that last one about Monica and Hillary was real funny. You rock!! Greatest troll in the history of the internet!!
Me and Dutch send our love. Hope you get healthy real soon.
Kisses!
JES-
I hope your doctors find a way to remove that pig’s head from your shoulders!
I send my kisses too!
JES, Don’t let them get to you. Keep that chin up. Just remember “the spin” p. 47 in the Hasbara manual. You can spin anything. “Up” is actually down. “War” is peace. “Black” is white. You get it?