Short-tempered

yes, speaking as a Jewish American, i'm sick of it too, but the idiots aren't going away. you can either read them or not (i prefer not to, life being too short and all).

All we need now is George M.

How many so-called centrist Cohens are out there writing this drivel?

Since when has anti-Zionism become such a powerful force in American politics that we need the Euston Manifesto to save us all?

It's not, and we don't.

And I'm not defending that document or its signatories, but as for that specific notion, but (again, not defending it) it's a European idea by birth and the situations in Europe and the U.S. on that score are slightly different.

But you're right - it's not, and we (meaning Americans) don't.

But again, just like Roger Cohen says, it has received little attention, but despite a piece in the IHT, it will likely continue to recieve little attention - even if some bloggers write about it on occassion.

"STERILE screaming in the wilderness"? The guy can't even write.

You may be tired of constantly having vague accusations of anti-semitism smeared around in your general direction, but if you want to write about US foreign policy, and don't want to advocate or enable Marty Peretz's line, whether forthrightly, silently, or by misdirection, you will have to get used to it.

From almost the beginning, the Euston Manifesto reads like something cooked up in the DLC shop. Here's their second point, for instance:

2) No apology for tyranny. We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently "understand", reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy — regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.

And on the merits, of course - who are these 'left-liberal voices' who apologize for dictators? We lefties have been protesting ruthless dictatorships since the days when 'moderate' Dems were accomodating them. But unlike the 'moderates' who have swung drunkenly from accomodation to invasion, we've stayed in pretty much the same place: believing in denial of military aid, exclusion from alliances, and the like - and awareness of our complete and total inability to occupy and run another country in a manner consistent with our values.

This is trash.

I'll pick on Euston some more in my next post.

Try being a gentile and being a critic of Israeli policy! It's incredibly aggravating, the degree to which accusations of anti-Semitism are thrown around to combat any criticism of Israel whatsoever. I am a)deeply unhappy with Israel and many of its policies, b)commited to the existence of an Israeli state, as long as it is a fundamentally egalatarian state, and b)not anti-Semitic. But unfortunately, that is a combination that some people think can't exist. There are many, many people who feel that any criticism of Israel at all is by definition anti-Semitic. Israel is a political entity; it can't be off limits from criticism. Particularly from the people of the United States, whose continued military and financial support makes Israel's current status possible.

I know that Norman Finkelstein is a divisive figure, but I do think that one of the things he has demonstrated very well is how accusations of anti-Semitism have proliferated wildly, and worse, how that proliferation desensitizes us to actual instances of anti-Semitism. When people are accused of having anti-Jewish bias because, for example, they are opposed to routine circumcision or they support Ned Lamont, it dishonors the many victims of real bias from the past and today.

More Euston:

3) Human rights for all. We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and political movements, indeed on everyone. Violations of these rights are equally to be condemned whoever is responsible for them and regardless of cultural context. We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse. We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples.

You know what it was that we war skeptics believed? That a country whose population was divided between three main religious and ethnic groups, with strong tensions between those groups (none of which the U.S. understood very well), substantial divisions within those groups, and no history of democratic government, was probably a lousy candidate for a top-down makeover into a democracy.

And we were right, by the way. But irrespective of that, it is intellectually dishonest of the Euston signatories to so completely mischaracterize their political opponents.

In addition, the talk about double standards rests on a false foundation. There's always been a clear basis for a double standard, and that is this: we should expect a good deal more of our friends than our enemies, for not every country has to fall clearly into one category or the other.

Consequently, if my country is willing to ally with ruthless dictators, with military cooperation agreements and the like, while making war on only slightly more ruthless dictators, I should of course accuse my country of hypocrisy, and say that this isn't the sort of crowd we should be hanging out with, if we're going to condemn that other crowd.

"I have to believe I'm not the only Jewish American who's getting tired of constantly having vague accusations of anti-semitism smeared around in my general direction."

Then have a word with your friend (and my former classmate) Phoebe Maltz, who deals out the epithet like a blackjack dealer does cards.

Continuing with Euston:

4) Equality. We espouse a generally egalitarian politics. We look towards progress in relations between the sexes (until full gender equality is achieved), between different ethnic communities, between those of various religious affiliations and those of none, and between people of diverse sexual orientations — as well as towards broader social and economic equality all round. We leave open, as something on which there are differences of viewpoint amongst us, the question of the best economic forms of this broader equality, but we support the interests of working people everywhere and their right to organize in defence of those interests. Democratic trade unions are the bedrock organizations for the defence of workers' interests and are one of the most important forces for human rights, democracy-promotion and egalitarian internationalism. Labour rights are human rights. The universal adoption of the International Labour Organization Conventions — now routinely ignored by governments across the globe — is a priority for us. We are committed to the defence of the rights of children, and to protecting people from sexual slavery and all forms of institutionalized abuse.

First, I'd point out that gender equality was much more prevalent in Iraq under Saddam than now, and that relations between Sunni and Shi'ite Arab were much better then than now as well.

Second, pardon me if I wonder how many of the American signatories are genuinely concerned with labor rights domestically. Most centrist Dems in the commentariat place free trade and free markets above all, and regard unions as an anachronism and an impediment. Meanwhile, the gutting of American labor rights continues apace, with stark consequences in terms of economic inequality.

I'll stop there for today. You get the idea: taking apart the Euston Manifesto is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Oh, your association with your ideology taints you with the racism and bigotry of others who hold that same ideology. I feel terrible for you. I'm sure nobody would ever do that to, say, some other ideology.

/extreme sarcasm

This is incredibly annoying, Matt, but more importantly, it's disastrous for Israel. The Lebanon war and creeping Dershowitz thinking ("there is no such thing as a civilian in Lebanon...") will inevitably erode the support base for any kind of Israel among American liberals as the generations progress. Insofar as supporting Israel comes to mean sacrificing one piece of the Jewish post-holocaust legacy (human rights and international liberalism) to serve the other (an egalitarian Israel in its 1948 borders), committed liberals will not be on board.

And Peretz, Dershowitz, and their band of crazies will be left with Sam Brownback and Tim LaHaye as their only allies. Not a recipe for the long term health of the Zionist movement.

I can't help but think that the charges of antisemitism may be counter productive in the long run. I mean, if I'm going to be called an antisemite for merely voicing mild criticism of Isreal, why continue to support Israel at all? Okay, the answer is obvious, the merits of the position, but frankly my reaction to the Likudnik position, on an emotional level, is to push me away from support of Israel. And this coming from someone who has always been a pretty strong supporter of Israel. OTOH, given that the center of opinion regarding Israel in the United States is considerably to the right of the center of opinion in Israel itself, I guess the despicable false charges of antisemitism are somewhat effective.

To put it another way, one thing you hear a lot of on the extreme right, though it's not often stated so bluntly, it that we need a civilizational war against Islam in order to save Israel. Now I don't believe that for a minute - in fact, it seems almost certain to me that the opposite is true, that Israel would be an inevitable casualty in such an endeavor - but my reaction to that particular "argument" is that, if we are really faced with such a choice, then ... well let's put it this way, my choice wouldn't be the civilizational war with Islam.

Hehe, I didn't see Marshall's post before I posted, but obviously I'm not alone in my thinking. But Marshall, 1948 borders? Come on, no one REALLY thinks that Israel can, should, or will go back to the 1948 borders? I certainly don't. Even most of Israel's neighbors seem resigned to the 1967 borders.

aaauuugh! the fucking Euston shit again! won't it ever go away ?

every time i read that smug, dishonest, Cheeto-scented nonsense i just want to grab the fucker who wrote it and make him answer all the questions RT points out, above, and a few of my own... "Who exactly are these people who say certain races don't deserve democracy ? Why is all your attention of what your strawman Left thinks, and not on what the actual Right thinks? etc." and... Linux ??

it's a desperate plea for attention. ignore it!

Man, I'm glad Al wrote "extreme sarcasm" there. I might have missed it.

My one complaint about this post, and the subsequent comments, is that they serve the purpose of the authors. They pay attention to a document that, as best as I can tell, was hashed out in a dorm rec room by pretentious stoners who understand roughly as much about international relations as my dog. He's a very bright dog, but still.

Does it matter that you're Jewish and accused of anti-semitism because you question Israeli policy? No. The accusation of anti-semitism rankles whether directed at Jews or Gentiles who may question Israeli policy or the neocon advice sent in that direction.

It's fairly amazing that 88% of American Jews aligned themselves with the party of anti-semitism and Israel-hating in the last election. We must be very, very stupid people.

It's quite simple really; you're either with them or you're anti-semetic, unpatriotic, pacifist, anti-christian, anti-freedom, or befitting of whatever playground taunt they can come up with at the moment.

Some of their taunts are quite funny when you stop to think about 'em. Take Georgie's "Cut 'n run, cut 'n run; cut 'n run...", for example. That one's an implicit admission that the US is losing in Iraq. After all, a winning party who chooses to "cut" in the middle of a fight can simply walk away. It is only a losing party who must run when they choose to "cut".

The concept of "blind justice" is supposed to mean that one asseses legality of a party's actions without knowing the identity, race, etc. of the party. The same concept obviously applies to evaluation of morality and the like. It is telling in this case that Cohen must invoke religous/racial epithets to butress his argument. In fact, the anti-semetic taunts amount to an admission that his position is objectively unsound.

RT writes: Unless SoCalJustice can come up with a cite, I don't see how this can be European in origin or spirit.

Why do you think it's called the "Euston" Manifesto in the first place?

Cite: The manifesto began as a conversation between friends, a gathering of (mainly British) academics, journalists, and activists. At their first meeting in London...

That's all I meant by my comment - that it was spawned - physically - in Europe.

Just because certain elements in America have signed on or agree with (some or all of) the premises doesn't change that fact.

Dear Neo Cons,

You were wrong AND you got played for suckers by the bottomlessly cynical George W. Bush.

Go cry on someone else's shoulder.

Yours truly,

History.

Al,

Take your cute little victim card and shove it. It's pretty sad how quickly the right has become a "persecuted minority".

And where does he get off with the "comfortably ensconced 'hindsighters'" crap? It seems to me that there were a lot of people who expressed reservations without the benefit of hindsight. They were just marginalized or ignored.

And Happy New Year to you too, Pooh!

"it has received little attention"

The Euston Manifesto was drawn to combat influential, tenured left-wing anti-Semitism in Britain. The Manifesto has received little attention in the US because the issue scarcely exists here. Norman Finkelstein is an aberration here, but not in Britain.

Matthew, you may be annoyed at facile accusations of anti-Semitism, but the fact is that a good deal of anti-Israel criticism plainly is.

BTW I am agnostic on the subject of Zionism. I am vaguely uncomfortable w/any sort of ethnic nationalism but given the circumstances, my support for Israel is default. Should the circumstances change (like, say, all of the states in the Middle East become Scandinavia), my opinions would change.

Who is it that is decreeing that any criticism of Israel policies is de facto anti-semitism? By the level of the self-reported victimhood & self-pitying just in this thread alone. I have no choice but to assume their ranks to be legion.

Whether they actually exist or not, I certainly disagree with them. Whatever the root may be of certain people's rather perverse & disturbing obsession with Israel, the Zionist Occupied Government, and the AIPAC controlled New World Order, I find it rarely stems from a direct prejudice against the Jewish people & religion.

Jane, why would some consider Norman Finklstein to be guilty of anti-semitism? Doesen't his status as a member of said tribe make anti-semitism on his part a mathematical impossibility?

Matthew, you may be annoyed at facile accusations of anti-Semitism, but the fact is that a good deal of anti-Israel criticism plainly is.

And by "plainly," jane means that no one should ever be forced to justify that claim. (I've never entirely understood why this should be true. If you hate Jewish people, shouldn't you want there to be a place they can leave your area for? I tend to think it works the other way around; people get angry about Israel, and then reach for anti-semitic tropes to make sense of their anger. Still very bad, but different.)

If you hate Jewish people, shouldn't you want there to be a place they can leave your area for?

Respectfully, I wonder if this thinking isn't a little simplistic. I would think someone who hates Jews would prefer them to be generally disenfranchised and deprived of the autonomy that statehood (i.e., Jewish statehood) confers. To observe about the biggest and baddest of the Jew haters, Hitler was so successful because other countries shut their doors (at least by the time things had gotten really bad), and Jews had nowhere else to go. Seems to me even those Jew haters who don't pine daily for the extermination of the "people Israel" might still desire, on balance, their segregation and subjugation as disenfranchised minorities. Who knows; another reason to be grateful that we live in the US.

To observe about the biggest and baddest of the Jew haters, Hitler was so successful because other countries shut their doors (at least by the time things had gotten really bad), and Jews had nowhere else to go.

Except that, as I understand it, at least part of the standard explanation for the support for the creation of the state of Israel is that the other Western countries didn't want big Jewish immigration any more after the war than before it. Which, along with the closed door policy of the West during the wars, seems more consistent with my claim than yours.

Jane, why would some consider Norman Finklstein to be guilty of anti-semitism? Doesen't his status as a member of said tribe make anti-semitism on his part a mathematical impossibility?

That said, the accusation that Norman Finkelstein is an anti-semite is utterly ridiculous. It's a cheap slur that says more about Jane than it says about Finkelstein.

European opposition to Israeli policies does occasionally seem to be driven by knee-jerk post-colonialism, which is not a mindset I condone, but evidence of actual racial or religious bigotry against people of Jewish faith or descent in the Academy is virtually non-existent.

A fair point, I suppose, but smells of apples and oranges. The "Jew haters" I'm thinking of are not the people serving in Western governments trying to figure out how to deal with the onslaught of unprecedently large Jewish immigration. Those civic functionaries probably would have explored a similar avenue for any similarly situated ethnic wave, no?

Which, along with the closed door policy of the West during the wars, seems more consistent with my claim than yours.

I think you two are talking about different types of Jew-hatred.

There's the "we don't want them in our country club - or country for that matter" type on the one hand and there's your Nazis/Klan/David Duke types on the other.

I think you two are talking about different types of Jew-hatred

But which kind of Jew-hater is Yglesias? And if he's an entirely new species, should we worry about proliferation or glory in the apparent diminution (dhiminution?) of vigor of the earlier species now being replaced?

You know, I understand the use of the antisemitism card as a rhetorical strategy. And obviously some anti-Israel commentary has an explicitly antisemitic element, and calling explicit antisemitism by it's name is just fine by me.

But beyond the legitimate claims of antisemitism - say, about 3% or less of the claims of antisemitism in the context of criticism of Israel - and beyond the obvious rhetorical value, or at least perceived value - I just don't get it. I mean, as cynical as I am about people, I try in the first instance to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are making such claims sincerely. But really, just what logic or mindset can equate mild or even severe criticism of Israel with antisemitism? I mean, reasonable minds may differ about just how valid some of the critiques are, but most of the complaints against Israel have at least some element of plausibility. I mean, calling Israel a product of colonialism is perhaps a bit inflamatory, but it also has the benefit of being prima facially correct. Youcan defend Israel against the charge on a number of grounds, but it's certainly not some off the wall critique. And so on.

The response you usually get is something along the lines of "other nations do the same things, and critics of Israel don't criticize them," while the only thing close to a logical argument in support of the antisemitism libel, is still pretty lame. Aside from the fact that many critics of Israel do criticize other nations who do the same things, there are plenty of reasons why people focus their ire on Israel, without antisemitism coming into it at all (among many others, there's the little fact that the United States provides huge amounts of aid and support to Israel, with no such support to nations who are equal or worse transgressors). So where's the logical link that makes such inconsisitance ipso facto antisemitism?

Ah, I'm wasting my breath. I'm either preaching to the choir, or preaching to a brick wall that isn't listening.

"It's hardly a mathematical impossibility. It's quite possible to hate and express actual bigotry toward one's own group identity. For example, I think it's fairly obvious, based upon numerous comments, that Ann Coulter is a raging misogynist despite being female."

I was being facetious but that's poor communication on my part.

I don't know if Norman Finkelstein counts as an anti-semite, but I share Jane's opinion on his lack of decency & lament that anyone, anywhere on any continent would have the displeasure of having to deal with such a foul human being.

"That said, the accusation that Norman Finkelstein is an anti-semite is utterly ridiculous. It's a cheap slur that says more about Jane than it says about Finkelstein."

But which kind of Jew-hater is Yglesias?

I put that bait in my mouth and it didn't taste very good.

-----

The Lebanon war and creeping Dershowitz thinking ("there is no such thing as a civilian in Lebanon...") will inevitably erode the support base for any kind of Israel among American liberals as the generations progress.

No one could or would defend thinking like Dershowitz's along these lines, but this punts on exactly the type of question that Israel critics never seem to adequately answer. Hizbollah DOES use civilians as human shields. They DO hide in villages, and store weapons in residential garages. Sometimes, presumably, they do this with the consent of the villagers. What are the rules of engagement in this scenario? What would they look like? What should Israel be "allowed" to do? What approach would you advocate for the U.S. if Detroit were being shelled? What is going to far?

I don't know the answers to these questions, and they don't seem to be of much interest to a lot of Israel critics who, frankly, don't have a lot of empathy for Israel's plight. This is by way of observation, not criticism, because for most non-Jews (and even a handful of Jews) Israel is just another country. Their interest in Israeli affairs is generically (nobly, but generically) humanitarian. Israel, East Timor, Sudan, Tibet--humanitarian challenges with different contours but mostly "problems" to be solved. The fact that Israel, and the Jewish people, is unavoidably "other" sometimes appears to preclude a more thoughtful engagement of the problem. It's all "policy prescriptions" and and other wonkery.

For some of us, though, Israel is family. I actually have family there, but I mean to say that my tribal connection to the Jews living in Israel binds me to them beyond "post-colonialism" and "foreign policy". I apologize for using too many words to make this point, and I don't mean to reinforce an I-and-thou mentality on this issue, but this feature of the debate is important to understand. For a lot of you, Peretz feels something for Israel that you probably never will. I think this serves to explain why when it comes to American Jews Marshall has it wrong--the Lebanon war has increased, rather than reduced, support for Israel among American Jews, and the reason is because Hizbollah attacked their family. So when you criticize Israel, maybe do you so anti-semitically, or maybe you don't, usually not, but it feels like you're criticizing family. And if you don't appreciate that nuance, you'll never understand where some people are coming from.

Aside from the fact that many critics of Israel do criticize other nations who do the same things, there are plenty of reasons why people focus their ire on Israel, without antisemitism coming into it at all (among many others, there's the little fact that the United States provides huge amounts of aid and support to Israel, with no such support to nations who are equal or worse transgressors).

Unless my stats are stale, the second largest recipient of US foreign aid is Egypt, and they get nearly as much as Israel. Does Mubarak's government qualify as "equal or worse"?

The reason that Israel is criticised is that it is a settler colonial government and is actively engaging in vicious colonialism as we speak. That's what the move to settle the West Bank and Jerusalem are all about.

That sort of government has indeed attracted a lot of criticism since around the 1960s, even when there were lots of other governments with bad or worse human rights records.

DJ,

With all due respect, that doesn't help at all. I mean, even given that nuance, you realize that "usually" criticism of Isreal is not motivated by antisemitism. Martin Peretz, to take one extreme but not unique example, is smart enough to be able to come to the saem conclusion, but he doesn't; he is not merely someone who "feels like you're criticizing family;" he is a vicious evil psychopath, and having him on your side should make you very uncomfortable.

The fact is that opinions that in Israel are not only acceptable but have majority support are, in the United States not even considered a part of the mainstream conversation and are enough to have Peretz and his ilk call you an antisemite. It is, perhaps, possible for a Jew to be antisemtic, but it isn't terribly likely for the majority of people living in Israel to be self hating jews. More to the point, if the people actually living in Israel can tolerate certain criticism without crying antisemitiam, then I think that their family, literal and figurative, in the United States surely be able to do so.

You know, all of this is getting way off the subject. The fact of the matter is that everyone is somebody's family -- that includes Jews as well as Lebansese, Arabs, Muslims, Gentiles and others. We all deserve to be treated fairly and judged on our actions, rather than on our ethnic or racial heritage, economic background, our religious beliefs or lack thereof.

In those unhappy instances in which a member of one's family commits a wrong, it should be the other members of the family who are first to try to help our family member see the wrongness of their actions, and insist that they do what they can to right the wrong.

DJ,

Re Eygpt. A bad example for you to use for a bunch of reasons. First of all, lots of critics of Israel also criticize Eygpt. That doesn't get as much ink for a lot of reasons which should be obvious but have nothing to do with antisemitism.

Is Eygpt "worse?" In some respects yes, in other respects no. But it's an apples and oranges comparison. Whatever the manifest faults of the Egyptian government, and those faults are considerable, they are (for the most part) of a different nature than the faults and percieved faults of Israel. I could go on for paragraphs, but at the most basic level, it is common all over the world for the sins of a colonialist power, or percieved colonialist power, to come in for greater criticism than the sines of native oppressors. We can argue for days about whether that is a legitimate distinction, but it's certainly one commonly made, and isn't at all unique to Israel.

But perhaps more to the point, the aid to Egypt (second, but a distant second, to Israel) is a (successful) product of American efforts to remove one of Israel's major enemies from the equation. I hardly think that any knowledgable supporter or Israel has much of a problem with our aid to Eygpt, which wouldn't be nearly as high as it is but for our support for Israel.

Well, DJ, you need to work on those in-between-the-lines-reading skills. Because I have dear relatives in Israel and every fiber of my thinking on Israel is aimed at their and their countrymen's long-term peace and security.

Furthermore, either you ARE Dershowitz (or one of his acolytes), or you took his pungent bait. Because the whole point of his little exercise in the moral standing of the Lebanese population is precisely to garner your slough of questions. Does Hizbollah use human shields? Do they hide things among civilians? Did some Lebanese people vote for Hizbollah at the last election? These questions are posed precisely to retroactively justify a policy of indiscriminate killing of civilians, a policy that would be quite obviously anathema to the liberal world were it seen in its true light as inconsistent with Israel's claim to be a democratic, human-rights-based state.

Dershowitz is the court philosopher of the current Zionist climate. His role is to think up a plausible-sounding pseudo-structure that just so happens to justify literally any action undertaken by Israel. He doesn't demand that you adopt his thinking entirely. He succeeds merely if the previous norms of liberal internationalism are brought into the sphere of acceptable debate because, supposedly, phenomena that occur in the recent world (i.e, using civilians as part of a military-political strategy) somehow undermine long-held tenets. They do not. To engage in dialogue with Dershowitz is to render him the winner.

During the Lebanon war, the largest milk factory in that country was destroyed. What possible geopolitical justification does Israel have to rain wide-scale malnutrition on the children of Lebanon? How is that fact consistent with those oh-so-reasonable maps that AIPAC printed in the New York Times, the maps which supposedly showed the very targeted nature of IDF tactics? The Lebanon war was a textbook exercise in imperialistic, kill-them-because-we-can shock-and-awe. It had absolutely nothing to do with that poor IDF soldier in Hizbollah custody. But Alan Dershowitz tells us we should debate the status of Lebanese civilians. I say fuck him.

I think one reason that people do criticize Israel is that they expect better. It's like you have a smart student and a very unsmart student in your class. They both get C's. Who are you going to scold here? When Israel was trading arms with Apartheid South Africa would you be racist for supporting Israel, or anti-semetic for opposing them? Just curious on that one.

Israel does have the excuse of having some very crappy neighbors. If Canada and Mexico turned into Israel and Syria, our views on proper behavior might switch even further than Commander Codpiece has taken us. That is a valid argument. But if we won Brittish Columbia during a war, and there were settlement camps of people living in squalor huddling around a radio listening to the curling highlights, moving americans in around them in settlements may not be something we would all support.

A manifesto is supposed to manifest something; to take a bold and forthright stand. I suppose the Communist, Futurist and SCUM manifestos would be good exemplars. The Euston thing ought to be called the un-manifesto. It is merely a devious exercise in propaganda, cloaking its real intent in typical Madison Ave. deceit.
Beyond that, could some kind soul give me concrete examples of accusations of antisemitism hurled at liberal voices? Maybe I don't read the right blogs, but I haven't seen any.

Well, DJ, you need to work on those in-between-the-lines-reading skills. Because I have dear relatives in Israel and every fiber of my thinking on Israel is aimed at their and their countrymen's long-term peace and security.

Pretty far between those lines. How do your Israeli relative feel about pulling back to 1948 borders? Not too great, I would think.

Well, my relative there who fought in the 1948 war for precisely those borders wants peace and security. And his grandchildren currently in the IDF feel the same.

To engage in dialogue with Dershowitz is to render him the winner.

So I can't observe that Hizbollah hides in the homes of civilians, or ask what consequences that might/should have for Israeli military strategy, without conceding victory to Douchebag Alan Dershowitz? That's a pretty short leash.

I'm not sure why everyone's jumping on Ninja's description of the motivation for his support of Israel. I'm not sure it doesn't, in some way, describe a fair bit of American support for Israel. My support for Israel is more or less premised on kinship claims, and I'm neither Jewish nor do I have Israeli family or close friends. For me, it's something like a duty we owe to members of the Western family. The problems, are, however, that (a) such a justification for support (at least from someone like me) makes claims about colonialism look much more supportable, and (b) the extent to which I feel an obligation to Israel is almost certainly significantly smaller than that felt by Ninja.

Well, before you do, consider that everything Dershowitz writes is teleological to the utmost. He is not interested in the academic philosophical/ethical debate about what a combatant is morally justified in doing in response to such tactics. He is interested in slowly separating you from your liberal instinct to condemn the killing and maiming of children wherever it occurs and to abandon any state that would take up such tactics as a matter of policy.

He only writes in bad faith. He is a monster.

Well, before you do, consider that everything Dershowitz writes is teleological to the utmost. He is not interested in the academic philosophical/ethical debate about what a combatant is morally justified in doing in response to such tactics. He is interested in slowly separating you from your liberal instinct to condemn the killing and maiming of children wherever it occurs and to abandon any state that would take up such tactics as a matter of policy.

He only writes in bad faith. He is a monster.

Wow. My bad. Did he run over your dog?

We're not jumping on his explanation; we're jumping on the implication that such feelings justify or even explain false charges of antisemitism.

Of course DJ might deny any such implication, but if he didn't mean to imply that, his decision to post in this thread is rather curious.

And Happy New Year to you too, Pooh!

In retrospect, a little harsh Al, I admit. But like our host, essentially being accused of being the equivalent of an Uncle Tom rankles me something mightily.

Well, after long years of I/P rhetorical warfare, I've seen the contemptible anti-Semitic canard used an awful lot.

Then again, after near-destruction of a third of Jewish communities and Jews some 60 years ago, along with the annihilation of the very tribally defined culture of the Jewish Pale (shtetls and all) by Nazis and then dispersion of its remnants (presently forgotten by all) by Stalin and and Soviet-installed governments...what political response would one expect on American soil other than virulent neotribalism? The substantial majority of American Jews are descended from the Jews of the Jewish Pale ('Ashkenazim'), and were deeply culturally dependent on them in the 1960s at the birth of this politics.

To look at the ideology and anxieties and interests of all these 'neocons' and whatever else they call themselves, I've come to think they're rarely really talking about the state of Israel or its genuine interests. Their occultisms certainly suggest they're not, and their bizarre tribal and racial constructions of Israel and Judaism and Arabs are absurd (just check Commentary magazine for the occasional update).

I've come to think the American portion of it all is at bottom about mourning and revenge fantasies and attempts to resurrect a tribal ideal of the society of the Jewish Pale on the soil of I/P (and to some degree in North America), with no concern for the price. The 'anti-Semitic' charge is leveled at people who object to that, Jewish or not. Of course, this tribal ideal these people champion doesn't measure well to Judaism proper or the realities of Israeli demographics, or Modernity's way of grinding down traditional tribalisms in the long run.

As a historical matter, imo Norm Finkelstein to a large extent represents the voice of German Jewish tradition in its longstanding critiques of the Jews of the Jewish Pale- whose descendents and heirs are now largely the Israeli ruling caste and the majority of American Jews- as too Slavicized and prone to unnecessary brutishness. He, in turn, gets treated to the traditional rejoinders and vitriol.

DJN,

You raise a good point about why American Jews support Israel, and the strength of that support. (To a degree, I lack that degree of connection because to my understanding, my relatives that didn't make it here didn't make it at all.)

However, you neglect the heavy lifting in terms of what "support" means. To me, criticizing a policy which I think is, moral considerations aside, tactically and strategically counterproductive is being supportive.

DJ,

I think that the responses to your comments regarding Hizbollah were a little harsh. But there is some context there. You do raise a legitimate question. However, it's not a new one. Most people (not all) and international law recognize a right to attack a legitimate military target even if civilians will also be killed. There are limits on this - to take an extreme example, international law, and most people (well, all non-monsters) would condemn the bombing of a school containing 200 young students just to kill a single terrorist hiding in the basement, and reasonable people may certainly disagree about the limits of this, but very few people would take the position that the use of human shields immunizes terrorist from being attacked.

But ... well, short but number one, what Israel did in the recent fiasco in Lebenon went well beyond that. But there is another reason why people are a bit sensitive on this issue. Dershowitz is part of this, but you hear a lot of other people on the right saying the same kind of things, not just with regard to the I/P conflict. Dershowitz and his ilk argue not just that it is permissible under some circumstances to kill civilians "collaterally" when you target combatants, but that civilians are themselves legitimate targets. And that is a monsterous position - definitionally; I don't think there is any room for honest argument on that. Of course Dershowitz isn't gonna call himself a monster, but then Saddam didn't consider himself one either.

What Dershowitz and his fellow monsters are saying, in effect, though they don't put it this bluntly, is that the only way for Israel to survive (or, increasingly, for the United States to survive) is to become monsters. Well I disagree, to say the least, on two grounds. Becoming monsters will make Israel, and the United States, less, not more safe; moreover, survival isn't worth the price of becoming monsters.

And yeah, I know that in a prior posts you explicitly disovowed Dershowiz, but still it's a pretty sensative point, especially in light of some of Israel's actions in the late war.

Sent this note to my dad and uncle last week regarding Dershowitz insane raving about Carter's new book ...

Of course Dershowitz is biased. He's a pontificating self-righteous gasbag too, but there' no doubt he has every constitutional right to his own anti-carter bias. It's called an opinion. In an environment where debating ideas in an honest exchange is not considered beyond the pale, bias is a welcome antidote to official party or media line. The problem with Dershowitz is that he beleives his own bias is truth while Carter's (and everyone else who doesn't agree with the great man) is motivated by a well of historical antipathy or casual disregard of the facts. Sadly, in most of official America critcizing Israel, Zionism or Likud risks being branded an anti-semite or possibly even worse, a self hating jew. I know about this because I have been repeatedly and constantly been labled as one or both (quite a few jews say I am not a jew ... I see it differently ... i figure i'm jewish enough to have been sent to Birkenau in 1943). There is no honest national debate in the US about Zionism, Israeli policy towards the palestinian arabs who live in conditions just as bad or worse than apartheid and the hammer lock AIPAC, neocons and other US based Jewish organizations have on the mid-east policy arena. The lack of debate and inabilty to address the issue is similar to the lock Cuban-Americans have on US-Cuban relations (a massive 47 year failure). Carter is brave to have written this book (I have heard him interviewed but have not yet read it) and it is of course possible that he got some of his facts wrong. Though I imagine Dershowtiz's "exposure" of Carter's critique is mostly based on his own biases. He calls Carter a bully and says .. "and like all school-yard bullies, underneath the tough talk and bravado, there's a nagging insecurity and a fear that one day he'll have to answer for himself in a fair fight."

Really? I say Al should take a good long look in the mirror.

I am not one bit concerned or afraid of Al Dershowitz or anyone else calling me an anti-semite just because I believe Israel's apartheid system is immoral, unjust and foolish in the extreme. The guys running the show in Jerusalem are much like the crazed hawks in Washington ... too fearful to see they are sowing the seeds of future conflict through the application of force. When the real issue is addressing the legitimate grievences and aspirations of [fill in the blank]. Israeli policy helped strengthen Hamas just as the US policy (and money) helped build Al Quaida. And just because the Saudis are just as culpable doesn't for one minute let Israel or the US off the hook. We must not be complicit, though our inability to talk about Israeli apartheid means we are.

I look foward to reading President Carter's book.

~tom

Beyond that, could some kind soul give me concrete examples of accusations of antisemitism hurled at liberal voices? Maybe I don't read the right blogs, but I haven't seen any.

I can count on one hand how many times so one has point blank called me an anti-semite for insufficent zeal towards zionism.

On the other hand, there would be no way in hell to count how many "What about Tibet" sort of comments I've heard and that means exactly the same thing.

Anti-Zionism became a "powerful force" when the Israeli government started doing shit so bad so openly that decent people could no longer ignore it.

It's really that simple.

Goodness, my little comment seems to have attracted much comment, while 'otto''s attracted none:

"The reason that Israel is criticised is that it is a settler colonial government and is actively engaging in vicious colonialism as we speak. That's what the move to settle the West Bank and Jerusalem are all about.

That sort of government has indeed attracted a lot of criticism since around the 1960s, even when there were lots of other governments with bad or worse human rights records."

What I like about 'otto' is that he baldly contradicts himself in two short paragraphs. It takes a book for an academic to do it.

Can you spot the contradiction? No? OK, I'll point it out. 'otto' admits that Israel is hardly alone in its sins, in fact may be less sinful than other countries in certain ways, but the reason it attracts attention is because it is sinful.

Bravo Otto!

As for N. Finkelstein, I didn't exactly call him an anti-semite. In the brevity of a blog comment, it appears that I did. I meant really to charge him with extremism. He bores me too much for me to trawl his stupid website to find examples. However, in my emails I buried this quote from his site: ""They're (Jews) by far and away the most economically successful, economically privileged, ethnic group in the United States – they've far outstripped WASPS."

Economic success doesn't mean economic privilege.

Did Matthew get into Harvard because he's Jewish?

For real pro-Pal antisemitism, you should check out these sites:

xymphora.blogspot.com
My favorite Xymphora quote:

"North American Jews are the lowest of the low. They live in absolute peace and security, proclaim upset at what is being done to the poor Palestinians, while covertly using their influence and money to manipulate politicians and the media to encourage the worst excesses of Israeli colonialism."

peacepalestine.blogspot.com
http://petras.lahaine.org/index.php

Then there's the ever-lovin' Gilad Atzmon. I won't link to his site but rather to a debunker of this raving lunatic (and yes, Jewish anti-Semite):

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/08/atzmon_watch.html

Don't laugh at them and say they are marginal freaks. They may be extreme, but they are numerous outside the US and have influence on British & Canadian academics; they feed into the same pool of activists. They want Israel and don't tell me they want it to be done peacefully. They are all fanatically pro-Hamas and pro-Hizbollah. And they shade into the American far left. Billmon was very pro-Hizbollah during the last war. They thrill to suicide bombings, they loathe Jews, and they are mad.

Israel should be criticized as openly in the US as it is in....Israel.

Its aid should be cut.

The influence of the neocons on public policy is terrible. There are some neocons who have dual loyalties.

But none of this is really relevant to the Euston Manifesto.

I think Matthew should take a nice warm bath in genuine Atzmon-style pro-Palestinian Jew-hatingness, and see whether he wants that stuff to become mainstream here. It's that kind of poisonous atmosphere that the Euson manifesto was drawn up to oppose.

Billmon was very pro-Hizbollah during the last war. They thrill to suicide bombings, they loathe Jews, and they are mad.

Bullshit. I can't speak to the rest of your cites, but you're essentially repeating the "objectively pro-terrorist" claptrap in prettier words WRT to Billmon.

Can you spot the contradiction? No? OK, I'll point it out. 'otto' admits that Israel is hardly alone in its sins, in fact may be less sinful than other countries in certain ways, but the reason it attracts attention is because it is sinful.

For those keeping score at home, though it's left unsaid there must be some reason Otto is picking on The Only Democracy in The Middle East® and though it isn't spelled out the implication is that he must have a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion under his pillow.

There's no contradiction in my above statement. The reason Israel is criticised is the same reason that South Africa was criticised, even though South Africa was not the worst human rights abuser in Africa. It's because SA was (and Israel still is) colonial settler states. So you can truthfully say, Israel gets unfair criticism just like South Africa did, if you like.

Can you point to where the writer implied otto was an anti-semite?

I thought I did, but you take a shot at it: What's the alternate explanation for the implication?

There is something to said for whatabouterry (which what she did was a species of) but when you say "what about x" you are implying a bias. There is a reason say the Wall Street Journal covered an anti-Russian demonstration in Georgia and ignored a demonstration in Uzbekistan in the same time frame. When you say "what about" that you are saying the Journal put out things that advance it's own agenda.

Now a commenter on a blog isn't a paper and (maybe not so) obviously isn't obligated to churn out a who's who of badness of in the world to make sure they have covered everything, but if anti-semitism wasn't the reason being cited for his cruel double-standards for Israel what was?

Too much reasonableness and civility for an I/P thread. Even Jane reveals herself to the left of the current consensus view in the United States. We're reduced to debating whether Jane implied that another commenter was motivated by antisemitism, whereas in most normal I/P conflict threads the level of criticism of Israel on offer here would have elicited dozens of explicit accusations of antisemitism. (And, sadly, probably even a post or two where such charges might have been justified.

And yes, I do mean to imply that the current consensus view of the conflict in the United States is unreasonable.

With regard to Jane and Otto, whatever Jane's implication was, her post seems to be based on a serious misreading of Ottos' (admittedly poorly worded) post. As Otto clarified, his point was that other nations in positions analogous to Israel's, such as South Africa, were indeed criticized by the same people who criticized Israel. Not criticism there.

The influence of the neocons on public policy is terrible. There are some neocons who have dual loyalties.

But none of this is really relevant to the Euston Manifesto.

Perhaps, but it was Cohen's weird comment conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism that triggered the discussion, so...

1. One can be an Anti-Semetic Jew, it is not a mathematical impossibility, as an earlier poster said. Just hate yourself! I think Dennis Prager, who said that it's wrong for Keith Ellison to use a Koran for swearing into Congress is an Anti-Semitic Jew. He also said that it would be wrong for Jews to use the Hebrew Bible.

2. I have participated in ad nauseum Israel/Palestine arguments where the pro-Palestenian or critical of Israel side has devolved to Jew-hating. I am not saying that taking that side is automatically anti-Jewish, but there is a lot of it.

When I am amongst leftists, I defend Israel. When I am amongst rightists and fellow Jews, I defend the Palestinians.

I always take the side of the underdog.

I have participated in ad nauseum Israel/Palestine arguments where the pro-Palestenian or critical of Israel side has devolved to Jew-hating. I am not saying that taking that side is automatically anti-Jewish, but there is a lot of it.

*yawn*

eh, that wasn't constructive.

For taxological purposes, this is what I've seen:

1) The arcane variety of anti-semites will follow discussions on zionism, they will segue into telling you about the Jewish hand as fast as they possibly can because that's what they are there for. There is nothing sneaky at all about it, and they aren't interested in being sneaky for long.

2) A lot of accusations of anti-semitism based on rules that just don't apply anywhere else. Someone breaks Godwin's Law and it's not just bad taste or perhaps hyperbole, it's anti-semitism. An acknowledgement of the power of lobbying which in any other case is about as controversial as saying the sky is blue is demented paranoia. A lack of sympathy for Israel's "demographic" problems at rock bottom in the green line borders especially regarding the status of Palestinian refugees is eliminational anti-semitism.

Are you talking about #1 or #2 because I've seen plenty of #2.

You all completely ignored the main point of my 2nd comment, which wasn't about 'otto' at all. It was about the context of the Euston Manifesto. Ed, you are a windbag.

Ok, I won't ignore it.

You presented Atzmon as something other than a crank and stated a Daniel Pipes like belief that he is influential in academia which is crazy and paranoid. For extra points you picked a Blairite, McCarthyist, thug in the form of Kamm to beat on this particular strawman.

Congrats.

Israel has quite a large military population mixed in with its civilian population. If the mixing of soldiers and civilians in Lebanon justifies Israeli attacks against Lebanese civilian centers, then there should be no moral outrage at any attack on any Israeli civilian center for the same reason. The point is that you can't have it both ways -- people need to realize that when they start walking down that road they can end up justifying every bad act of their enemy.

This discussion sort of reminds me of the old joke: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you". As in: Just because the Pragers and Dershowitz's belittle the charge of anti-semitism by takking any critic of Israel as such, that doesn't mean that there isn't a fair amount of anti-semitism out there masquerading as criticism of Israel. OTOH, the "real stuff" is fairly easy to detect; my own "jewdar" goes off whenever I hear vague rantings about "Jewish interests" or some such nonsense. Legitimate criticism of Israeli policies sticks to the issues (i.e., the expansion of settlements,the denial of Palestinian rights, the overly indiscriminate killing of civilians in Lebanon) and avoids those "Jewish conspiracy" theories. It also recognizes the difficult choices Israel sometimes faces (what do you do when terrorists use civilians as human shields?) and the rampant anti-semitism emanating from places like Iran (for which Hizbollah is a surrogate).

Also, as someone who's been part of the labor movement his whole life, I had the same reaction as RT to the section about labor rights. I wait earnestly for the day when Marty Peretz and Michael Ledeen and all their buddies join the chorus for fundamental labor law reform in the US (the Employee Free Choice Act and legislation overturning recent NLRB expansion of the term "supervisor" would be a good starting place) as well as inclusion of labor rights in all trade pacts. But I'm not holding my breath.

***** This discussion sort of reminds me of the old joke: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you". *****

And there is also the corollary -- The possibility that someone might be after you doesn't dictate that paranoia should remain untreated.

Man, Matt, you need to post in a foul mood more often if this is what you produce when you post cranky. In a just society, you would be recognized as having permanently destroyed Roger Cohen's reputation in under 200 words.

As someone who lives abroad and has to suffer Cohen and John Vinocur regularly, I'm just glad to see you noticing how maddening Cohen is.

Labor lawyer, it's nice to have a breath of sanity on this comment line.

"Legitimate criticism of Israeli policies sticks to the issues (i.e., the expansion of settlements,the denial of Palestinian rights, the overly indiscriminate killing of civilians in Lebanon) and avoids those "Jewish conspiracy" theories."

Absolutely. But the point I'd like to make is that for a variety of overwhelming cultural reasons, which go far beyond the efforts of lobbyists and so forth, it's nearly impossible to cricitize Israel legitimately. I was discussing Jimmy Carter's book with a younger colleague (Jewish). He's the usual combination of youthful leftwing/libertarianism, but when it came to Jimmy Carter's book he sounded like his own grandfather. OK, maybe Carter might have some details wrong...but I do appreciate the fact that he has broken a taboo, and even in the course of correcting his mistakes, his critics have to grapple with the legitimate issues he brought up.

"It also recognizes the difficult choices Israel sometimes faces (what do you do when terrorists use civilians as human shields?)"

Well, you shouldn't use human shields yourself in going after them (which Israel did in Jenin) and you can hold an honest, searching internal debate as to whether your own policies have contributed to the creation of terrorists, which Israel has not done. Israel got out of Lebanon because they were losing soldiers, as a result of a grass-roots movement of soldier's parents. In other words, they were hurting, they acted. When it comes to Palestinian deaths in Gaza and the WB, they don't give two fucks, and you know it too. So the Pals. decide to hurt the Israelis...tit for tat. Pointing that out is legitimate.

"and the rampant anti-semitism emanating from places like Iran (for which Hizbollah is a surrogate)."

Right, legitimate. And that's exactly what I was trying to point out, rather futilely, it seems.

"Also, as someone who's been part of the labor movement his whole life, I had the same reaction as RT to the section about labor rights. I wait earnestly for the day when Marty Peretz and Michael Ledeen [snip]...

You are not serious!

Regarding Atzmon, I'm not falling for The Windbag's bait. I offered him as an example of an extreme version of what passes for anti-Israel "criticism" in Britain. There are constant academic efforts to boycott Israel; one of them is going on now. The Guardian is full of anti-Israel propaganda that would never be published in the US, I hope it never is, because it's defamatory and unconstructive. But I'm glad that Jimmy Carter has broken the taboo and look forward to more criticism of Israel.

Extra credit: around the time of the first Intifada (1987!), Tom Jarriel of ABC News did a report, "Under The Israeli Thumb," and the uproar was such that he never did anything like it again. It was an excellent report.

There are constant academic efforts to boycott Israel; one of them is going on now.

So what?

The Guardian is full of anti-Israel propaganda that would never be published in the US, I hope it never is, because it's defamatory and unconstructive.

You have created a space of acceptable criticism of Israel somewhere between "Under the Israeli thumb" and The Guardian. I tried for five minutes to torture out how that works. They both irk say ,CAMERA, so they would both be anti-semitic hatemongering from that point of view. The Guardian is more or less fairly tepid New Labour paper in the real world . The editorial staff is in favor of a theoretical "two state solution" which puts their views in line with Olmert and Bush (and most importantly Tony Blair). As the Guardian is Labour's organ your dig on them would by extension make the UK position "defamatory and unconstructive".

Somehow their coverage compares unfavorably with Tom Jarriel's work which would be an idea that really need fleshing out if it's even a serious opinion. I can't find any consistent intellectual honesty in any of this. I strongly suspect this all just the worst sort of golden means fallacy made more repellent because as part of the average you keep in accusations of bad faith against of all things "The Guardian".

"They both irk say ,CAMERA, so they would both be anti-semitic hatemongering from that point of view. "

So what?

"As the Guardian is Labour's organ your dig on them would by extension make the UK position "defamatory and unconstructive"."

Nope.

"Somehow their coverage compares unfavorably with Tom Jarriel's work which would be an idea that really need fleshing out if it's even a serious opinion. "

This would be a sentence if it had a subject, predicate and object.

"I can't find any consistent intellectual honesty in any of this. "

Ditto; I can't find anything honest about you, Ed, so why don't we just call it off?

"I strongly suspect this all just the worst sort of golden means fallacy made more repellent because as part of the average you keep in accusations of bad faith against of all things "The Guardian"."

Hunh?

Ed, you write miserably. You accuse me of things I haven't said, put words in my mouth, and insult gratutiously. I suspect the reason is that I'm not a raving anti-Zionist. Fine. I haven't spent much time here, but I suspect something about you Ed: that you would very much enjoy it if Israel were reduced to rubble by some Iranian nukes. I've made my positions clear, and I don't have to justify anything to you. I've heard and seen where you are coming from. You and your friends won't kill the Jews this time. You are an evil bastard.

For those keeping score at home, I'm an eliminationist anti-semite because I'm skeptical that the Guardian is the 21'st century Der Angriff.

I'll also note that it's the fallback position when someone points out that you are lying or nuts.

Full circle. Matt expresses anger over the practice of stifeling disagreement by attacking one's opponents as being anti-semetic. Some eighty comments later Jane responds to the substance of Ed's comments by charging, "You and your friends won't kill the Jews this time."

And so it goes.

Jane, on January 5 you said "The Euston Manifesto was drawn [up] to combat influential, tenured left-wing anti-Semitism in Britain." I've read the Manifesto, that seems to come under 8) Against racism in the Statement of Principles. That seems quite far down for an exclusive aim. Perhaps you should speak to the authors or the signatories before putting words into their mouths? (I can't see just a 'jane' among the signatories: though there is Jane Ashworth of EngageOnline, a website which would fit your description of the EM.)
I'm also curious about your use of 'tenured'. The context suggests that you are referring to academic tenure (which isn't a term used in Britain in the way it is in the US), yet you later back this claim with a link to a blog and a rant about an Israeli-born, presumably self-employed, musician. I don't get it. Can't you out a few of these anti-Semitic profs here? Apparently they're everywhere.

People, it's not nice to prod a corpse in the hope that there might be a twitch or two left in it. The Euston Manifesto died last summer, like other Zionist propaganda scams before it.

Jane,

Ed Marshall's foul-mouthed, pseudo-tough-guy anti-Israelism -- e.g. "anyone who *hearts* Israel has a set of balls sized 18-pounder cannonshot" http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2006/12/the_other_cedar_revolution/ -- is well known to anyone who has has browsed through the comments on this blog. I like to think that his presence here serves to demonstrate (to the skeptical and the naive) that some of the types you refer to are not just strawmen.

And it's also nice to see such a direct link between anti-Zionism and traditional right-wing racism in the presence of "Jack the Bear", aka W.J. Phillips.

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2006/11/20/linking_arms_with_the_far_right.php

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/lenin/115385760563697911/

P.S. anyone who *hearts* Israel has a set of balls sized 18-pounder cannonshot or ideological blinders straight out of 1984 to cry for lack of Lebanese sovereignty.

Nice hatchet job with the truncated quote.

If you are going to lie, at least do the courtesy of using elipses.

Once again for those keeping score, this is a sad illustration of the cheap tactics, lies, badjacketing, and other dirty tricks that are left to the "friends of Israel".

Oh, and boo-fuckin-hoo about my bad language.

Just a final note to anyone wondering whether I've mischaracterized Ed Marshall's comments in the Lebanon thread: there's plenty of context in the link provided.

And, speaking of context, as an Irish (Catholic-born) atheist socialist, I'm having trouble deconstructing the scare quotes around "friends of Israel". I'd like to think that the marks were meant only for the first word in the phrase, but -- in the context -- I'm beginning to suspect they were meant for the last.

Having just come to this blog via a link on Mike the Mad Biologist, I have a few comments on some of the other commenters on this thread.

Re Marshall

Trashing Alan Dershowitz as a crazy does not enhance Mr. Marshalls' credibility. Among other things, Professor Dershkowitz is a strong supporter of Fakistinian statehood, an erroneous position in my opinion (the Fakistinian state is in Amman).

Re Freddi

Mr. Freddis' aligning himself with a self-hating antisemitic Jew like Norman Finkelstein does not enhance his credibility. This is in addition, of course to Finkelsteins bogus charges of plagerism against Alan Dershowitz, which are nothing but a pack of lies spread by him and the clowns at counterpunch and the formers' association with neoNazi and holocaust denial web sites.

Re hegemony57

Professor Dershowitzs' criticism of James Earl Carters latest book is largly based on the fact that the latters' description of the events at the Wye in 2000 are a pack of lies and are totally discredited by the descriptions given by Dennis Ross and former President Clinton who, unlike Carter, were there.

The criticisms of Israeli actions in Lebanon are misplaced. The problem is not the issue of the morality of those actions but the incompetence of them. Prime Minister Olmerts' incompetence in his handling of the Lebanon war almost exceeds that of President Bush in his handling of the Iraq war. Like Bush, he ignored the military advice provided by Army generals relative to force size and bullied weak Air Force generals (i.e. Myers and Halutz) to go along with his approach.

"I don't know how others feel about this, but I have to believe I'm not the only Jewish American who's getting tired of constantly having vague accusations of anti-semitism smeared around in my general direction".

Can you be more specific abot the se accusations that you have faced. I myself am sick and tired of people like yourself making this "vage accusation". For every example of Jewish people sing the accusation of anti-semitism with regard to Palestine / Israel , there are ten times as many people claiming they are on the receiving end of this accusation. I think it's become a bit of a folklore and is used by people to stifle any debate on anti-semitism. And guess what , you may not believe it but some people do actualy use anti-zionism as a cover for their anti-semitism.

So as i said at the beginning of the comments , how have you been accused of being anti-semitic ?

People "cry" antisemitism when Israel is portrayed as a unique evil in the
world.

People "cry" antisemitism in response to conspiracy theory.

People "cry" antisemitism when it is claimed that Israel has a deliberate
policy of murdering non-Jewish children or of comitting genocide.

People "cry" antisemitism when there are proposals to exclude Israeli artists, academics, musicians, researchers and students from the global community of scholars - but when no others on the globe are excluded in this way.

People "cry" antisemitism when Israel is portrayed as an essentially Nazi,racist, fascist, apartheid, or illegitimate state.

People "cry" antisemitism when Israel is understood to be either a subsidiary of the US or alternative the puppet-master of the US.

People "cry antiemitism when Ken Livingstone uses his late night and trivial antisemitic abuse as a political tool to demonstrate his anti-Zionist credentials.

BTW i'm speaking on the situation in the UK. With regard to the Euston Manifesto receiving very little attention this is simply incorrect. It received massive attention - just google it to see for yourself. By all means criticise it's contents but to claim it received little attention is pathetic.

Richard, what are you talking about? Matthew didn't say that the "Euston Manifesto receiv[ed] very little attention" he said that 'Roger Cohen [wrote] a column in praise of the Euston Manifesto which, we're told, "has received too little attention"'. If you mean Roger Cohen is talking rot, I'm entirely with you, but I suspect you don't.
All the examples of "crying antisemitism" refer to criticism of Israel. So?
And have you any evidence for your 'ten times' claim in the first of your three recent comments?

Dave. I was refering to one of the commenters and should have made that clear. With regard to proof. I have no figures but can i suggest you bear in mind what i said and judge for yourself. I am basing my experience on what i have read. However please just bear it in mind from now on - you may be surprised. I have been pushing for a study to be done but it would be a mammoth task.

"All the examples of "crying antisemitism" refer to criticism of Israel. So?" I'm saying that in these cases the accusation of anti-semitism is reasonable.

The cry of "anti-Semite" for a lot of Gentiles (definitely a majority) now is perceived as the boy who cried wolf. An anti-Semite used to be someone who hates Jews. Now, it seems to be someone whom Jews hate. They pour out their bile for Jimmy Carter, Colin Powell, Wes Clark (Jewish himself), even Condi Rice now. Whatever black mark it conveyed on its recepient in the past has now been cheapened to the point where now it's almost worse to be called a "Sunday driver!"now than an "anti-Semite!" Finkelstein makes the point that real anti-Semitism is on the rise here and abroad not just because of Apartheid Israel but because of precisely this kind of moral blackmail. In his recent memoir Colin Powell said "the JINSA crowd" pushed the U.S. into invading Iraq, and now there's no doubt they're trying to start another War against Iran- maybe nuking them into oblivion. And, yet, somehow criticism of Israel and its Lobby here is supposed to be restrained? That's preposterous. Israel and all its supporters (left, right, or centrists) have to be marginalized asap unless you all want "The Rapture" to come sooner or later. These people are the greatest danger to world peace and world stability extant. Anti-Semitism my ass. And a lot of Jews know it.

i just recently switched over to connections, and loving it.

However, are you planning on updating the template to support widgets?

pornopornotubeporn
SexGüzel SözlerAcı sözlerDuygusal Sözlersextube89
89comSeks
Amerikan kapıSohbetChat
MobilyaAhşapArkadaşarkadaşlıksikiş
Site EkleAhşap kapıToplistsite EkletoplistTürkçe MircMircsextubeSohbetchatKapıTosya AhşapTOSYATHANK YOU GRUP..

As a designer I loved it. It just cheered me up Stylistically it's beautiful and it's definately something I haven't seen before. I hope it can eventually function a little better without sacrificing its visual flavor. Nice and smooth artwork.

Of course Dershowitz is biased. He's a pontificating self-righteous gasbag too, but there' no doubt he has every constitutional right to his own anti-carter bias. It's called an opinion. In an environment where debating ideas in an honest exchange is not considered beyond the pale, bias is a welcome antidote to official party or media line. The problem with Dershowitz is that he beleives his own bias is truth while Carter's (and everyone else who doesn't agree with the great man) is motivated by a well of historical antipathy or casual disregard of the facts. Sadly, in most of official America critcizing Israel, Zionism or Likud risks being branded an anti-semite or possibly even worse, a self hating jew. I know about this because I have been repeatedly and constantly been labled as one or both (quite a few jews say I am not a jew ... I see it differently ... i figure i'm jewish enough to have been sent to Birkenau in 1943). There is no honest national debate in the US about Zionism, Israeli policy towards the palestinian arabs who live in conditions just as bad or worse than apartheid and the hammer lock AIPAC, neocons and other US based Jewish organizations have on the mid-east policy arena. The lack of debate and inabilty to address the issue is similar to the lock Cuban-Americans have on US-Cuban relations (a massive 47 year failure). Carter is brave to have written this book (I have heard him interviewed but have not yet read it) and it is of course possible that he got some of his facts wrong. Though I imagine Dershowtiz's "exposure" of Carter's critique is mostly based on his own biases. He calls Carter a bully and says .. "and like all school-yard bullies, underneath the tough talk and bravado, there's a nagging insecurity and a fear that one day he'll have to answer for himself in a fair fight."

Very useful article
Thank you

sohbet
chat sohbet
mynet sohbet
kızlarla sohbet
sohbet siteleri
islami sohbet
sesli sohbet
kameralı sohbet
sohbet odaları
sohbet net
kelebek sohbet
alem sohbet
canlı sohbet
bedava sohbet
dini sohbet
ideal sohbet
erotik sohbet
internet sohbet
almanya sohbet
bol sohbet
yazgülü sohbet
seks sohbet
isvec sohbet
sohbet odasi
chat sohbet muhabbet
chat mynet sohbet
almanya sohbet chat
zurna sohbet
sex sohbet
canli sohbet
cet kelebek sohbet
sohbet com
ingilizce sohbet
gay sohbet
cinsel sohbet
mynet odalari sohbet
35 sevgi sohbet
sohbet gen tr
kahkaha sohbet
istanbul sohbet
odasi sohbet turk
chat.tc sohbet
sevgi sohbet
yonca sohbet
makas sohbet
cinsellik sohbet
kraltv sohbet
turkce sohbet
ara sohbet
chat cinsellik sohbet
lesbian sohbet
sohbet cet
chat muhabbet sex sohbet
sohbet et
hotmail.com sohbet
keriz sohbet
izmir sohbet
sohbet sohbet
cam sohbet
islam sohbet
sohbet tr zurna
bayan msn sohbet
sohbet sohbet.com
seviyeli sohbet
sohbet sitesi
yazili sohbet
sohbet ankara
kardelen sohbet
konya sohbet
7 islami kanal sohbet
web cam sohbet
java sohbet

sohbet

chat

sohbet odaları

sohpet

sohbet
sohbet odaları

sohbet chat

chat

kameralı sohbet

kanka sohbet

sohbet kanka

Thanks your article

thankx

thankx

thankx

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet

sohbet kanal
sohpet kanal
javasız sohbet
lezbiyenchat
camdasohbet
camlı sohbet
alem sohbet
konya sohbet
sohbetbol
chet siteleri
sohbet alemi
bedavasohbet kanal
chatodaları
camsohbet
konyasohbet
sohbet

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

I follow what Joshua Porter is doing, and I think he nailed it, personal value must preced network value. In this case, Facebook has 0 value if you don’t added friends yet. zero. nada.

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
mirc
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
mirc
seks shop
hikaye
hikaye

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
mirc
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
mirc
seks shop
hikaye
hikaye
sex

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
seks shop
hikayeler
hikaye
sex
hikayetube
sex |
porno |
hikaye |
sex hikayeleri |
sex hikaye |
sex porno |
seks shop |
geciktirici |
penis büyütücü |
hikaye |
hikaye |
sex |
videohikaye.com |
sex |
porno |
hikayetube.com |
porno |
mirc |
yüzük |
güzel sözler |
elektronik sigara |
pilli sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara

Fast forward to around 24:00 to hear my part

writes a very strong overview article on the

writes a very strong overview article on the

adana evden eve nakliyat
ıgdır evden eve nakliyat
ardahan evden eve nakliyat
artvin evden eve nakliyat
bartın evden eve nakliyat
şırnak evden eve nakliyat
karaman evden eve nakliyat
bayburt evden eve nakliyat
aksaray evden eve nakliyat
zonguldak evden eve nakliyat
yozgat evden eve nakliyat
van evden eve nakliyat
sanlıurfa evden eve nakliyat
trabzon evden eve nakliyat
sivas evden eve nakliyat
sinop evden eve nakliyat
siirt evden eve nakliyat
samsun evden eve nakliyat
sakarya evden eve nakliyat
rize evden eve nakliyat
nigde evden eve nakliyat
mugla evden eve nakliyat
mardin evden eve nakliyat
maras evden eve nakliyat
manisa evden eve nakliyat
gümüshane evden eve nakliyat
giresun evden eve nakliyat
edirne evden eve nakliyat
çanakkale evden eve nakliyat
diyarbakir evden eve nakliyat
denizli evden eve nakliyat
çankırı evden eve nakliyat
burdur evden eve nakliyat
bolu evden eve nakliyat
adiyaman evden eve nakliyat
afyon evden eve nakliyat
agrı evden eve nakliyat
amasya evden eve nakliyat
antalya evden eve nakliyat
artvin evden eve nakliyat
balıkesir evden eve nakliyat
bilecik evden eve nakliyat
bitlis evden eve nakliyat
bursa evden eve nakliyat
çorum evden eve nakliyat
mersin evden eve nakliyat
iskenderun evden eve nakliyat
hatay evden eve nakliyat
eskişehir evden eve nakliyat
izmit evden eve nakliyat
malatya evden eve nakliyat
kütahya evden eve nakliyat
konya evden eve nakliyat
kocaeli evden eve nakliyat
kırklareli evden eve nakliyat
kayseri evden eve nakliyat
kastamonu evden eve nakliyat
kars evden eve nakliyat
erzurum evden eve nakliyat
elazig evden eve nakliyat
tunceli evden eve nakliyat
gebze evden eve nakliyat
tuzla evden eve nakliyat
pendik evden eve nakliyat
nevsehir evden eve nakliyat
muş evden eve nakliyat
osmaniye evden eve nakliyat
düzce evden eve nakliyat
karabük evden eve nakliyat
yalova evden eve nakliyat
erzincan evden eve nakliyat
istanbul evden eve nakliyat
izmir evden eve nakliyat
nikah şekeri
ankara lazer epilasyon
temizlik
halı yıkama
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
estetik
plastik cerrahi
liposakşin
botox

Thanks for you sites..

evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
evden eve nakliyat
Sohbet
sohbet
mirc
penis büyütücü
sohbet
muhabbet
matbaa
seks
sex
hikaye
hikayeler
sex
porno
Sohbet kanalları
Sohbet odaları
Chat
evden eve nakliye
chat
magazin
chat
Sohbet
tuzcuoğlu

komik video
kurtlar vadisi pusu
aşk şiirleri
bol sohbet
cinsel sohbet
sohbet
sohbet yerleri
bedava oyun
Bol Sohbet
chat
chat
sohbet
sohbet
seviyeli sohbet
göçmen sohbet
mynet sohbet
islam sohbet
yazılı sohbet
yazgülü sohbet
hollanda sohbet
bg sohbet
dost sohbet
arkadaş sohbet
bayan arkadaş sohbet
kızlarla sohbet
avrupa sohbet
alem sohbet
sohpet sohbet
cinsel sohbet
ingiltere sohbet
liseli kizlar
msn nickler
saç ekimi
sağlık bilgisi
mirc inndir
film inndir

Thank you.

thanks for article.

mirc

thank you

sohbet
chat
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
hikaye
diziler
facebook
chat
kadın
forex
arkadaş
muhabbet
gebze
webtasarım
toplist
sinema
film
gebze
asansör
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
face book
face turk
face turk
youtube
sinema
sohbet
muhabbet
chet
çet
arkadaş
palet
trkadin
hikayen
chat
sohbet
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım
sohbet
chat
moda
magazin
yemek tarifi
yemek tarifleri
kozmetik
diyet
Yakışıklı
Yakışıklılar
Anne Çocuk
Filmler
Filimler
Film
Dizi
sohbet
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
facebook
face book
face turk
pagerank
masaj
masör
sohbet
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
chat
gebze ticaret
kredi
borsa
sohbet
chat
sohbet
Arkadaş

youtube
yuotube
yotube
youtobe
video sitesi
video siteleri
izlesene
yutup
youtube.com
youtube izle
video izle
youtub
youtup

thans you lui

thanks..

thanks.

thanks

No joke! What a great, energetic group - very outgoing. Other than the fact that they kicked Arizona’s ass 6-1 I could hang with these ladies and learn a little something about focus and team spirit. nice

thanks you.good site and news.

thanks you.good site and news.

Very good.

tahnk you

tahnk you

thank you

thank you

thank you

than you

thank you

thank you

thank you

thank you

thank you

thank you

thank you

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset

Sohbet
chat
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli chat
sesli
kameralı chat
kameralı Sohbet
goruntulu chat
goruntulu Sohbet
Sohbet odaları
chat odaları
Sohbet sitesi
chat sitesi

Sesli Sohbet
Sesli chat
Sohbet
chat

Sesli Sohbet
Sesli chat
Sohbet
chat

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc

simdi biz bu siteyi kasarken cinsel sohbet birde sohbet odaları
olarak kasmaya calıstık guzel sozler de ilerleme var ona birde mirc yaptık gun gectikce
kelebek script olarak hit alamaya basladık oda olmadı birde kelebek
radyo muz olsun dedik iyi kotu muhabbet oluyordu ama baktık kadınca
çet cet üniversite odaları
nda is yok donduk mirc indir e ondada tat tuz kalmamıs rüya tabirlerine zipladık izmir de oturuyorum iste ..
sonra da yavas yavas ilerlemeye basladık operserv chanserv memoserv nickserv komutlarını yazdık .. bir sonraki hedefimiz sohbet yada chat olacak insallah ..sex seks demi kassak acaba :)

ask oyun itiraf link degisimi siir

Thanks for the great work. !

muhabbet - sohbet odaları - mirc indir - mirc indir - çet - kelebek - script - mirc indir - arkadas - chat - sohbet odaları - kelebek - sohbet - radyo - çet - cet odaları - portalsohbet ekle -

kelebek - kelebek - turk sohbet - çet - muhabbet - muhabbet - turkce mirc - sohbet odaları - sohbet - cinsel chat - mynet chat -

izmir sohbet cinsel sohbet kelebek mirc operserv chanserv siir botserv zurna mynet ataturk universitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat kelebek script kelebek script kelebek mirc kelebek skript mric gazi universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,gazi sohbet,gazi chat,kelebek duzce universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,duzce sohbet,duzce chat ... ege universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,ege sohbet,ege chat,kelebek dumlu pınar universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dumlupınar sohbet ... memoserv, memo serv,memoserv komutlari mesaj komutlari irc mesaj ... mirc indir kamerali mirc yabanci mirc mirc 6.21
sesli tv seslisesli sesliask sesli fıkra sesliefsane sesliyiz sesli türkiyem seslialem sesli dini sohbet ... erzincan universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erzincan sohbet ... Yüzük Script mirc yüzük cet yüzük script 4 yuzuk sohbet yüzük chat ankara sohbet ankara chat ankara muhabbet ankara arkadas ankara.net erciyes universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erciyes sohbet,erciyes ... dicle universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dicle sohbet,dicle chat ... mirc indir,mirc script,mirc yukle,mirc,script mırç,mrc,kelebek ... kelebek cinsel sohbet cinsel chat kelebek mirc myrc script mirc programi turkçe mirc indir mric mrc ... izmir sohbet izmir chat izmir muhabbet izmir arkadas izmir cet çet kelebek sohbet odalari chat sohpet cet kelebek muhabbet çet ... arkadasbul askim - arkadas bul, arkadas arama, arkadas ara ... kelebek host iletisim bilgileri sitene sohbet ekle sitene chat ekle sitene sohbet odasi koy kelebek sohbet , chat kelebek sohbet , cet kelebek sohbet , canli ... sohbet Kizlarla Sohbet Kızlarla Sohbet, Bedava Sohbet Odası ... kelebek sohbet chat muhabbet amasya uiversitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat canakkale onsekiz mart universitesi sohbet chat odalari comu ... istanbul sohbet istanbul chat istanbul muhabbet istanbul arkadas

thnaks

thanks

thanks you adminnnnn

thanks for all things

thanks for it my friend :)

thanks for all things ;)

extraordinarily good
Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc ındır
kafkas
kafkasya
adige
irc forum
mirc forum
irc forum
mirc forum
irc forum
mirc forum
mirc
mirç
mirc inndir
türkçe mirc
mirc download
forum
sohbet
chat
catlak

thanks....

bedava dizi izle

bedava porno izle

bedava seks izle sikiş izle turk sikişi izle

thanks thanks thanks

Thanks

thanks...

thanks

Thanks you ßy_HaYaLisT

neon tabela

thank you

neon

thank you