Vigorous!

"Yossi Klein Halevi, Michael B. Oren, Dennis Ross, Hillel Halkin, and Michael Walzer"
Not to exclude Martin Peretz, Alan Dershowitz, Leon Wieselthier and MJ Rosenberg!

Let the debate begin!

(You might object that MJ Rosenberg is a little different from the others. But even he only has a toe outside the 'box' that Alvin H. is trying to defend. MJ Rosenberg wants to keep large numbers of settlers in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and, yes, the 'debate' should be widened to include a wider range of opinions than that.)

Being published and/or interviewed in the NYRB and NPR, but not being welcome in TNR, doesn't seem too bad compared to what this guy is going through at the hands of the gun lobby.

The "new anti-semitims" discourse was never just, it simply didn't involve you until after 9/11. Those pushing for a more equitable Israel-Palestine peace deal have been hearing this crap for a while.

I don't know about "narrow range" exclusivity where discussion concerning Israel is concerned. I do know that any substantive criticism of that state brings with it an accusatory avalanche that the critic is anti semitic.

Just curious, are all those guys Jewish? And if so, doesn't that suggest that the debate is limited to Jewish people (which one might expect if the term antisemitism is being used to limit debate - Jewish people are must less hampered by false charges of antisemitism than goyim, since the charges against Jewish people are more laughable). So, America should debate an issue of major National Importance, but the breadth of that debate should be limited to 2% of the population? Feels like a really effective debate to me.

If I'm wrong, I retract my arguments. I don't actually know those guys well, but after googling their names, I noticed what appeared to be a trend.

Re otto

I guess Mr. otto thinks that the debate should be widened to include Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Albert Lilienthal and Elmer Berger. How about David Duke, Khaled Mashal and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Surely they have something constructive to say, not.

It's too bad Matt didn't highlight the following paragraph, which perfectly captures the game as the Intellectual Martyrs play it.

The ubiquitous rubric "criticism of Israel," however, has also come to designate another kind of discourse--one that has almost become a politico-rhetorical genre unto itself, with its own identifiable vocabulary, narrative conventions, and predictable outcomes. At its ideational core is what the British scholar Bernard Harrison calls a "dialectical scam." It goes something like this: (1) Spot an Israeli action that can serve as the ground of "criticism of Israel" (e.g., Israel's military incursion into the area near Jenin in April 2002 in response to Palestinian terrorist massacres); (2) Then "dissent" in the strongest possible terms, for instance by likening the "razing of Jenin" to the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto, while anticipating that "powerful" and "repressive" Jewish institutions will try to "silence" the critics by calling them anti-Semites; (3) When taken to task by more sober-minded critics who find that, contrary to your charge, there was no such thing as "the razing of Jenin" and that the IDF has nothing in common with the SS, cry "foul" and claim their censure perfectly illustrates the point that there really is a Jewish organizational conspiracy to silence "criticism of Israel" by branding the authors of such criticism "anti-Semites."

Hey, SLC, why exactly should it be up to somebody-or-other "who the debate should be widened to include"?

What's inside and what's outside the acceptable range of acceptable discourse on Israel? Let me propose that any argument that uses terms like "racist," "genocide," "nazi," or "apartheid" is beyond the pale. I would also exclude any argument that Israel should cease to exist as an independent State that defines itself as, in some sense, Jewish. Finally, I would exclude arguments that ignore the fact that Israel is vulnerable to attacks on its civilian population. Not everyone who uses such rhetoric or espouses such arguments is necessarily anti-semitic. They are, however, in my view, enemies of the Jewish people.

They are, however, in my view, enemies of the Jewish people.

Perhaps you meant "enemies of the Israelis"? But that's really the crux of this anyway, so.

Excluding anyone who uses the term "apartheid" would exclude Israeli human rights groups like B'Tselem from contributing. I suppose that's the idea.

Let me propose that any argument that uses terms like "racist," "genocide," "nazi," or "apartheid" is beyond the pale.

Let me propose that you press your lips to the screen and blow me. People are, in fact, pretty good about throwing away garbage arguments. You don't see a lot of thoughtful responses to arguments using the terms "genocide" and "nazi." But your attempt to define legitimate argument as narrowly circumscribed is grotesque.

Both kinds. Country and Western.

Am I right in supposing there aren't many non-Jewish American authorities on the U.S. relationship to Israel? If so, I'm guessing this is because of the charge of anti-Semitism hanging over the heads of potential such scholars. You can be a European American who specializes in Africa, an African American who specializes in Asia, but it's too risky to one's career to attempt to be a non-Jewish scholar formulating independent opinions about the U.S. relationship to Israel. If you're Jewish, you can still be so charged, as we see, but the charge comes across as a ridiculous distraction.

Wait - is Israeli action completely unmotivated by racism or ethnic chauvinism? Is the American attitude towards those actions completely unaffected by racism? I think you have a higher opinion of human nature than I.

Certainly, Israel faces serious security concerns, and I have not idea how to solve them. But, that doesn't make all their conduct immune from scrutiny. Nor does it make it magically rational and security-maximizing. Some of the settlement stuff can be understood as a result of ethnic chauvinism and a desire for territorial acquisition, not necessarily security minded.

Oh yeah and: "I would also exclude any argument that Israel should cease to exist as an independent State that defines itself as, in some sense, Jewish."
I would say that many arguments of this nature are not necessarily motivated by animus (an argument that all Jewish Israelis should move to the U.S. and be compensated for lost property is an example). So, I would definitely not exclude them. Now, I happen to think they're completely impractical, unrealistic, and would be unfair. But we might make more progress allowing the argument and explaining why that's the case rather than have it float in the heads of lots of relatively ignorant people who haven't really thought it through and who resent being called bigots.

When I was a 12-year-old in a Jerusalem junior high school, kids on the playground would throw around the insult "dirty arab" pretty often. I would suggest that discussion of racism in Israeli politics should not be considered "beyond the pale".

There is an article on Wikipedia about the essay, although it looks like it needs some more work:
-> 'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism

What's inside and what's outside the acceptable range of acceptable discourse on Israel? Let me propose that any argument that uses terms like "racist," "genocide," "nazi," or "apartheid" is beyond the pale. I would also exclude any argument that Israel should cease to exist as an independent State that defines itself as, in some sense, Jewish.

The interesting thing is that people want to define as "beyond the pale" arguments which are routinely made by Jews within Israel. The spectrum of their internal debate is far broader than what the American mainstream will accept. It's pretty ironic.

Both kinds. Country and Western.

In West Texas some people really are concerned about that distinction.

Nothing is beyond the pale re criticism of Israel. It has put itself beyond the pale. And the wolf cry of "anti-semitism" is almost always employed by someone who's never experienced an iota of real anti-Semitism in their life. Or ever been in an awkward or uncomfortable situation with an angry person in their life.

Let me propose that you press your lips to the screen and blow me. People are, in fact, pretty good about throwing away garbage arguments. You don't see a lot of thoughtful responses to arguments using the terms "genocide" and "nazi." But your attempt to define legitimate argument as narrowly circumscribed is grotesque.

Oh, my. Well, I tend to be among the most ardent Israel-supporters hanging around my.com, but I think I'll have to go with SCMT on this one. Hard to see why "apartheid" or "racism" should come off the table, considering this:

When I was a 12-year-old in a Jerusalem junior high school, kids on the playground would throw around the insult "dirty arab" pretty often.

is pretty ubquitous in Israel even as a visitor.

And as a final comment, I've had my fill of this:

The interesting thing is that people want to define as "beyond the pale" arguments which are routinely made by Jews within Israel. The spectrum of their internal debate is far broader than what the American mainstream will accept. It's pretty ironic.

Yes, yes, of course. It's been repeated a hundred times, and it's not that interesting, and it's not that helpful in advancing this debate. (Sorry to pick on you, Steve.)

Am I right in supposing there aren't many non-Jewish American authorities on the U.S. relationship to Israel? If so, I'm guessing this is because of the charge of anti-Semitism hanging over the heads of potential such scholars. You can be a European American who specializes in Africa, an African American who specializes in Asia, but it's too risky to one's career to attempt to be a non-Jewish scholar formulating independent opinions about the U.S. relationship to Israel.

Smells like a straw man.

Chris Matthews has made the point that none of the chickenhawk neocons ("fat boys with asthma talking tough") have even been in a playground dust-up. It's really the same with the Alvin Rosenfeld, David Brooks, DRR vuntzes. Mommy, Grandma and Uncle Hesh have so pampered and protected these effete tattletales their whole lives that if you bumped into them acidentally they'd wail and wail 'till the snot ran out of them. Israel is like their second identity and God forbid you should say anything bad...Meanwhile, they're the first ones to call Gentiles "filthy goyim" and blacks "filthy shvatz goyim". There really should be a mandatory war time draft for these folks.

I love the use of "beyond the Pale" in this thread. Lots of resonance.

Yes, David Duke and Ahmadinejad have something constructive to say. That is the whole point. The Jewish interest groups should not be allowed to define who has something constructive to say and who doesn't.

DRR:

I really wish you hadn't brought up Jenin. Here are a couple of salient details I recall from watching contemporaneous coverage of the massacre:

1. Original Palestinian estimate of dead was 500. The IDF's was 200.
2. After the Israeli army blocked the U.N. and the press from inspecting the damage I remember the MSNBC guy at the scene screaming, literally, about the Israelis: "They're lying! They're lying!"
3. Benjamin Netanyahu later told us that seven Palestinians were killed.

With your excerpt (rudely and hysterically bolded) you've only demonstrated that Rosenfeld is a manipulative liar.

AG:

No use of the word "apartheid"? Eliminate Jimmy Carter but include Alan Dershowitz, huh? Real constructive. Wanker.

Am I right in supposing there aren't many non-Jewish American authorities on the U.S. relationship to Israel? ...

Smells like a straw man.

A pretty glib response. What's a straw man? The supposition? I am really curious to know why none of us goyim show up in the list of people allowed to debate the status of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. To state the common ground: Israel receives approximately one third of all U.S. foreign aid; Israel is in constant conflict with neighboring states; for better or worse, the U.S. obtains vital resources from some of those states. It seems odd, given all of this and given the percentage of the U.S. population that *isn't* Jewish that the only experts deemed within the pale are.

Anything that does not clearly identify Israel as the innocent victim and the Palestinians as the vicious aggressor is outside the pale of debate. It is anti-semitic to suggest that Israel's own aggressive or oppressive actions have contributed to the violence against it.

Within these bounds, some discussion of Israel's proper tactical responses against the vicious aggression of the Palestinians is permissible. You are also free to adopt a wide variety of tones. These range all the way from "sorrowful regret", in which one regrets some collateral damage unavoidably created by various Israeli actions taken in reluctant self-defense, all the way to "moral clarity", in which one fulminates on sub-human, barbaric, and murderous nature of Palestinian culture and society.

I hope this exposition has been helpful to you, and will assist you in keeping your own discourse within the acceptable range of criticism of Israel.

David Houghton:

Don't you get it? Non-Jews (please don't use this awful "goyim" unless you're being jocular) can't be "objective" about Israel. It's a genetico-historical condidtion, or something.

By the way, in a somewhat related aside, here's a good reason to vote for Barack Obama: Haaretz ranked him 17th out of the 17 presidential candidates for pro-Israeli credentials. I read this in a suprising article in The Hill about how Leahy and Feinstein have introduced a bill against cluster bombs, which Obama is the only candidate to support.

MQ:

Heated rejoinders aside, I think this is itself a bit of a straw man:

"Anything that does not clearly identify Israel as the innocent victim and the Palestinians as the vicious aggressor is outside the pale of debate. It is anti-semitic to suggest that Israel's own aggressive or oppressive actions have contributed to the violence against it."

I think that is true of official, public debate, but certainly not of debate on this site or sites like it. You, and everyone else, should make the distinction. Even the most irredentist and implacable of Israeli partisans don't make that particular ad-hominem attack.

Brendan, I'm Jewish and get in plenty of discussions with implacable Israeli partisans. They definitely do make that sort of attack. You should have heard things I've been called for suggesting that e.g. Hezbollah is in part a somewhat understandable defensive reaction against a long history of Israeli aggression in Lebanon. Let alone suggesting that if Israel ramped down the violence and agreed to evacuate more settlements they might be able to negotiate a cease fire with Hamas and work from there.

By the way, in a somewhat related aside, here's a good reason to vote for Barack Obama: Haaretz ranked him 17th out of the 17 presidential candidates for pro-Israeli credentials.

Is it not impossible that Israel supporters might be troubled by such outright hostility? I mean, encouraging people to vote for a presidential candidate on the basis that a mainstream Israeli daily designated him as least preferred?

Let alone suggesting that if Israel ramped down the violence and agreed to evacuate more settlements they might be able to negotiate a cease fire with Hamas and work from there.

MQ--doesn't recent experience suggest otherwise?

There's lots of straw man walking in this debate. Half a dozen for your pleasure:

The bias strawman. I can say whatever I want. You're biased.

The strawman's limits. I can support my cause regardless of the racism and insults involved. You must keep it civil and not offend me.

The strawman's complexity. What you do wrong is simply unacceptable, beyond the pale. What I do wrong is complex, and cannot be condemned as per strawman 1 & 2.

The strawman's brother. He's standing over there, why don't you complain about him?

The strawman's nephew. He's definitely worse, so why don't you complain about him?

Strawman's justice. You've got something against strawmen? You sir, are a racist.

"Non-Jews (please don't use this awful "goyim" unless you're being jocular) can't be "objective" about Israel. It's a genetico-historical condidtion, or something."
What?

Furthermore, why shouldn't Finkelstein and Chomsky be part of the debate?

Also, why isn't it beyond the pale to think that a modern liberal democracy should be organized based on ethnicity?

"Also, why isn't it beyond the pale to think that a modern liberal democracy should be organized based on ethnicity?"

Because a large majority of Jewish people have concluded, for good reason, that until the world consists entirely and securely of modern, liberal, non-ethnic states, it's a matter of life and death to us that at least one modern, liberal Jewish state exist. And to deny this is to be so unsympathetic to our own understanding of our own history as to be our enemy.

1) The real issue is not what the increasing irrelevent New
Republic thinks.

The real issue is what's in the national interest and the corruption virus within our channels of national discourse that
blocks any rational discussion of the national interest.

The real issue is (a) that both major parties are dominated and controlled by small wealthy elites (b) that those elites --the profane alliance of Big Oil, Big Defense and the Israel Lobby -- have brought massive destruction and misery down upon both America and the Middle East (c) that the US news media has shown itself unable to discuss the malign acts of those elites. (d) that the US news media has been equally reluctant to point out that --while Republicans whore for wealthy corporations and Big Oil -- some in the Democratic Leadership whore for the billionaires who largely fund the Democratic party and who are strong supporters of Israel.

Why, for example, does NO ONE point out Haim Saban's past actions and statements when discussing Hillary Clinton?

It's almost 6 years after Sept 11 and the News Media STILL has not informed Americans of WHY Sept 11 occurred -- the 3 reasons Bin Ladin gave for Jihad in 1998 and the primary reason he reiterated in the Nov 2001 interview with DAWN.

The real issue is that much of the US intelligentsia -- with a few exceptions like Mearshimer and Walt -- have been too cowardly to point out this situation. Probably because "the national interest" doesn't give tenure, lucrative "consulting contracts", grants, donations , opportunities to publish, etc.

It's been repeated a hundred times, and it's not that interesting, and it's not that helpful in advancing this debate. (Sorry to pick on you, Steve.)

Maybe it's not that interesting, but the point is, accusations of being "anti-Israel" are no different from the ridiculous accusations of "anti-America" that get commonly levied against mainstream American liberals. They're not worth the time of day. The fact that those "anti-Israel" charges sometimes morph into accusations of anti-semitism only serves to make them that much more outrageous.

"Because a large majority of Jewish people have concluded, for good reason, that until the world consists entirely and securely of modern, liberal, non-ethnic states, it's a matter of life and death to us that at least one modern, liberal Jewish state exist. And to deny this is to be so unsympathetic to our own understanding of our own history as to be our enemy."

Wow - so we all have to agree with you or we're your enemy? productive.

Here's a problem. If Israel is necessary because the goyim cannot be trusted, it's really problematic that Israel depends so extensively on the goy United States for support. So if Israel needs the U.S., it can't serve the function you cite. Further, if the U.S. CAN be trusted, then that undermines your entire argument for Israel. Now, if Israel didn't depend on the U.S., your point would be really well taken. But, the U.S. does extensively support Israel.

I understand that argument in the 1940s. It makes a lot less sense today in the 2000s in the U.S. And, more importantly. If you don't want to answer to American, liberal conceptions of Democracy, then maybe Israel should stop depending on the U.S. so much.

Finally, why should the entire world consist of Liberal, non-ethnic Democracies? Why isn't it sufficient to have a large, liberal, non-ethnic Democracy willing to take all Jewish immigrants? For the record, there's no Nation I can run to if things turn bad. I'm American, and there's no where for me to go.

Which is not to say that I think Israel should cease to exist. But I don't find that argument compelling.

MDtoMN:

You don't have to agree with me. The first sentence of your last paragraph reassures me that we've got something to talk about.

As an American I don't feel at all threatened. But as a Jew I empathize with my fellow Jews in other countries, who may not be as lucky as you and I are. The world's third largest national Jewish population lives in the former Soviet Union. How secure can they feel? Argentina ranks five. Remember what happened there within very recent memory. Even in France, a liberal democracy if there ever was one, the Jewish population (number four) feels increasingly beseiged.

You ask: "Why isn't it sufficient to have a large, liberal, non-ethnic Democracy willing to take all Jewish immigrants?" That probably would be sufficient, if it were reliable. But it hasn't been, and last year's anti-immigrant agitation is a stark reminder that a multi-ethnic liberaly democracy isn't always liberal in every regard.

That's why we feel as we do, and that's why we feel threatened when people argue that we are not entitled to a state. I'm glad you don't feel that way.

It's interesting to note that the debate on "what is permissible to say" about the Israel Palestine situation in America is entirely framed around Jewish interests and sensibilities. Palestinian interests and sensibilities are not really treated as a factor. If advocates for the Palestinians are going to be required to give up the words "racism" and "apartheid" can advocates for Israel be required to give up the word "terrorism"?

can advocates for Israel be required to give up the word "terrorism"?

Well, that's not such a good one to give up; it refers to an existing and relevant thing. "Genocide" or "Holocaust" might be a good one for us pro-Israelis to give up.

hmm... my rather long comment didn't go through, after being held for editing. i'm going to assume it's a software problem, i'm not sure why it would have been censored. if by chance it was, i'd appreciate matt letting me know why...

Because a large majority of Jewish people have concluded, for good reason, that until the world consists entirely and securely of modern, liberal, non-ethnic states, it's a matter of life and death to us that at least one modern, liberal Jewish state exist. And to deny this is to be so unsympathetic to our own understanding of our own history as to be our enemy.

How about this, the U.S. can drege out a few hundred-million metric tons of fill, build a scale model of the place and anchor it off St. Petersberg...and buy everybody ponies. It's probably still cheaper than Israel and I don't have to live on a planet that wants to nuke each other over an ugly piece of desert with an unfortunate mythos. To hell with this, I want off this train RIGHT now.

Nothing it outside the parameters of debate. Argue that the jews in Israel are a hyper-nationalist racist predator species who subconsciously act out on others what the Nazis did to them and that they own & control the American Government in their efforts to forge a Pax Judaica. Just don't whine & act like an abused martyr or claim people are trying to "silence" you when someone calls bullshit.

DJ Ninja:

Being 17th out of 17 hardly signifies hostility to Israel, but, rather, probably something approaching evenhandedness. But even that would be overstating the case. It simply means Obama is not kissing the lobby's ass as disgracefully as the sixteen others. An example of an "anti-Israel" position would be the cluster bomb legislation I mentioned.

Furthermore, Haaretz is a left wing newspaper that would certainly not consider evenhandedness "anti-Israel".

Your response demonstrates how skewed in favored of Israel debate has become -- totalitarian, practically, if we're talking about Congress -- in the past fifteen years or so.

Arabam
Güzel Sözler
porno
sex
Oyun
Oyun
sextube
89
mobilya
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
Site ekleSite Ekle
arkadaş
Mirc
türkce mirc
Sohbet
Sohbet
amerikan kapı
tosya ahsap
Pimapen
Oyunlar
Oyunlar
forum
Resimleri
redtube
Sohbet Odaları
Bol Sohbet
arabam
pornotube
Aşk
Ahşap
Arkadaş
Aşk mesajları
Sevgi mesajları
Bayan Arkadaş
kapı
kapılar
thank you grup

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

thanks for all

mirc

erotik shop

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

Hello Men
gallery is fantastic "Sunset Waves" very good
I am Blog

Thanks you really perfect one writing.I m always follow you.

Alışveriş indir sohbetbizde arkadas driver sohbet sohbet cinsel sohbet cet çet sohbet odalari sohbet cet odasi çet sohbet sohbet kelebekfm chat chat web tasarimkelebekfm kelebek fm kelebek radyo cet cinsel cet cet kanallari cet odasi muhabbet izmir sohbet script cet çet mirc chat sohbet sohbet odalari kelebek kelebek sohbet

Dış Cephe
Fibercement
Hekimboard
Turksiding
İzokon
Dış Cephe Kaplama
Mantolama
Söve
Kaplama
Dışcephe
Dışcephe
Dışcephe
Güvenlik

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