Israel's left needs to wise up to Middle East reality

[shira]

It is not hard to imagine what would have happened had Juliano Mer-Khamis been murdered by Jews. The murder would receive a huge headline in Haaretz. Under the headline, five furious analyses would appear - one of them mine. The writers would harshly denounce the Jewish murderousness and urge a culture war against Jewish fanaticism. Others would demand not to repeat the mistake made after Baruch Goldstein's murderous rampage and to evacuate the settlements immediately. Others would demand to look into the goings on in the Hesder yeshivas, which offer Torah studies alongside military service, and the state-run religious education system.

<snip>

But Juliano Mer-Khamis was not murdered by Jews. So instead of a huge headline he got a story below the fold. Instead of five angry essays, he received only one (beautiful ) eulogy. Nobody talked about racism, fanaticism and fascism. Nobody spoke of education systems spreading hatred and about primitive clergy. Mer-Khamis did not become an icon and thousands of people did not demonstrate.

<snip>

The murder of a peace hero by Palestinians has no place on the left's emotional and ideological map. The murder of a freedom hero by Palestinians is a dogma-undermining, paradigm-subverting event for the left. Mer-Khamis' murder by Palestinians is a murder doomed for repression.

This is a deep, broad issue that goes beyond just the Israeli left. One of the outstanding characteristics of Western enlightenment in the 21st century is its inability to denounce forces of evil in the Arab-Muslim world. Western enlightenment likes to criticize the West. It especially likes to criticize the West's allies in the East. But when it runs into evil originating in the East, it falls silent.

more...
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-s-left-needs-to-wise-up-to-middle-east-reality-1.354548

[oberliner]

1. Strong legacy of Israeli peace activist

From The Guardian:

The murder of Israeli peace activist Juliano Mer Khamis (Report, 5 April), whoever the perpetrator, is an attack on all who strive for justice in the Middle East. Juliano, the son of an Israeli-Jewish mother and a Palestinian-Arab father, embodied in his own life both the divisions in Palestine and the hope for coexistence. As he said to an interviewer in 2009, he was "100% Palestinian and 100% Jewish".

Juliano continued the work of his mother Arna, whom he commemorated in the powerful film Arna's Children. This film, and the Freedom Theatre in Jenin which he founded, will maintain the legacy of Juliano and Arna; as will the love and respect which they inspired in those, of whatever ethnic or religious origin, whose lives they touched. I am proud to have been a friend of Juliano and Arna. Those who knew and loved them will not allow this appalling crime to divert us from the struggle for justice, to which they dedicated their lives.

Roland Rance

London

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/07/juliano-mer-khamis-israeli-activist

[LeftishBrit]

3. Thanks for posting this. Very moving.

[Ghost Dog]

9. Yes.

:(

[LeftishBrit]

2. Could this author possibly wait till Juliano Mer-Khamis is cold in his grave before using his death

as a means of attacking everything that he supported and stood for?

[bemildred]

5. Well said. nt

[whosinpower]

7. Exactly. nt

[shaayecanaan]

43. Hear, hear (nt)

[shira]

62. But political statements are made all the time WRT certain events...

It happens all the time in the Israeli and international press when a settler or an Israeli religious fanatic does something bad.

When's the last time you voiced outrage at this?

[LeftishBrit]

68. Mer-Khamis was a particular hero of mine; I am particularly upset by his death...

therefore I am more upset at *his* death being used in this way, than someone else, though no doubt there are inappropriate statements of this sort quite frequently.

I have expressed outrage on other occasions where I've felt that pundits were using someone's illness or death as an excuse to sneer at a cause that that was supported by that person. The most recent may have been Christian apologists using Christopher Hitchens' illness as a peg on which to bash secularism.

I would not object to *any* political statement being made in this context. I would not for example object in this case to Mer-Khamis' death being used directly to bash the Muslim religious right - because they were enemies of his views and activities. I do, however, object to his death being used to bash the Israeli left- because this was the group to which he belonged.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Family and friends say goodbye to Juliano Mer-Khamis

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/family-friends-say-goodbye-to-juliano-mer-khamis-1.354518

....

"We will continue to celebrate your path until we die," chanted his students from Jenin, who were granted permission to attend the funeral.

"You were a sole sane voice in this insane place," said director Udi Aloni, who taught cinema at the Freedom Theater.

One of Mer-Khamis' relatives, Noa Mer, said he paid little heed to geopolitical borders, saying: "You were a border unto yourself."

Or as his daughter Milay put it, "You were 100 percent Arab and 100 percent Jewish."

[whosinpower]

6. What tripe

snip - from your article op -

It is not yet clear yet who murdered Mer-Khamis. The motive could have been financial, personal, religious or cultural. But it is clear he was not murdered for being an occupier, or an oppressor or a settler. Mer was murdered because he was a free man, who spread freedom in a society that is not free.

Nothing is clear yet in regards to the murder of Mer-Khamis.....fanciful delusions of how the left would of, could of, perhaps may have, written or reacted are just that....imaginations. IT ISN'T REAL. Snap out of it.

It is not yet clear yet who murdered Mer-Khamis. The motive could have been financial, personal, religious or cultural. I cannot help but wonder why "jews" are somehow eliminated from the list of suspects if it is not clear who murdered the man. snip - again from your article -

Mer's murder raised neither protest nor outrage nor holy rage. The Israeli left, which knows exactly what to do with a murder by Jews, does not know what to do with murder by Palestinians.

So this author viciously attacks the left for not villifying someone or a group of someones before it is known who the murderer is - and perhaps more importantly - THE FREAKING MOTIVE!

Well, I must say it is not the first time a rightwinger would cynically use the tragedy of a death/murder to forge the pain of loss into some sort of political weapon....even against the direct wishes of the family who was most intimately affected.

I understand this is JUST AN OPINION PIECE....but it reeks.

A good man died for reasons that are unclear. A good man who attempted to live his life as a bridge between two peoples with elements in both locked in hatred of each other. His legacy will be and should be - his life....not his death.

[shira]

13. What makes you think Ari Shavit (the author of the OP) is a rightwinger?

Plenty of liberals are fed up with phony, hypocritical "progressives" and sanctimonious "leftwingers".

The author is spot on WRT "identity politics".

[whosinpower]

28. If they are FED up - they aren't liberal

Real liberals can tell the difference between false, phony, hypocritical and sanctimonious pretenders.

So - if they are FED up - they aren't real liberals - and never were.

I'll tell you something else - being progressive does not include the equation of "identity politics".....that is what the right does - constantly, viciously, without thought of consequences or possible harm done to all in the future.

A good man was murdered. You didn't ask the right question - but I will answer it anyways. I find this article offensive because it belittles Mer-Khamis life and his work, and it celebrates his murder - not because he is dead....but because he was murdered by a militant....and not a jew. The author is clearly a writer....why didn't HE write of Mer Khamis life? Why didn't HE do exactly what he condemned the "left" for not doing? What is the piano stuck on HIS butt?

What makes me think that Shavit is a rightwinger? Because even HE did not have the BALLS to write what he thought should of been written.....unless he really did not want to say any of that either. HE HAD A CHOICE. Just as we all do.

[shira]

29. It's because they're genuine liberals that they're fed up with the issue Shavit brought up...

Shavit is 100% spot on, as it's all about identity politics...

Jonathan Freedland wrote an article this week (about Goldstone's Report) b/c he's also fed up...

Where's the Goldstone report into Sri Lanka, Congo, Darfur – or Britain?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/06/goldstone-report-israel-palestine

I'd like to see you try arguing Freedland is a Rightwinger...

============

ETA:

Khaled Abu Toameh writes on this frequently. Here's one of his latest....

Where Is The Outcry Against Arab Apartheid?
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1953/arab-apartheid

[whosinpower]

41. In the mind of a rightwinger -

They would think he was 100 percent spot on.

But Shavit is a weak pathetic cheap amoral coward.

He could only find one Eulogy....WHY DIDN'T HE WRITE ONE?
There was no outrage.....WHY DIDN'T HE WRITE IT? Writers can and certainly do persuade - do they not?
There was no talk of fanatisicm, racism and facsism? WHY DIDN'T HE WRITE ABOUT IT?

WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T HE? Because he doesn't give rat's shit about any of those things....and do you know why dear Shira? Because in the eyes of a rightwinger, and the ever present "identity politics" priorities are - 1. attack and destroy liberals
2. attack and destroy liberals
3. attack and destroy liberals
4. attack and destroy liberals
And he/they will use everything and anything in their arsonal to get their point across - no matter how offensive, insensitive and disgusting.

And when there ARE no more liberals....who will they blame then?

[shira]

61. Liberals are not Rightwingers...

The author is criticizing the so-called "new progressive Left", not all liberals.

New Left = Old Right.

There is a difference.

[LeftishBrit]

69. I have always understood the main difference between 'liberal' and 'left' to be economic.

A liberal accepts a predominantly capitalist economic system, so long as a safety-net is provided for those who cannot function easily within it: e.g. disabled people; the elderly; the very young.

A leftist prefers an economic system where the public sector is emphasized over the private sector, and where the government manages the system to increase economic equality. (At the extreme, Communists want an entirely public-owned economy; but this is rare nowadays, even in so-called communist countries like China.)

Do you believe that people who are economically anti-capitalist always have the views that you attribute to 'the left'; or are you using the term in a totally different way?

For that matter, do you think that the left is monolithic? I would say that it is extremely factionalized.

[shira]

77. I'd say a major difference, maybe not "the" major difference...

....is the ability of liberals to self-reflect or take criticism better than leftists, whose inability to take criticism reminds me of rightwingers.

Another major difference I find nowadays is that leftists are more likely than liberals to be as Shavit and Carlo Strenger (SLES) describe.

But I agree with you WRT capitalist / socialist tendencies.

[shira]

197. Another major difference is b/w the liberals/socialists & the Totalitarian Stalinists.

In fact, the latter are barely distinguishable from the most extreme Rightwing fascists.

From the Stalin/Hitler pact 75 years ago to Ahmadinejad/Chavez being allies today.

Far Right and Far Left fascists/totalitarians and their cheerleading anti-Israel fans.

[whosinpower]

76. The author had a choice

What impetus stopped HIM from writing about fanatisicm, racism and fascism? He bemoans the fact that none were written - but what stopped HIM from doing it? Western enlightenment?!? His own liberalism? What precisely DETERRED HIM? Who or what stopped him?

[whosinpower]

83. I'm waiting

You like to paint this article as a thoughtful introspective self criticism....and yet there is a saying when pointing a finger....there are four more directed right back at you.

So - let's get down to brass tacks. WHAT STOPPED SHAVIT FROM DOING WHAT HE BEMOANS THE LEFT FOR NOT DOING? You say he is a liberal....so why did his courage evaporate and instead blame all his supposed collegues? Why could he not find the time, effort and sheer will to investigate the life of Mer-Khamis, of his work, of his trials? Where was HIS eulogy to the man? Where was HIS tribute?

Perhaps, just perhaps it is easier to sell a "product" this being an article, to eyeballs that desperately want/need to destroy the last gasp of a liberal left in Israel. Because to be a liberal left in Israel is getting harder and harder each passing day. To be a liberal left Israeli who just might see a palistinian point of view has become tantamount to treason. And should you not believe me, there was a poll not long ago that found just 14 percent of young Israelis - a mere 14 percent felt that Israel as a democratic society was important. I know they were children.....but still.....60 percent favour strength of leadership OVER RULE OF LAW.

Shavit merely whores to the masses who have already decided there is no room for a liberal left in Israel. Introspection? Hardly. Self criticism - not even close. Laudable - closer much much much closer to offensive and disrespectful to the man who was murdered and timed the very same day he was laid to rest.

[shira]

87. I have no idea what's stopping Shavit...

There could be any number of reasons. Doesn't take away from his argument, however.

And you're still confusing liberals with the "progressive left". This isn't a case of a liberal criticizing fellow liberals. For examle, have you ever read about the rift between Israeli liberals like Amos Oz, David Grossman, and AB Yeshoshua vs. leftists like Gideon Levy and Amira Hass? The former 3 are liberals. The latter 2 are leftists.

[Ken Burch]

93. The New Left have NOTHING in common with the Old Right

And supporting Palestinian self-determination has nothing in common with antisemitism.

[Boojatta]

30. "being progressive does not include the equation of 'identity politics' "

Do you mean that it doesn't include the concept of identity politics?

How would you describe blanket opposition to immigration? Who supports that? I suspect that most supporters don't identify themselves as being (recent) immigrants.

[LeftishBrit]

34. I don't know or at this moment care if he is in general a right-winger

He is using Mer-Khamis' death as a tool to attack - predominantly - the Israeli left. He isn't attacking the perpetrator of the murder. He is only briefly attacking the Muslim religious right who attacked Mer-Khamis' actions and may have inspired the murder - he talks in cliches about 'a free man in a society that is not free', but does not deal with the *divisions* in that society. He does not pay any real tribute to Mer-Khamis' actions in life. He is totally preoccupied with how he imagines the 'Israeli left' would have responded in a hypothetical situation where Mer-Khamis had been murdered by someone else. Well, that isn't the point at this stage. It's an insult to Mer-Khamis. If Shavit must use his death to attack the 'Israeli left', let him at least wait till a later time.

[shira]

64. But is the criticism legitimate or unfair?

Here's the bulk of it again...

One of the outstanding characteristics of Western enlightenment in the 21st century is its inability to denounce forces of evil in the Arab-Muslim world. Western enlightenment likes to criticize the West. It especially likes to criticize the West's allies in the East. But when it runs into evil originating in the East, it falls silent.

It does not know how to deal with it. It is easy to come out against pro-Western Hosni Mubarak, but hard to come out against the Muslim Brotherhood. It is easy to come out against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but hard to come out against Bashar Assad. The enlightened West is incapable of fighting Iran's Ahmadinejad as it fought against America's Bushes, South Africa's Botha or Serbia's Milosevic.

The result is a long line of distortions. The blood of the Marmara flotilla fatalities is thicker than the blood of those who were murdered and hung in Iran. The blood of the people killed in Gaza is thicker than the blood of those killed in Damascus and Dara'a.

A post-colonial complex makes Western enlightenment systematically ignore injustices caused by anti-Western forces. Thus it loses the ability to see historic reality as a whole, in all its complexity. It also makes it act unfairly and unjustly.

It discriminates between different kinds of evil, different kinds of blood and different kinds of victims. It treats third-world societies as though they are not subject to universal moral norms.

Is this criticism unfair - and if so why?

[LeftishBrit]

71. It is fair to some; unfair to others

There are mirror-image-ists who think that all governments that are opposed to or opposed by the American or British Right must be good. I have come across people who e.g. think that Mugabe is perfectly OK because he is anti-colonialist, or that Ahmadinejad has his good points because he was against Bush.

There are also some people who have a sentimental view of non-Western cultures as all being at one with nature and more left-wing - instead of frequently more traditionalist and therefore conservative- than Western cultures.

But these are somewhat rare. What is commoner is people who are perfectly ready to criticize Western and non-Western abuses alike (e.g. to criticize the Hindu caste system), but become anxious about making certain criticisms of Arab and other Muslim-majority countries, because they associate it with a possible desire to bomb these countries. (30 years ago, it was communist countries that people were more worried about from this point of view.) This is mainly due to recent policies by Bush, etc. Before that, people were less restrained in criticizing the right-wing governments of such countries as Iran and Pakistan.

But there are many people on the left who are strongly against the likes of Ahmadinejad, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. E.g. on DU itself - if you look at threads on GD, you would see that the majority do condemn such people and groups; there are always the few who are apologists for such people but they tend to get 'flamed' and to be very much in the minority.

At any rate, all this is an interesting topic in itself but it is not very relevant to Mer-Khamis in particular, and bringing him up at this stage in connection with denouncing 'the Israeli left' (not 'some sections of the left' but 'the left') feels very inappropriate to me.

[Douglas Carpenter]

72. I think one has the duty to criticize that which their criticism has the possibility of actual input

Iran is obviously ruled by a horrible totalitarian regime. The North Korean governments is no doubt even much worse. But nothing I say as an American citizen can possibly even indirectly influence the decisions of the Iranian or North Korean governments. It is highly improbable that American public opinion can influence the policies of governments that have a hostile relationship with the United States. However, there is an actual possibility that American public opinion could influence the polices of governments that are allied with the United States. American public opinion no doubt did help facilitate the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.

[LeftishBrit]

73. I think this used to be more true than it is now

I think that 'people power' and ordinary people's opinion has more influence nowadays in keeping local opposition movements going, if not directly influencing governments. Why are tyrannical governments so keen on trying to control their people's access to the internet and the like?

Even for quite some time, human rights organizations have had some influence. And contrary to some of the stereotypes, organizations like Amnesty International *do* devote a lot of time to campaigning against oppression in Iran, etc.

[Douglas Carpenter]

74. Amnesty International and other human rights organizations are indeed doing fantastic work in Iran

and throughout the Middle East. God Bless them for that. But the United States is not by its words or actions supporting the repression in Iran. American public opinion certainly does not support the repression in Iran. So, I have no reason to criticize the U.S. government for the repression in Iran or any reason to seek to change American public opinion about the Islamic Republic of Iran. No one in America needs to be convinced. There is absolutely no significant pro-Islamic Republic of Iran tendency in the American body politic. Neither the American government or American public opinion is a party to the repression in Iran. U.S. weapons are not used to subjugate the Iranian people.

I do feel an obligation to criticize repression that the United States government is a party to and where U.S. public opinion is ill informed and where U.S. weapons are used to support immoral policies.

[shira]

80. Amnesty admits they're part of the problem, not the solution...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3402530,00.html

Here's the Magistrate commenting on that...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x175318#175325

Some people have more "rights" than others...there blood is thicker, redder than others.

Nothing to be proud of there.

[shira]

79. Actually, human rights advocates should be MORE vocal WRT Iran and other closed societies...

Hence, "Advancing Human Rights"...
http://advancinghumanrights.org/

Ari Shavit nailed it in the OP. The media and many human rights organizations aren't as interested in criticizing/condemning closed societies as they are criticizing the West. There are victim and oppressor societies in the world, as they see it. The victim societies can't be criticized or else it's bigotry/racism. But it's not just them as there's Russia and China too.

[Ken Burch]

100. Fine, they should, but that shouldn't be tied into this situation

It's not as though they have to denounce other countries in order to earn the privilege of commenting on what the Israeli government OR the IDF do. And a lot of people have good reason to be concerned about how such denounciations could be misused-for example, that denounciations of Hamas or Fatah, however well-deserved(and many ARE well-deserved) can be spun by apologists for the Likudnik/Beitenyunik/Kadimite hardline "security" consensus as justification for continued intransigence TOWARDS Palestinians.

However bad the Palestinian leadership is, it's the Occupation that is the proximate cause of the situation. Fatah and Hamas wouldn't retain any real popular support if a real, viable Palestinian state, a state that had parity of esteem with Israel, were now in place. You can look to the post-1922 situation in Ireland as an example-once the British had left the southern 26 counties, support for the Irish Republican Army plummeted, even with the flaws in the Anglo/Irish agreement. Had a 32 county state come into existence at that time, the I.R.A. would have disbanded.

In South Africa, the violent wings of the African National Congress AND the Inkatha Freedom Party both ceased to carry on their activities once majority rule was established, and the state that was created, despite the hardships imposed by the unjustified and brutal austerity program imposed by the IMF, the "armed struggle" stopped.

If you believe, in any way, that peace is possible in the I/P dispute, you HAVE to believe that Palestinians are capable of knowing when to STOP using violence(as you must believe that even the settlers are capable of stopping its use on the Israeli side). If you don't believe that, than you really don't believe in or support peace at all, because peace cannot be achieved, ever, if you assume that the enemy will never, no matter what, STOP being an enemy and must never be given the chance to show that it can make that change.

[shira]

101. But it is tied to this situation, as the same activists never criticize the PLO/Hamas...

...and therefore Hamas and the PLO see that as the "left" condoning what they do, so they keep doing it and those who say they're pro-peace are just useful idiots who help to perpetuate the conflict.

For example, the "left" never criticizes the PLO and Hamas for keeping Palestinians in refugee camps under their authority. These Palestinians have been suffering in horrible conditions for over 60 years. Very vocal condemnation by the "progressive left" might do wonders to help these Palestinians and pave the way for a genuinely peaceful final settlement.

Instead, the "new progressive left" fears criticizing Palestinian leadership, thinks most criticism of them is bigoted/racist since all Palestinians including Hamas are victims, so they'd rather spend their time criticizing Israel and let the far right extremists running the PLO/Hamas off the hook.

Odd that.

[Ken Burch]

105. They couldn't live anywhere else

I actually don't like that camps, but they really aren't the point.

And the only reason "pro-Israeli" types go on about the camps is that they think that if only Palestinians were re-settled in other Arab countries that they'd give up on wanting to go home and accept that permanent exile was their station in life.

You don't really care about the conditions of those people at all. You just want them to accept that they won't ever get to go back to the place of their ancestry. You should understand how cruel it is to insist that they can never return, or that they can never even get an admission that Palestine had been their home.

The truth is, if they were resettled in other Arab countries, they would STILL always see themselves as Palestinian. They would never accept that they were "generic Arabs" because Arabs are no more generic than anyone else.

It's not asking too much to acknowledge their humanity.

[shira]

106. You're proving my point...

1. The refugees are never going to be allowed to live in Israel again, neither the original refugees from 1948 or their descendants. Their descendants are not refugees and like any other descendants of refugees should be citizens of the countries they were born in. It's cruel to pretend they all will go to Israel some day.

2. All other refugees get on with their lives in other countries, so why not Palestinians?

3. Why aren't folks like yourself at the very least calling on refugees within the WB and Gaza to be integrated into Palestinian society, out of the camps? Throughout the rest of the Arab world there's no reason they can't be allowed citizenship b/c that wouldn't negate their refugee status. Let's face it, you can't criticize/condemn Arab leadership.

=====

This is one thing that can actually bring the conflict closer to being resolved once it's properly addressed. Your silence is regarded as support for extremists keeping Palestinian refugees in camps another 100 years - if that's what it takes - according to their twisted thinking.

[King_David]

133. So you speak for Palestinian Arabs ?

Are you a spokesperson for them?

'The truth is, if they were resettled in other Arab countries, they would STILL always see themselves as Palestinian. They would never accept that they were "generic Arabs" because Arabs are no more generic than anyone else.'

You just finished telling a poster that she does not speak for the Jews (up thread):

`You don't speak for everyone in the entire world who is Jewish. And neither does the State of Israel, and especially neither do the settlers.'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=348457&mesg_id=348566

But you speak for the Palestinian Arabs?

:wtf:

[Shaktimaan]

168. But they are in the place of their ancestry.

You don't really care about the conditions of those people at all. You just want them to accept that they won't ever get to go back to the place of their ancestry. You should understand how cruel it is to insist that they can never return, or that they can never even get an admission that Palestine had been their home.

Well, I certainly care about the conditions of those camps. Remember when Israel occupied Gaza they started building more permanent housing only to get criticism from the UNRWA who accused them of trying to settle refugees and force a premature end to the refugee crisis. It was a Palestinian decision to keep them in squalid camps for political reasons.

That said, the refugees shira mentioned ARE in Palestine. They were internally displaced, sure, but they are still in Palestine. You can not argue that every group of internally displaced refugees from the past 100 years have the right to return to the exact spot they came from.

The truth is, if they were resettled in other Arab countries, they would STILL always see themselves as Palestinian. They would never accept that they were "generic Arabs" because Arabs are no more generic than anyone else.

So what. There are dozens of types of Jews who have to share one small country. No one guarantees that Iraqi Jews get one state while Syrian and Russian Jews get another. Right now how many Jordanians are Palestinian? Half? What about that does anything to de-legitimize their nationality or cultural heritage? Lebanon is made up of several different groups. How would it be cruel to allow the Palestinian refugees who have been there for decades the right to finally have equal rights as citizens?

It's not asking too much to acknowledge their humanity.

Precisely my point. The PLO and Arab League have been denying these people their humanity for generations to make a political point. Tying their humanity to their political demands is absurd. Many millions have had to re-settle as refugees across the globe in the 40's and 50's. A million Jews from Arab countries moved to Israel and did just that. Their humanity remained intact because they were allowed to live as humans and not as political pawns in squalor.

By pinning the treatment of these refugees to the politics of another country the Arabs denied these people their humanity. Not Israel.

[azurnoir]

14. actually by just being alive he represented a bridge that exists

between 2 peoples, and in the end perhaps that is why was killed

[azurnoir]

8. The left as it called is quite awake and aware

aware that a voice for peace has been lost

aware that it was at the hands of someone who's hatred out weighed the need for a better life for all

aware tears being shed by some in Israel and abroad over Juliano Mer-Khamis death very thinly mask the glee that it was at the hands of a Palestinian

aware that had it been any other way say had Mer-Khamis been killed by the Israeli's living in the West Bank it is more than likely that the eulogies in the Israeli press would have read somewhat differently

aware that there is no limit, no tragedy, that will not be transformed into political coinage

[Ghost Dog]

10. Indeed, the Left is awake and aware.

By definition.

[oberliner]

11. Had you heard of this person before?

If so, in what context?

[azurnoir]

12. actually yes I had he was a known actor,

did you know his mother was a human rights activist?

http://www.rightlivelihood.org/arna.html

[oberliner]

15. He was a known actor?

You saw him in plays? In what way was he known to you?

[azurnoir]

16. no not plays movies didn't you know he did movies too?

mostly Israeli, but also others probably the most well known in the US would be is "Little Drummer Girl"

[oberliner]

19. No, I had never heard of him before this

Little Drummer Girl does not ring a bell.

[azurnoir]

22. It's from the '80's

Diane Keaton as a MOssad agent :)

[shaayecanaan]

27. Christ, that sounds awful...

surely Woody Allen must have been involved.

[Ken Burch]

17. And the reality is what, as you see it?

That the resistance has NOTHING to do with legitimate grievances Palestinians have against the Israeli government?

This man's death is horrible, but it doesn't make a case for anything Bibi has done or wants to do.

Nor does it make a case for more settlements OR for keeping the Occupation going OR for trying to make any future Palestinian state as tiny and helpless as possible.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

23. "Israeli" isn't synonymous with "Jewish"

It's demagogic for you to keep bringing in the word "Jewish" in the context of this. I would never imply that it was automatically worse for a Jewish person to kill than it is for anyone else in the world to do so.

If the killer was a settler, the issue would be that that person was a settler, a person who would probably be acting out of a colonial/European supremacist mindset-not the cultural or religious ideas that were used by that killer as an excuse for her or his acts.

Stop the baiting already. You don't speak for everyone in the entire world who is Jewish. And neither does the State of Israel, and especially neither do the settlers.

It's simply wrong to imply that anyone who condemns or criticizes anything done by the Israeli government or by active-duty troops in the IDF is acting out of antisemitism. I'm not an antisemite and, from what I can see, neither is anyone else who posts in I/P on a REGULAR basis(those antisemites who do show up here are denounced by everyone else who posts in this form, including the antizionists, and everyone makes sure those jerks are immediately banned from the forum).

[shira]

25. The author of the OP is correct, isn't he?

Read the entire article.

What in particular do you disagree with?

[Ken Burch]

31. The baiting and the demonization

The insinuation of prejudice where it doesn't exist. The presumption in judging how people who are still in shock from an ally's death should respond.

The whole piece is arrogant and insensitive.

And it's irresponsible, given that we don't even know for sure who the killer is or why the act was committed.

[shira]

57. You can't stand any legitimate criticism of your worldview.

So rather than try defending your position - not that it can be defended - you attack the source.

[Ken Burch]

75. The OP wasn't attacking anything remotely resembling my worldview

My worldview has NEVER included criticising Israeli government, settler, and military actions out of hatred for Jews.

My worldview has NEVER included the idea that Israelis and "Jews" are synonymous terms, or that objections to what settlers or the IDF do is based on saying that it's worse for "Jews" to kill people than for anyone else to do so.

My worldview has NEVER included antisemitism, and the worldview of the Israeli leftists that the author so viciously and unjustifiably attacks does not include the mythical disease of "self-loathing".

My worldview has NEVER included saying that Arab countries are infallible, or that the Palestinian leadership is infallible.

My worldview has NEVER included any of the things the article attacks.


And my position can always be defended. It's the "it's ALL the Arabs fault" position that is indefensible. And the "denouncing the Palestinian leadership is more important than ANYTHING else" position can't be defended either. The only thing denouncing them as you do achieves, shira, is to make sure the war DOESN'T end. It serves no positive purpose and cannot change how that leadership acts OR ever lead to the removal of that leadership. The way to make such leadership irrelevant is to work for the creation of a REAL Palestinian state now. Delaying the creation of that state, or trying to make it as small as possible, or subjecting it to the intolerable humiliation of having Israeli troops stationed within its boundaries and with the Israeli government reserving the right to shut that state down at any time, as Bibi insists, is something that only STRENGTHENS those leaders. In a viable Palestinian state, they'd be politically irrelevant.

The article was calling for the Israeli Left to denounce, from what I could see, basically ALL Palestinians for Mer-Khamis' killing(and doing so at a time when even the author himself, as he wrote it, admitted that no one KNEW who had killed Mer-Khamis). It was also implying that the Israeli Left was somehow not as outraged over the killing due the possibility that the killer might be Palestinian(something that there was no evidence to support). It was not the author's place to attack grieving people for the way they responded to their loss. That's a vile thing to do, and you should denounce him for doing it.

I can also make some reasonable conjectures about other motives the author might have"

I suspect the author also wants the Israeli Left, collectively, to accept the "no partner for peace" meme, which means that he wants the Israeli Left to quit the Left, since it's impossible to be a left-wing person and defend anything Netanyahu or the IDF have done in the West Bank or in Gaza. The article basically calls for the Israeli Left to become Likudniks, since anyone who embraced Netanyahu on security issues would have to end up agreeing with him on everything else. Worst of all, the article clearly calls on anyone who mourns the death of Mer-Khamis to take a political position that opposes everything he stood for in life and that pledges anyone who takes it to support the continued oppression of the Palestinian people under the Occupation of the West Bank and the Siege of Gaza.

It's impossible to move to the right on the question of dealing with the Palestinians now(and impossible to support the inherently right-wing idea of war with Iran)and still be able to move left later. There simply won't be a later. And Iran, whatever you can say about it, almost certainly had nothing at all to do with the killing of Mer-Khamis. There's no reason to insinuate that they did WITHOUT any hard evidence. Intentionally seeking to inflame the Israel/Iran dynamic is irresponsible and pointless.

To be on the Left, you must support peace, equality, and an end to injustice against anyone. You cannot be on the Left and defend the Occupation, the settlements in the West Bank(or any expansion of them at all, since being pro-expansion by definition means being anti-peace)and the hardline(and utterly failed)tactics in Gaza.

I read the article, I've responded to its argument, and made a case against them, so please stop claiming that I haven't.

[shira]

78. The article describes your worldview perfectly...

You're incapable of criticizing/condemning the PLO and Hamas for what they've done during the I/P conflict, both to their own people and Israelis. You believe they're all victims and that to harshly criticize (not demonize, exaggerate, libel) is bigoted, racist, or politically incorrect. For proof of that, you ignore/minimize almost every legitimate criticism against them (incitement, antisemitism and terror attacks not being all their fault but Israel's, etc..). Today you went so far as to equate their acts of terror to Israeli responses to those attacks in another attempt to shift focus, obfuscate, and minimize such atrocious acts.

Most everything you wrote in your response are strawman arguments (criticism of the PLO justifies occupation, etc.).

The problem with NOT criticizing Hamas and the PLO is that real, genuine peace is LESS likely to result b/c they take your political position as support of what they do - and this keeps the conflict ongoing and does nothing to help Palestinians who suffer at the hands of their leadership. For example, refugees still living in horrendous conditions in camps under PA/Hamas jurisdiction. Palestinian leadership takes your lack of criticism as support of the way they treat Palestinians still in camps after 60 years.

I don't see how you can say your position is pro-peace or humanitarian. Against occupation and settlements, for certain. Pro-peace and humanitarian....nope, can't say I see it.

[LeftishBrit]

98. To be fair...

the OP article (which I dislike for reasons given in several places on the thread) does not accuse the Israeli left of being anti-semites or self-loathing Jews. The argument is that 'A post-colonial complex makes Western enlightenment systematically ignore injustices caused by anti-Western forces'. I simply do not think this is true in most cases (there are a few to which it applies but it's certainly not 'systematic'); though it's true that most people are more interested in things - good and bad- done by or to their own group or country than those done elsewhere. But the OP author does not allege antisemitism.

[Ken Burch]

99. Fair enough.

Still, it is disturbing that the author of the Haaretz article was denouncing people for NOT denouncing Palestinians for the crime when, at the time the article was written, no one(by the author's OWN admission)KNEW who the killer was, what his ethnicity or nationality was, OR what his motivation was(or, for that matter, even if the killer was in fact a "he").

Why should anyone have denounced anyone for the killing BEFORE knowing who was responsible for it?

[King_David]

49. ''the only country in the world where Jews constitute a majority ''

In Jewish tradition, Jewish ancestry is traced to the Biblical patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the second millennium BCE. The Jews currently enjoy political autonomy in the State of Israel, an independent state which is located in their national homeland, the Land of Israel. It officially defines itself as a Jewish state in its Basic Laws, and is the only country in the world where Jews constitute a majority of the population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

[Ken Burch]

51. That still doesn't make Israel synonymous with all things Jewish

To do that is to imply that nothing Jewish people have done in the Diaspora is of any value-or "Negation of the Exile", as some call it.

Nor does it justifies the insistence of the author quoted in the OP of equating outrage expressed at killings staged by the IDF or the settlers with outrage directed as "Jews". The whole point of the author doing that was to equate virtually any criticism of the Israeli government or the IDF with an attack on "The Jews" as a group. Such criticism is not an attack on Jewish people as a group or the Jewish religion as a religion, or even an attack on either at all.

There is no excuse for the continued equation of criticism of the actions of the Israeli government with anything remotely like antisemitism. It's nothing of the kind and those who insinuate that it is know that.

If Israel is to get out of the current untenable situation, it needs there to be open discussion of every choice it makes in the name of "security", both within the state and without. It needs new ideas and freedom to speak truth to power. The whole hasbara tactic of simply trying to silence dissent doesn't help Israel at all, and it doesn't help the world's Jewish communities at all.

[King_David]

52. Think the vast majority of Jews would agree with you? or even a small percentage ?

Hazard a guess. My guess is no.

[Ken Burch]

53. The vast majority support Israel's existence, which I do(within the 1967 lines, and that's enough)

That doesn't mean they take any criticism of Israel as an attack on them, or as antisemitism.

And they have a democratic, questioning tradition that I've always admired, so I don't know that they'd accept the "no choice" meme.

You're just going to have to accept that open discussion of what the Israeli government and the IDF do is NOT a threat to Israel's survival, and will likely do more in the end to ensure that survival than trying to intimidate people into silence.

There's no reason that Israeli politicians should get any more benefit of the doubt than the politicians of any other country.

[King_David]

54. 'There's no reason that Israeli politicians should get any more benefit of the doubt '

''There's no reason that Israeli politicians should get any more benefit of the doubt than the politicians of any other country. ''


I have heard that before.

[Ken Burch]

55. OK...you have, and I've posted it before...so what?

Do you disagree? If so, why?

There's nothing in that statement that is nefarious or evil.

It's not as though you can simply ASSUME that the interest of Israeli politicians and those of ordinary Israeli citizens are one and the same.

And you can't take it seriously when the ones who push for more settlements then say "we want peace". Obviously, if you want more West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements, it goes without saying that you're not serious about ending the dispute with the Palestinians.

[shira]

59. "Open discussion......not a threat..."

:eyes:

Why do you believe open discussion/criticism of the PLO, Hamas, or Palestinian terrorism is a threat? Why do you insist on silencing or intimidating people who condemn/criticize the PLO/Hamas?

[Ken Burch]

107. I've never intimidated anyone.

And I support any movement started BY THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE THEMSELVES to reform their political cultures or democratize their lives. Such things can't be done by outsiders demanding that OF them(and especially not if that's demanded of them by their opponents in the conflict as a condition for getting out from under the Occupation of the West Bank or the Siege of Gaza), which is why a "P Street" proposal of the type you have suggested could only be valid if it were started by Palestinians themselves. It has to be bottom-up and it has to be indigenous. Otherwise, it can have no real validity.

[King_David]

88. A lot of people do not Give Israeli Jewish politicians any benifit of the doubt

But thats another story , its a 2000 year old story.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

89. Since Israel has only existed for 60 years, clearly it can't be. N.T.

[Ken Burch]

92. It's Israeli politicians since the Begin era, not Israeli JEWISH politicians for 2000 years

And may I remind you that it's people on the Left who spoke out against antisemitism and Naziism and fought against those things before anyone ELSE in the larger world did? The greatest historic enemies of the world's Jewish communities were and are rightists, and more often than not "Christian" rightists, not leftists and Muslims.

And neither I nor anyone criticize Israeli politicians because they claim to be Jewish. Stop looking for antisemitism where it doesn't exist.

It's not people like me that are the threat. It's the Right.

[King_David]

94. What are you implying?

I am a Left Leaning Democratic party supporter and a strong supporter of Israel.

Your left-Right compass is way off base.

The far left meets the far right when it comes to antisemitism.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

102. He's saying the far left is like the far right in that they're MORE LIKELY to be antisemitic...

...not that they're all antisemitic.

Why not divide your criticism equally between Israeli and Palestinian leadership if you're the "good" kind of progressive on the far left? We discussed before starting up a P-Street that would criticize and condemn Palestinian leadership as vociferously as J-Street does Israel. You said you were for that and it's very progressive so what are you waiting for...?

[King_David]

103. Sigh .Slander ??

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4795385_libel-differ-slander_.html

I said no such thing. Your imagination it seems is Libeling you.

[Ken Burch]

108. Hairsplitting on whether the term "Libel" or "Slander" is the correct term is beside the point

You seemed to be making a really dark insinuation both about myself and about everyone else on the "far left", whatever that term means(in this context, it appears to mean anyone who doesn't take Netanyahu's, or before that Livni's, word for it that what's being done to Palestinians HAS to be done).

[King_David]

109. Sigh

An obvious example : anti-Semitism of the Stalin regime .



I never mentioned YOU at all ,maybe a form of narcissism or paranoid much?



Are you for real? ''(in this context, it appears to mean anyone who doesn't take Netanyahu's, or before that Livni's, word for it that what's being done to Palestinians HAS to be done).' --did you just make up this context? Where was it mentioned ? Please show us all.

[Ken Burch]

110. Few people on today's left consider Stalin to be a leftist

He could most accurately be described as a Pan-Slavic nationalist who used socialist rhetoric when he suited his purposes and had no genuine respect for the values of the Left(Stalin actually decided that "The Internationale" would no longer be the Soviet national anthem, and, IIRC, even banned the playing or singing of it in the Soviet Union.)

It was hard to tell who, exactly you were referring to. Given that you were responding to me, it was natural to assume you were making an insinuation about me. If you weren't, I apologize and take this post as an admission that almost no one on the Left of today is, in fact, an antisemite of any sort.

[shira]

111. Really Ken? Almost no antisemites on the Left today?

Helen Thomas (notice all the support she still gets here at DU)
Hugo Chavez
Desmond Tutu
George Galloway
Yvonne Ridley
Lauren Booth
Ken Livingston
Gerald Kaufman
Ben White
Gilad Atzmon
Israel Shamir
Jostein Gaarder
Norman Finkelstein
Shlomo Sand
Richard Falk

[Ken Burch]

112. Most of those people were simply too critical of what Israel does to Palestinians to suit you

That doesn't mean that it goes without saying that they are antisemites(with a couple of special exceptions I'll list below).

And obviously, if a person is Jewish(as several of those people are)they can't, by definition, be antisemites.

The others are just too critical of Israeli policy for your approval(and, in Ken Livingstone's case you only think he's an antisemite because he was baited by a right-wing reporter for a London tabloid who falsely implied that Livingstone mocked him for being Jewish, when in fact Livingstone did nothing of the kind).

It's simple

1)criticism of Israeli security policy doesn't make a person an antisemite

2)opposition to Zionism doesn't automatically make a person an antisemite(a tiny, right-wing minority of antizionists are, but that doesn't apply to any of the people on your list)

I'll deal specifically with a few cases:

Gilad Atzmon is a freakishly weird special case, but his views about Jews(he may, in fact, BE the world's own Jewish antisemite)are held by no one else and have no influence, and certainly can't be blamed on the left). Joostein Gaarder is a pariah on the left and the left is not to blame for him.

Desmond Tutu simply takes a universalist position on justice and human rights. He has never expressed hatred of Jews as a people or as a religion, but has confined himself solely to legitimate criticism of what the Israeli government has done to Gaza and in the West Bank.

Gerald Kaufman and Norman Finklestein are Jewish leftists who simply refuse to make special exceptions in their positions on human rights and self-determination when it comes to the I/P dispute.

Other than Aztmon and Gaarder(I'll give you them, but they're irrelevant and have no supporters)no one on your list can fairly be called an antisemite.

[shira]

114. Starting at the top of the list, Ken. You don't believe Helen Thomas is an antisemite? n/t

[LeftishBrit]

113. Of these people...

some are not in my view antisemitic (I do not consider Tutu as such for instance - nor Livingstone though he may be lacking in sensitivity nor Kaufmann though I have other reservations about him).

Some, such as Shlomo Sand, I've never heard of.

Booth and Ridley are antisemites, but they are very obscure, and questionably left-wing (they are *anti-war* which for some is enough to make you a left-winger, but not for me).

Atzmon is an antisemite and an all-round nutcase.

Helen Thomas yes; Chavez yes, but I wonder how many *right-wing* Latin American leaders were antisemites!

The clearest example of a mainstream left-winger who's an antisemite is one *not* mentioned here: Jenny Tonge.

But do any of these names ring a bell: Richard Ingrams? Damian Thompson? Guy Walters? All British, at least borderline antisemites on the right? I could think of plenty of others if I'd time...

Moreover: anyone can be antisemitic, on left or right - but that doesn't mean that being left-wing *makes* you antisemitic!

[shira]

115. Starting with Tutu...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x348860#348904

Not antisemitic enough?

[Ken Burch]

116. No one has to discuss them in YOUR order.

Tutu isn't an antisemite.

[shira]

119. Same question to you as Azurnoir. Do you find anything allegedly quoted by Tutu that you find...

...antisemitic?

And I'm still waiting to hear from you if you believe Helen Thomas is antisemitic or not.

[Ken Burch]

120. You don't get to play Grand Inquisitor

Helen Thomas just said some things, after being baited, that she clearly didn't mean. Now stop.

You don't get to go down the whole list and make people jump through hoops.

I could find a lot of "pro-Israel" conservatives who've said antisemitic things and been involved with things that had far greater antisemitic consequences. Like Arthur Balfour.

[shira]

121. You're continuing to claim antisemitism isn't a problem with the left when...

...so many "leftists" still support Helen's bigotry no matter what?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x346061#346198

Here's part of what she said...

" using their power, and they have power in every direction,” she told Playboy. “Power over the White House, power over Congress…Everybody is in the pocket of the Israeli lobbies, which are funded by wealthy supporters, including those from Hollywood. Same thing with the financial markets. There's total control…It isn't the two percent. It's real power when you own the White House, when you own these other places in terms of your political persuasion. Of course they have power. You don't deny that. You're Jewish, aren't you?"

Re: the holocaust...

"There's nothing wrong with remembering it, but why do we have to constantly remember?" she said. "We're not at fault. I mean, if they're going to put a Holocaust museum in every city in Germany, that's fine with me. But we didn't do this to the Jews. Why do we have to keep paying the price and why do they keep oppressing the Palestinians? Do the Jews ever look at themselves? Why are they always right? Because they have been oppressed throughout history, I know. And they have this persecution. That's true, but they shouldn't use that to dominate."

Read that Playboy interview she did before commenting further, okay?

[LeftishBrit]

142. Antisemitism is a problem in all groups

However since you are asking a lot of questions, I'd like to ask you a few:

(1) Do you agree that antisemitism is a problem on the Right: not just the Far Right, but with many mainstream right-wingers?

(2) Do you agree more generally that all right-wing viewpoints about society are fundamantally wrong?

(3) Do you consider that it is impossible to be very left-wing in the ECONOMIC sense of the word, without being anti-Israel or even antisemitic? I.e. do you consider that being left-wing (as opposed to moderately liberal) is fundamentally a bad thing?

Because I only see you on this forum, it is difficult for me to tell what your general political views are. I do NOT think that there is anything fundamentally right-wing about being pro-Israel; indeed there are many left-wing reasons to be pro-Israel; but sometimes you come across as implying that antisemitism is only a left-wing problem, and the left are in some sense suspect in themselves. Maybe you bring up *left-wing* antisemitism just because this is a left-wing board or because antisemitism is to be expected in a right-winger but is hypocritical in a left-winger? But it would help if you emphasized left-wing Zionist sources like Oz and Strenger whom you do bring up favourably, and omitted right-wing sources that oppose the left in general.

[shira]

175. Sorry, just saw this. I agree it's a problem in all groups...

(1) Do you agree that antisemitism is a problem on the Right: not just the Far Right, but with many mainstream right-wingers?

Certainly.

(2) Do you agree more generally that all right-wing viewpoints about society are fundamantally wrong?

Definitely.

(3) Do you consider that it is impossible to be very left-wing in the ECONOMIC sense of the word, without being anti-Israel or even antisemitic?

No, that would be silly.

I.e. do you consider that being left-wing (as opposed to moderately liberal) is fundamentally a bad thing?

No.

Maybe you bring up *left-wing* antisemitism just because this is a left-wing board or because antisemitism is to be expected in a right-winger but is hypocritical in a left-winger?

Exactly!

But it would help if you emphasized left-wing Zionist sources like Oz and Strenger whom you do bring up favourably, and omitted right-wing sources that oppose the left in general.

Point taken.

But realize that even if I bring up leftwingers you approve of like David Hirsch - who is also extremely critical of Leftist antisemitism, BDS (including Tutu) - his points will be just as ignored or minimized as any other liberal or rightwing source. He's an "Israel firster", "Likudnik", etc...

[azurnoir]

117. I'll repost your link for you

He has called the Jews "a peculiar people" and has accused "the Jews" of causing many of the world's problems. He has railed against "the Jewish Lobby," comparing its power to that of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.

He has said that "the Jews thought they had a monopoly of God: Jesus was angry that they could shut out other human beings." He has said that Jews have been "fighting against" and being "opposed to" his God. He has "compared the features of the ancient Holy Temple in Jerusalem to the features of the apartheid system in South Africa." He has complained that "the Jewish people with their traditions, religion and long history of persecution sometimes appear to have caused a refugee problem among others." Tutu has minimized the suffering of those murdered in the Holocaust by asserting that "the gas chambers" made for "a neater death" than did Apartheid. He has complained of "the Jewish Monopoly of the Holocaust," and has demanded that its victims must "forgive the Nazis for the Holocaust," while refusing to forgive the "Jewish people" for "persecuting others."

He has complained that Americans "are scared…to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful—very powerful." He has accused Jews—not Israelis—of exhibiting "an arrogance—the arrogance of power because Jews are a powerful lobby in this land and all kinds of people woo their support."

Tutu has acknowledged having been frequently accused of being anti-Semitic," to which he has offered two responses: "Tough luck;" and "my dentist's name is Dr. Cohen."

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1935/public-figures-against-je...

If one bothers to read the article written by none other than Alan Dershowitz(who by the way supported a Republican in the 2010 election) you'll find that none of Tutu's statements are sourced, some appear to be words clipped out of sentences oh, the Dersh also doesn't miss a chance to to take an underhanded shot at Obama by pointing out he is an admirer of a Tutu whom Dersh is busily painting as an anti-Semite.

[shira]

118. Which of those alleged quotes, if any, do you find antisemitic?

If you find 1-2 that are definitely antisemitic, I'll try finding the source - okay?

[Ken Burch]

122. If you had no proof that Archbishop Tutu said ANY of those things

It was totally irresponsible of you to post them here as proof of your accusations.

What it's really about with Tutu is that you can't forgive him for being in solidarity with the Palestinians. Has it ever occurred to you that there was no reason for him to DEFEND the Occupation or the settlements? And that, given the 1970's and 1980's Israeli government support of South Africa, that there was no reason to EXPECT him to be "pro-Israeli"? You wouldn't have been if you'd been a black South African in those years.

[shira]

123. Can't find anything bigoted in Tutu's remarks? And he did say those things. n/t

[Ken Burch]

124. You have no proof he said them...so you can't CALL them "Tutu's remarks"

Understand?

It's not right to put those out there as if Tutu said them when you have no proof that he did.

Stop smearing the man.

And there's no reason to repeat the question, since I've just proved that the question is moot.

[shira]

125. I do have proof and it's in several articles. Now what do you find antisemitic in his remarks...

...and I'll gladly provide the source?

I suspect you don't find anything antisemitic in his remarks, just as you don't see anything wrong with Helen Thomas' Playboy interview.

[Ken Burch]

128. Provide the sources. I believe Douglas Carpenter at this point.

Alan Dershowitz thinks anyone who criticizes Israeli government mistreatment of Palestinians is an antisemite. He's still smearing Jimmy Carter, for God's sake.

And be prepared to defend the validity of those sources, because those sources with a vested interest in defending the status quo in the West Bank can't be trusted as to what they'd attribute to the archbishop.

[shira]

129. Why, when you don't think any of those quotes are antisemitic? What's the point?

You can't even find one thing antisemitic about Helen Thomas' recent Playboy interview...

:eyes:

[Ken Burch]

130. The issue is whether Tutu said them

They were vile quotes. There's no reason to think Tutu said them. YOu have no reason to be hectoring me about this. IF you're anti-apartheid you're against all prejudice.

[shira]

131. He did say them. By "vile", you mean it's all antisemitic if he said it, right? n/t

[Ken Burch]

135. He didn't say them

Tutu is not an antisemite. Give it a rest already.

[shira]

136. He did. Both he and Helen Thomas are antisemites and here's the proof....

Here are the citations for most of those quotes a few paragraphs in...

http://books.google.com/books?id=hBxSaO7bCHIC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=tutu's+christmas+message+to+israel*&source=bl&ots=PnehONwFl3&sig=d6_AJc43DVfRSgcyJdgDxRnU3q0&hl=en&ei=roCjTdGpGJTQgAem5YDaBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=tutu's%20christmas%20message%20to%20israel*&f=false

[Douglas Carpenter]

139. the same far rightwing source also attacks Yitzhak Rabin,Shimon Peres,Yossi Beilin,Michael Lerner,

Nelson Mandela and several others - describing them as either anti-Semites or at the very least enemies of Israel and threats to Israel's survival.

As with the Nobel Laurette Archbishop Tutu this author offers "quotes" and "sources" to defend these allegations.

The main point of the author is of course to oppose a negotiated settlement to the conflict.

I for one would be very suspicious of this authors use of quotes and sources. Even holocaust deniers have quotes and sources.

Yitzhak Rabin:

http://books.google.com/books?id=cORN_jFRjSMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Edward+Alexander+Michael+Lerner&source=bl&ots=u9mth6oCxJ&sig=pF3tjcoTxVj8RSgI0oH8H6wIC1s&hl=en&ei=ZSukTYK7Lcyo8APAvtm5Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Edward%20Alexander%20Michael%20Lerner&f=false


Shimon Peres:

http://books.google.com/books?id=hBxSaO7bCHIC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=Edward+Alexander+Shimon+Peres&source=bl&ots=PnehPHBAq2&sig=oKgnPMqnt1OcyKe28ni1A6a1u60&hl=en&ei=sy6kTZ9IxaHxA-2nzbkP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yossi Beilin

http://books.google.com/books?id=cORN_jFRjSMC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=Edward+Alexander+Yossi+Beilin&source=bl&ots=u9mth6oAvM&sig=dsEhkancwQ1RpYx8y0hGTliwOAk&hl=en&ei=iyqkTbX4O4Oz8QOgme25Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Michael Lerner:

http://books.google.com/books?id=cORN_jFRjSMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Edward+Alexander+Michael+Lerner&source=bl&ots=u9mth6oCxJ&sig=pF3tjcoTxVj8RSgI0oH8H6wIC1s&hl=en&ei=ZSukTYK7Lcyo8APAvtm5Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Edward%20Alexander%20Michael%20Lerner&f=false

Nelson Mendala

http://books.google.com/books?id=hBxSaO7bCHIC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=Edward+Alexander+Nelson+Mandela&source=bl&ots=PnehPHAFh9&sig=lsPRMAvqFb0fQ9UHV2qCnE8Ri20&hl=en&ei=ayykTa2YAces8gOSyMG5Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Edward%20Alexander%20Nelson%20Mandela&f=false

[shira]

149. How'd attacking the source work out WRT Helen Thomas? Is she still a bigot? n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

186. Of course Helen Thomas' words were anti-Semitic

ARE Edward Alexander's words anti-Semitic? - "Michael Lerner: The Clintons' Jewish Rasputin" - Since this is the same source you used to claim that Archbishop Tutu is anti-Semitic. And this is the title of one of the chapters in his book where he accuses Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin of being grave threats to the survival of Israel and enemies of the Jewish people - in a book that you have used as a source and have defended as a valid source.

Of course Helen Thomas' words could be reasonably be interpreted as anti-Semitic. But frankly I don't read Playboy. I'm a bit of a prude and it is not accessible on the Internet from my particular geographic location. Although it is fair to say that her words were anti-Semitic. I suspect her main problem is being old, tired and bitter. Try to imagine being an Arab-American and working in a media that is overwhelming bigoted against Arabs - a media where far worse things are said about Arabs all the time than anything Helen Thomas ever said about anyone and are repeated all the time without the slightest hint of criticism and with total impunity. Nonetheless, I don't condone her words even though I admire her years of fantastic journalistic service.

Anti-Arab bigotry is so prevalent in the American media that even my nemesis Oberliner is shocked and disgusted by it - much to his credit:

unfortunately, generic anti-Arab prejudice is something one encounters on a daily basis here in the United States.
If you turn on the radio, you will hear comments like the one you cited and much much worse from some of the most popular "political" talk show hosts in a way that you would never hear blatant anti-Jewish comments.

In fact, people say things about Arabs in public forums that they would never say about virtually any other minority group in the United States. And they generally are not even chastised for it.

Anti-Jewish remarks, at least in the United States, are not the sort of thing one is likely to encounter on the radio, television, or on other non-internet outlets. Anti-Arab remarks, however, are omnipresent across all genres, much to my disgust.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=346534#346585

But again, are Edward Alexander's words anti-Semitic? - "Michael Lerner: The Clintons' Jewish Rasputin" - Since this is the same source you used to claim that Archbishop Tutu is anti-Semitic. And this is the title of one of the chapters in his book where he accuses Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin of being grave threats to the survival of Israel and enemies of the Jewish people - in a book that you have used as a source and have defended as a valid source.

.

[azurnoir]

143. You must not understand too much about Christianity I take it?

yep I read your link #136 which BTW is from a source I can not cut and paste or I would, the main condemnation of Tutu starts with his saying the Jewish people should show or give the Nazi's forgiveness, now it's ok that you like the writer seem ignorant of forgiveness being one of the most basic precepts of Christianity. From there it sprints along plucking quotes more like sentences and partial sentences (much like Dershowitz) from the things Tutu said or wrote spread out over a 5 year period of time from 1984-1989

[azurnoir]

126. Is that a typo? other wise it makes little sense

"If you find 1-2 that are definitely antisemitic, I'll try finding the source - okay?"

so you'll only IF I find anti-Semitic? Oh go ahead it's been 24 hours at least since the original post by now you must have your 'ducks in a row'

[shira]

127. I want to know whether you find ANY of those quotes to be antisemitic...

Let's see what passes for antisemitism in your view.

Also, I don't want you to claim none of it's antisemitic after I source everything...

Just 1-2 of Tutu's most obvious antisemitic remarks. I'm assuming you find some to be antisemitic, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up the lack of sources.

[shira]

132. As to Dershowitz bringing up Obama...

I am confident that President Obama was not aware of Tutu's sordid history of anti-Jewish rhetoric and actions when he awarded him the Medal of Freedom in the White House in 2009.

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1742/bishop-tutu-is-no-saint-when-it-comes-to-jews

[whosinpower]

134. Perhaps President Obama WAS aware of this -

On 16 October 1984, the then Bishop Tutu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee cited his "role as a unifying leader figure in the campaign to resolve the problem of apartheid in South Africa".

In 1987 Tutu was awarded the Pacem in Terris Award.<102> It was named after a 1963 encyclical letter by Pope John XXIII that calls upon all people of good will to secure peace among all nations.

In 1992, he was awarded the Bishop John T. Walker Distinguished Humanitarian Service Award.

In June 1999, Tutu was invited to give the annual Wilberforce Lecture in Kingston upon Hull, commemorating the life and achievements of the anti-slavery campaigner William Wilberforce. Tutu used the occasion to praise the people of the city for their traditional support of freedom and for standing with the people of South Africa in their fight against apartheid. He was also presented with the freedom of the city.

In 2006 Tutu was named an honorary patron of the University Philosophical Society, Trinity College, Dublin for his tremendous contributions to peace and discourse.

The freedom of the city award has been conferred on Tutu in cities in Italy, Wales, England and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He has received numerous doctorates and fellowships at distinguished universities. He has been named a Grand Officer of the Légion d'honneur by France; Germany has awarded him the Order of Merit Grand Cross, and he received the Sydney Peace Prize in 1999. He is also the recipient of the Gandhi Peace Prize, the King Hussein Prize and the Marion Doenhoff Prize for International Reconciliation and Understanding.


Yeah....sometimes when measuring a persons life.....it is wise to take the whole life into account....

[azurnoir]

144. so you are confident that Obama was ignorant of Tutu's history

and the controversies surrounding him, guess that politiciany thingy leaves him (Obama) or his staff little time to keep up on what's going on especially with those he about to give awards to?

[Jefferson23]

137. You're not curious why Dershowitz did not source his own article?

Did I understand your posts in this thread accurately, you have the sources that he did not post but you
won't list them until someone says they are indeed antisemitic statements..is that correct?

[shira]

138. Look for most of the sources in #136. n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

140. the same far rightwing source also attacks Yitzhak Rabin,Shimon Peres,Yossi Beilin,Michael Lerner,

Nelson Mandela and several others - describing them as either anti-Semites or at the very least enemies of Israel and a threat to Israel's survival. As with the Nobel Laurette Archbishop Tutu this author offers "quotes" and "sources" to defend these allegations.

The main point of the author is of course to oppose a negotiated settlement to the conflict.

I for one would be very suspicious of this authors use of quotes and sources. Even holocaust deniers have quotes and sources.

Yitzhak Rabin:

http://books.google.com/books?id=cORN_jFRjSMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Edward+Alexander+Michael+Lerner&source=bl&ots=u9mth6oCxJ&sig=pF3tjcoTxVj8RSgI0oH8H6wIC1s&hl=en&ei=ZSukTYK7Lcyo8APAvtm5Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Edward%20Alexander%20Michael%20Lerner&f=false

Shimon Peres:

http://books.google.com/books?id=hBxSaO7bCHIC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=Edward+Alexander+Shimon+Peres&source=bl&ots=PnehPHBAq2&sig=oKgnPMqnt1OcyKe28ni1A6a1u60&hl=en&ei=sy6kTZ9IxaHxA-2nzbkP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yossi Beilin

http://books.google.com/books?id=cORN_jFRjSMC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=Edward+Alexander+Yossi+Beilin&source=bl&ots=u9mth6oAvM&sig=dsEhkancwQ1RpYx8y0hGTliwOAk&hl=en&ei=iyqkTbX4O4Oz8QOgme25Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Michael Lerner:

http://books.google.com/books?id=cORN_jFRjSMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Edward+Alexander+Michael+Lerner&source=bl&ots=u9mth6oCxJ&sig=pF3tjcoTxVj8RSgI0oH8H6wIC1s&hl=en&ei=ZSukTYK7Lcyo8APAvtm5Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Edward%20Alexander%20Michael%20Lerner&f=false

Nelson Mendala

http://books.google.com/books?id=hBxSaO7bCHIC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=Edward+Alexander+Nelson+Mandela&source=bl&ots=PnehPHAFh9&sig=lsPRMAvqFb0fQ9UHV2qCnE8Ri20&hl=en&ei=ayykTa2YAces8gOSyMG5Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Edward%20Alexander%20Nelson%20Mandela&f=false

[LeftishBrit]

141. Good point

As you know, we often disagree about the I/P issue more generally; but you are right about this particular author. And as well as attacking these particular individuals he has a general hostility to liberalism (even going back to its beginnings) and to secularism.

[Douglas Carpenter]

145. one of this sources chapters: "Michael Lerner: The Clintons' Jewish Rasputin"

I'm serious. That is one of the chapters in this book that is sourced to supposedly prove that Archbishop Desmond Tutu is an anti-Semite.

But considering the author has an equally low opinion of Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin and Nelson Mandala as well as numerous others who he also considers enemies of the Jewish people - I suppose Michael Lerner and Desmond Tutu are in good company.

Yes there are some point of agreement that will never occur between those who have a history of a long conflict. The English and the French will never agree on some points of what happened in history and who was to blame. But after a thousand years of fighting, they are now living in peace and no one can even remotely imagine England and France ever, ever going to war against each other ever again.

[shira]

150. Pitiful point as these same tactics (attacking the source/provacateur) was used for Helen Thomas

In fact, some of the posters defending Tutu here STILL cannot come to grips with Helen Thomas' bigotry. They dismiss clearly bigoted demonization of Israel reported by top Jewish organizations committed to fighting antisemitism. Just recently, a few posters here couldn't believe PEW polling results showing how 97% of Palestinians have antisemitic views of Jews. I'm still waiting for a few here to admit that what is attributed to Tutu is antisemitic...

It's absolute denial.

Why?

See, this is a problem I recently told you I have with many so-called "leftists" - unwilling to self reflect or self criticize. Liberals, by definition, have no problem with self-reflection.

=======

There's zero evidence the author misstated or distorted anything attributed to Tutu.

Here's a Guardian article based on a Tutu speech from close to a decade ago. Try it on for size...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/comment

See anything wrong with that?

[Douglas Carpenter]

172. thank you for those inspirational pastoral words form Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Surely his words ring true in the hearts of all people everywhere who strive for a just and lasting peace.

I'm particularly moved as he ends with his own clarion call.. "We should put out a clarion call to the government of the people of Israel, to the Palestinian people and say: peace is possible, peace based on justice is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God's dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers." - Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Laureate

[LeftishBrit]

174. Liberals have no problem with self-reflection? Some do; some don't

Same as any other group.

Do you honestly think that a person who supports a mixed economy with the greatest emphasis on state provision of services is *necessarily* less capable of self-reflection than someone who supports a predominantly capitalist system with a safety-net for those unable to function within it? Which as far as I'm concerned is the basic difference between a leftist and a liberal!

You complain of 'attacking the messenger' - but isn't this precisely what you're doing, by concerning yourself so much with whether certain critics of Israel are antisemites, or otherwise bad people, rather than simply defending Israel on the facts as you see them? Or if you are concerned with the characteristics of the messengers, why cannot others be concerned about the characteristics of your messengers? You can't have it both ways - either we concentrate on defending or opposing actions by Israelis or Palestinians, without any reference to the characteristics of others who comment on them; or we consider the characteristics of *all* messengers. And as far as I am concerned, anyone who expresses a general hostility to liberalism; who refers disparagingly to 'secular zealots'; who disdains Peres and Rabin for being too left-wing - is a poisonous snake, whose outlook differs only in detail from a supporter of right-wing Muslim groups such as Hamas.

One thing that people sometimes misunderstand about me is that they assume that, since their use of right-wing sources generally comes up in connection with defending particular viewpoints, that my complaints about such sources must be due to a wish to deflect from the argument. (This is not specific to I/P; but most commonly comes up in connection with debates about vaccines.) Not so, in my case. I object to right-wing sources because I truly believe that right-wing ideology is intrinsically utterly poisonous, and the enemy of all that is good in the world. I would object to a right-wing source, or at least mention its nature and dangers, even if I agreed with a specific point being made: e.g. a right-winger supporting vaccines.

ETA: The article by Tutu is largely reasonable; partly simplistic and naive; there is one sentence about the Jewish lobby being very powerful that is regrettable. I think that if one is to regard Tutu as antisemitic, one would have to regard Christian doctrine in general as antisemitic. Some would indeed say that it is - but that would be a debate for another forum.

Though I agree with Tutu on most issues I do disagree with his support for divestment, by the way.

Here is an article by Larry Derfner which more-or-less sums up my views:

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=38338

PS. By the same standards it would have to be called antisemitic to call someone 'the Clintons' Jewish Rasputin' - which is how Alexander describes Lerner.

Here is a review of Alexander's book by a reviewer who is obviously pro-Israel, but finds his viciousness toward Israeli and Jewish leftists unacceptable:

http://mj.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/3/313.full.pdf

[shira]

179. See #175 above. It's not just Tutu's use of the Jewish Lobby...

...but also making a parallel between Israel's policies and Nazi Germany (Hitler). I also had a problem with him bringing up past Jewish history in order to collectively criticize Jews for Palestinian suffering. All those issues are part of what constitutes the EU's working definition of antisemitism.

Tutu's involvement with Sabeel and the BDS movement (both extremely antisemitic organizations) is also alarming.

Sabeel...
http://www.adl.org/main_Interfaith/sabeel_backgrounder.htm

BDS...
http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/antisemitism-and-the-boycott-david-hirsh-responds-to-ran-greenstein/

[Jefferson23]

146. Dershowitz does not provide direct sources

for his OP and you're adding these from Edmund Alexander as support..is that correct?

Considering Dershowitz's essay on torture, I find it amusing he has been suggesting individuals like Tutu should seek
repentance for their statements/opinions and views of Israeli government policy. I say this not as a detraction from
the claims made against Tutu,(see below) but as an indictment of Mr. Dershowitz's complete failure to appreciate the laws the United
States has sworn to uphold. Obaining a warrant as a means to circumvent the law moves his thinking beyond bizarre, and stating
the Geneva Convention is outdated should give anyone pause, thus his defense of the occupation should surprise no one.


Tortured Reasoning; http://www.pbs.org/inthebalance/pdf/dershowitz-tortured...



As for his claim of antisemitism and Tutu, he offers no direct sources. With Alexander's sources, nothing I could find
on the internet could support the snips he used. For example the New York City Tribune he sites, founded by followers
of the Rev. Moon, suspended publication many years ago. The Religious News Service, another of his sources, nothing came
up in their archives, it may be that it's too old.

Regardless, one can find clarity from statements Desmond Tutu did make and I believe it is irrational to conclude
he has expressed antisemitic statements/views.


** Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won't let ambulances reach the injured. **

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/comment


In 1988, the American Jewish Committee noted that Tutu was strongly critical of Israel's military and other connections with apartheid-era South Africa, and quoted him as saying that Zionism has "very many parallels with racism", on the grounds that it "excludes people on ethnic or other grounds over which they have no control". While the AJC was critical of some of Tutu's views, it dismissed "insidious rumors" that he had made anti-Semitic statements.<45> (The exact wording of Tutu's statement was reported differently in different sources. A Toronto Star article from the period indicates that he described Zionism "as a policy that looks like it has many parallels with racism, the effect is the same.")<46> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu

#45, http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1988_3_Specia...

#46 ^ Barthos, Gordon (20 December 1989). "Israelis uneasy about Tutu's Yule visit". Toronto Star.

Dershowitz doesn't afford his readers the courtesy of stating the petitions he mentions, nor names the individuals, but on a search you can
find the information..this is unprofessional of Alan, to say the least.

Dan Roodt, Advocate Gcina Malindi (SC) and Dot Cleminshaw: The tale of two Tutu petitions


The Board of the Cape Town Holocaust Centre met with Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu this week to discuss the calls by people who support the Israeli Occupation of Palestinians.

On 24 January 2011, Open Shuhada Street activists Dan Kamen and Lungisa Mndende handed over the 5815 signatures that were collected in support of Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu’s role as a patron of the Holocaust Centre to centre director Richard Freedman. The petition also defends Archbishop Tutu’s right to criticise the state of Israel. (See the letter below and the text of the petition here)


Snip* The petition of hate and intolerance

The petition started by David Hersch (vice-Chairman of the South African Zionist Federation) abuses the pain and memory of the Holocaust and some of its survivors to defend the Israeli Occupation. Fewer than 600 people had signed the petition that called him a “bigoted”, “anti-semite”, however, the people who signed it includes racist defenders of apartheid. The most eloquent racist who signed the petition for his removal as a patron of the Holocaust Centres is Dan Roodt.

I'm not linking to the petition started by David Hersch against Tutu and Goldstone, you can find that on your own if you so please.

http://writingrights.org/2011/01/26/dan-roodt-advocate-... /


There exists no credible references to Tutu that suggest anything remotely antisemitic, it is my opinion this is about
controlling the critics, especially when the critics are known universally for standing for good.

The confidence Dershowitz holds regarding Obama not being aware of what he himself knows about Tutu is disingenuous at best. Obama
nor his staff are aware of the "truth" about him, only Alan holds such ability? Obama and his staff are quite aware of what it means
to be smeared with distortions on a very personal level..obviously Obama rejects the distortions and smears made against Tutu.

[Jefferson23]

148. The links I posted that did not work properly, fixed below:

http://www.pbs.org/inthebalance/pdf/dershowitz-tortured-reasoning.pdf ( Tortured Reasoning)

#45, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1957644.stm

[shira]

151. Has anyone, including Tutu, ever denied those remarks attributed to him? n/t

[Jefferson23]

157. I do believe the entire premise you presented, and its construction

is without merit..see post# 146 again if you like.

[Douglas Carpenter]

171. probably not , nor has he denied shooting JFK either

[shira]

152. Here's a Guardian article by Tutu...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/comment

See anything odd in that?

[azurnoir]

153. What exactly do you see as you out it 'odd' about the article?

here is some of the article

My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?

Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won't let ambulances reach the injured.

<snip>

My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?

Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won't let ambulances reach the injured.

[shira]

158. That's what I'm asking you. You don't find anything at all bigoted in it? n/t

[azurnoir]

154. Is it this you find odd?

But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal , and to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-semitic, as if the Palestinians were not semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures?

People are scared in this country , to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God's world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.

[shira]

159. That's part of it. No problem in your opinion, right? n/t

[azurnoir]

167. no no problem in fact your seeming obsession would go a way towards proving

this paragraph true

But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal , and to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-semitic, as if the Palestinians were not semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures?

I've been gone a couple hours and have read the ensuing comments and see you have attempted to changed the subject to Helen Thomas and I'm not playing either

[shira]

169. Figures. My point in bringing up Helen Thomas is...

...that those who cannot or will not condemn her bigotry (for political reasons) can never be trusted or expected to condemn antisemitic bigotry anywhere else.

[azurnoir]

170. ah but I have condemned Helen Thomas so your point is quite null

not to mention void, so will you

A give it up or and more likely

B go back and pick a thread where I did not condemn her and use it as 'proof' of your point?

but it was something in the Playboy interview that nailed it for me

[shira]

176. What was it in the Playboy interview that nailed it for you? n/t

[azurnoir]

178. when she said she had been thinking 'this stuff' for years n/t

[shira]

180. That's not all, right? If not, what other comments did it for you? n/t

[azurnoir]

181. actally that was it when you take everything in to account and plop that on top

prior I had wondered if she was just embittered by everything that had happened, but to then say "I've been thinking this for years" put it into perspective

[shira]

184. If she hadn't said she was thinking that for years you'd have given HT the benefit of the doubt? n/t

[Jefferson23]

156. Evidently you did not read my links from the response I gave you.

I already posted this same one shira. We do not share the same opinion about Tutu, not at all.

[shira]

160. I'm curious as to which statements attributed to Tutu in Alexander's (Dershowitz's) article....

...you find antisemitic, if any at all?

I mean, if I could prove each and every statement in its context is what Tutu said - would your view of Tutu change?

If so, which quotes are the worst and would prove - like Helen Thomas - that Tutu's bigoted vs. Jews?

[Jefferson23]

161. You already have my answer, more than once now.

[shira]

162. Your #146 didn't directly answer my questions...

For example, you haven't shown in any way that Alexander isn't a credible source WRT quoting Tutu.

I'm also still waiting to see whether you find ANYTHING antisemitic at all in Alexander's alleged quotes of Tutu, if they're proven to be true.

[Jefferson23]

163. Yes I have, you just do not accept my answer..big difference. n/t

[shira]

164. Fine. How about Helen Thomas? Antisemite or not? n/t

[Jefferson23]

165. Oh goodie, we have one down but miles to go with the distraction

from Israeli government policy eh?

I do not defend Helen Thomas's statements, not at all. If she believes them, I feel sorry for her and before
she passes perhaps she will enlighten herself.

* on edit for spelling.

[shira]

166. Were Helen's statements antisemitic? Is she antisemitic in your view? n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

173. are Edward Alexander's words anti-Semitic? - "Michael Lerner: The Clintons' Jewish Rasputin"

This is the title of one of the chapters in his book where he accuses Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin of being grave threats to the survival of Israel and enemies of the Jewish people.

In your view are Alexander's words "Michael Lerner: The Clintons' Jewish Rasputin" anti-semitic? To me that sounds like imagery straight out of the 1930's Nazi's children's book, The Poisonous Mushroom - . But are Alexander's words anti-Semitic in your view?

http://books.google.com/books?id=cORN_jFRjSMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Edward+Alexander+Michael+Lerner&source=bl&ots=u9mth6oCxJ&sig=pF3tjcoTxVj8RSgI0oH8H6wIC1s&hl=en&ei=ZSukTYK7Lcyo8APAvtm5Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Edward%20Alexander%20Michael%20Lerner&f=false

Since this is the same source you used to claim that Archbishop Tutu is anti-Semitic.

[shira]

177. Douglas - it's pointless arguing antisemitism with anyone denying Helen Thomas' antisemitism. n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

182. I never commented on the matter of Helen Thomas, because frankly I don't know

At the very least her words were most unfortunate and could be reasonably be interpreted as anti-Semitic. But frankly I don't read Playboy. I'm a bit of a prude and it is not accessible on the Internet from my particular geographic location. Although it is fair to say that her words were anti-Semitic. I suspect her main problem is being old, tired and bitter. Try to imagine being an Arab-American and working in a media that is overwhelming bigoted against Arabs - a media where far worse things are said about Arabs all the time than anything Helen Thomas said about anyone and are repeated all the time without the slightest hint of criticism and with total impunity. Nonetheless, I don't condone her words as much as I admire her years of fantastic journalistic service.

Anti-Arab bigotry is so prevalent in the American media that even my nemesis Oberliner is shocked and disgusted by it - much to his credit:

unfortunately, generic anti-Arab prejudice is something one encounters on a daily basis here in the United States.

If you turn on the radio, you will hear comments like the one you cited and much much worse from some of the most popular "political" talk show hosts in a way that you would never hear blatant anti-Jewish comments.

In fact, people say things about Arabs in public forums that they would never say about virtually any other minority group in the United States. And they generally are not even chastised for it.

Anti-Jewish remarks, at least in the United States, are not the sort of thing one is likely to encounter on the radio, television, or on other non-internet outlets. Anti-Arab remarks, however, are omnipresent across all genres, much to my disgust.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=346534#346585

But again, are Edward Alexander's words anti-Semitic? - "Michael Lerner: The Clintons' Jewish Rasputin" - Since this is the same source you used to claim that Archbishop Tutu is anti-Semitic. And this is the title of one of the chapters in his book where he accuses Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin of being grave threats to the survival of Israel and enemies of the Jewish people.

.

[shira]

183. It's sad you still don't know whether Helen Thomas is antisemitic after the Playboy interview.

And you wonder why barely any Israeli or American Jews take your criticism of Israel seriously?

[Douglas Carpenter]

185. I already answered your question in detail and I DON'T READ PLAYBOY! I think her words were awful!!

I don't speak for anyone except myself!! AND You don't speak for American or Israeli Jews or anyone else - except yourself either!!

I have always enjoyed fantastic relationships and lively conversations with Jewish people. Some agree with me. Some go a lot farther than I do. Some absolutely 100% disagree with me. Most agree with me about 50%. With some there is a mutual understanding to avoid the subject altogether.

Again are Edward Alexander's words anti-Semitic? - "Michael Lerner: The Clintons' Jewish Rasputin" - Since this is the same source you used to claim that Archbishop Tutu is anti-Semitic. And this is the title of one of the chapters in his book where he accuses Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin of being grave threats to the survival of Israel and enemies of the Jewish people - in a book that you have used as a source and have defended as a valid source.


Of course Helen Thomas' words could be reasonably be interpreted as anti-Semitic. But frankly I don't read Playboy. I'm a bit of a prude and it is not accessible on the Internet from my particular geographic location. Although it is fair to say that her words were anti-Semitic. I suspect her main problem is being old, tired and bitter. Try to imagine being an Arab-American and working in a media that is overwhelming bigoted against Arabs - a media where far worse things are said about Arabs all the time than anything Helen Thomas ever said about anyone and are repeated all the time without the slightest hint of criticism and with total impunity. Nonetheless, I don't condone her words even though I admire her years of fantastic journalistic service.

Anti-Arab bigotry is so prevalent in the American media that even my nemesis Oberliner is shocked and disgusted by it - much to his credit:

unfortunately, generic anti-Arab prejudice is something one encounters on a daily basis here in the United States.

If you turn on the radio, you will hear comments like the one you cited and much much worse from some of the most popular "political" talk show hosts in a way that you would never hear blatant anti-Jewish comments.

In fact, people say things about Arabs in public forums that they would never say about virtually any other minority group in the United States. And they generally are not even chastised for it.

Anti-Jewish remarks, at least in the United States, are not the sort of thing one is likely to encounter on the radio, television, or on other non-internet outlets. Anti-Arab remarks, however, are omnipresent across all genres, much to my disgust.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=346534#346585

But again, are Edward Alexander's words anti-Semitic? - "Michael Lerner: The Clintons' Jewish Rasputin" - Since this is the same source you used to claim that Archbishop Tutu is anti-Semitic. And this is the title of one of the chapters in his book where he accuses Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin of being grave threats to the survival of Israel and enemies of the Jewish people - in a book that you have used as a source and have defended as a valid source.

And may I ask, do you have a particular opinion about the organization that calls itself the Jewish Defense League (JDL) and its founder the late Rabbi Meir Kahane? This is not in any way, shape or form an accusation, only a question.

[shira]

187. But she's not an antisemite or a bigot, right?

Edward Alexander's words are antisemitic, so?

Does that make him worse than Helen Thomas or Desmond Tutu when it comes to antisemitism?

[Douglas Carpenter]

188. so do you agree that Edward Alexander is not a reliable source?

Come on this is someone who thinks Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin are practically the enemy and argues it in exactly the same book where he makes his accusations against Desmond Tutu and Rabbi Michael Lerner.

[shira]

189. I agree, but that's beside the point. You're unable to admit that what was attributed to Tutu

...is antisemitic and bigoted, meaning that even if it's 100% accurate that STILL doesn't make him antisemitic in your view. As I've written above to LB, there's plenty of other evidence suggesting Tutu is antisemitic, like his connections to Sabeel and the BDS movement.

Here's a link to the Thomas playboy interview and let me know if you're able to see it or not on your server...
http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com/2011/03/playboy-interview-helen-thomas.html

Can you admit Helen Thomas is a Jew hating bigot after reading that?

And do you agree that antisemitic bigotry spewed by both Helen Thomas and Desmond Tutu makes them unreliable sources on the Arab/Israel conflict?

[Douglas Carpenter]

190. there is simply no evidence that Desmond Tutu said the things attributed to him by

Anderson. One might as well ask, "if Shimon Peres said all Arabs are Pigs" would that make him a bigot. Of course it would, but he never said that.

No I certainly don't think that connection to the Palestinian-Christian Organization, Sabeel and the BDS movement makes someone anti-Semitic. Are Jewish Voices for Peace anti-Semites? They are at least sympathetic to the BDS movement. The Palestinian movement is always being told to embrace non-violent methods but are then called anti-Semites when they do.

Obviously some of Helen's comments are anti-Semitic and just plain ugly. But the term "Jew hating bigot" is going a bit too far in my opinion. I think she is old,tired and bitter and obviously has some bigoted old world attitudes. If the same standard was practiced for what comprises an Arab hating bigot was applied - there are a lot more of those around in America today. In fact it is in the media all the time. And Helen has had to live with an Arab-hating media for most of her life.

[shira]

193. Tutu's views line up with almost everything in the EU working definition of antisemitism

Here's Tutu in the Guardian writing about a powerful Jewish Lobby, accusing Jews collectively of putting Palestinians through what they once went through for centuries, and making a parallel between Zionism and Naziism....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/comment

Here's the ADL on Sabeel spewing the old christian antisemitic tropes...
http://www.adl.org/main_Interfaith/sabeel_backgrounder.htm

Here's some big time dirt on the BDS movement...
http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/antisemitism-and-the-boycott-david-hirsh-responds-to-ran-greenstein/

Put it all together and it easily shows Tutu is antisemitic according to the EU working definition of antisemitism...
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

In particular WRT Tutu...

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective - such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non Jews.

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

The least a man of Tutu's status can do is publicly condemn the ugly antisemitism that infests Sabeel and the BDS movement.

He's not a peace activist (being for BDS which would destroy Israel) or a humanitarian when it comes to the Arab/Israel conflict. He could care less about Palestinians or other Arabs suffering under Arab dictatorships. Real apartheid is state policy vs. Palestinians in Lebanon, for example, and he never speaks up against that either. He's anti-Israel, not pro-Palestinian or pro-peace. He has no love for Palestinians but he shares Hamas/PLO hatred of all that's Israel. The BDS movement supports Hamas/PLO ambitions to keep the conflict going without a peaceful 2 state resolution - with the hope that Israel will eventually be destroyed.

And finally, if Helen Thomas isn't an anti-Jewish bigot, no one is.

[Douglas Carpenter]

194. let's try the same working definition but apply it to anti-Arab/anti-Palestinian bigotry and racism

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Palestinians

Accusing Palestinians as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Palestinian person or group, or even for acts committed by non Palestinians.

Accusing the Palestinians as a people, or the Palestinian Authority , of inventing or exaggerating the Naqba.

Accusing Palestinians-American citizens of being more loyal to the Palestinian cause , or to the alleged priorities of Palestinians worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Denying the Palestinian people their right to self determination, e.g., by claiming that the Palestinian National movement is an anti-Semitic endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other movement of national liberation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Arabism and Islamophobia to characterize Palestinian Authority or Palestinians

Drawing comparisons of the Palestinian national movement to that of the Nazis.

Holding Palestinians collectively responsible for actions of the Palestinian Authority.

[shira]

195. Your "look over there whataboutery" doesn't excuse leftist antisemitism.

1. Do you agree with the EU working definition of antisemitism?

2. Is anti-Jewish bigotry a significant problem within the pro-Palestinian movement, in your opinion?

[Douglas Carpenter]

196. I think a reasonable definition of antisemitism would parallel a reasonable definition

of anti-Arab racism: A hatred or prejudice or bias against Arab people. Or a hatred or prejudice or bias against Jewish people.

Of course one can have absolutely no hatred or prejudice or bias whatsoever against Arabs but still not like the PLO or the Arab League or agree with the ideology of Arab nationalism. Just as obviously one can have absolutely no hatred or prejudice or bias whatsoever against Jewish people but still not like the Israeli state or the ideology of Zionism.

If one starts politicizing definitions such as anti-Arab racism or anti-semitism - one is in effect attempting to socially censor political discussion and rational discourse and their definition is little more than the cynical use of language to promote a political agenda.

Now for instance different countries around the world have vastly different understandings of what is going on and their different people frequently have vastly different understandings of their own history. It would not be reasonable to expect a Northern Irish Protestant and a Northern Irish Catholic to agree on all question of who did what to whom anymore than it would be reasonable to expect Palestinians and Israelis to come to agreement on issues of historic narrative - Although, at the highest scholarly level there would be a lot more agreement in terms of actual facts than at the popular level where a political agenda plays a greater role.

Are ultra-orthodox Jews whose families survived the holocaust but reject Zionism on theological grounds because they feel it violates the precepts of the Torah, are they anti-Semites? I think to say that they are would be simply ridiculous.

Now I would agree that there are those who might for example attack the country of Saudi Arabia perhaps with legitimate and valid arguments - but their language and sometimes and some case their motives carry the tone of racism and bigotry. So equally, not doubt there are those who do criticize Israel with language and in some cases motives of anti-Semtism.



I can't think of anyone I know who is involved in Palestinian solidarity work who has a hatred or prejudice or bias against Jewish people. In the United States Jewish people tend to play a major role in Palestinian solidarity work.

[whosinpower]

191. Finally - she admits Edward Alexander is anti-semitic

And sees no problem with that.

Can't seem to wrap her head around why you would not accept his testimonial on Tutu....and yet, in another statement says that no anti semite can be trusted.

[shira]

192. I didn't say I had no problem with Edward Alexander. He's a Rightwing nutter....

...but there's plenty of other incriminating evidence against Tutu.

It's sad you guys here can't even admit that those quotes attributed to Tutu by Alexander would be proof he's antisemitic "IF" indeed those quotes are accurate. Not one of you here will go so far as to admit THAT!

Worse, is that Helen Thomas is still given the benefit of the doubt!

======

In addition, you probably believe Edward Alexander is more antisemitic than Tutu and Thomas for calling a fellow Jew he believes to be a threat to Jews collectively, a traitor.

:eyes:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

66. Hell yes. There are some idiots who don't think diaspora Jews count, but not many.

That many Jews like to claim a connection with Israel does not bind those of us who don't.

[shira]

67. Folks like yourself represent a tiny minority of diaspora Jewish thought on Israel. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

81. Small but not tiny. N.T.

[oberliner]

82. No, it's tiny. Bordering on microscopic

Here is one of the responses from the 2010 survey of American Jewish opinion:

12. Should the Palestinians be required or not be required to recognize Israel as a Jewish state in a final peace agreement?

Required 94
Not required 3
Not sure 1

http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.5915517/k.D620/2010_Annual_Survey_of_American_Jewish_Opinion.htm

I think you would be in an even smaller subset of that 3 percent if they were pressed further on their vision of a peace agreement.

Although your POV may have some proponents in the blogosphere who are able to make a lot of noise, the number of diaspora Jews who share your perspective on the I/P conflict is minuscule.

Note that only 15 percent of those surveyed were Republicans; the vast majority were Democrats with a fair number of independents as well.

And finally, the last questions shows that only 5 percent of American Jews feel "very distant" from Israel (with 3/4's feeling very or fairly close).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

90. Not all diaspora jews live in the USA.

I'm fairly sure you'd get rather different responses here in the UK, for example.

That said, there are more Jews in the USA than in most other countries, which may make us more of a minority than I thought, it's true.

[King_David]

104. Diaspora Jews outside the USA tend to be far more Zionist inclined

Such as Argentinian,South African,French,Australian. etc

That is just obvious if you ever lived in both places.

It sucks for your argument though.

[Douglas Carpenter]

84. only 28% of American Jews consider themselves Zionist - Although 82% say they support Israel

- which I suppose that implies 18% either don't or are uncertain.

This from a March 11, 2011 article in the Jerusalem Post:

In a working paper entitled “Identity, Assimilation, Continuity” prepared for the participants of the conference of the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) in Jerusalem, professors Sergio Della Pergola and Chaim Waxman placed less emphasis on the general support American Jews express for Israel (82%), and more on the fact that only 28% of American Jews define themselves as “Zionists.” The rate of “Zionism” among American Jews drops the younger they get, just like many other aspects related to one’s connection with Israel. For older people, the percentages hover around 40%; for those under 35, it is just over 20%. In other words, for the large majority, including those who have a connection with and support Israel, this constitutes long-distance support for a state where Jews live, but not necessarily an acknowledgment that this state is the state for all the Jews. Zionist Israel may have a hard time relinquishing its perceived front seat, but Jewish America won’t settle for playing second fiddle in the Jewish world either.

http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?ID=211520&R=R1

of the 82% of American Jews who support Israel - most do not agree with many Israeli policies:

•American Jews Oppose Settlement Expansion: By a margin of 60 to 40 percent, American Jews oppose the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank based on "what they know" and after receiving short statements by supporters and opponents of settlement expansion. Simply put, attitudes toward settlements are highly negative and firmly held. Not surprisingly, opposition to settlements is higher among Reform (64 percent oppose) and unaffiliated Jews (69 percent oppose), in contrast to Orthodox Jews, who strongly support settlements (80 percent support). But one very interesting demographic finding is the strong opposition (72 percent oppose) among Jews who give money to political campaigns.

•Support for Engaging a Palestinian Unity Government Including Hamas: Sixty-nine percent of Jews support the United States working with a unified Hamas-Palestinian Authority government to achieve a peace agreement with Israel, even when informed that the United States does not recognize Hamas because of its terrorism and refusal to recognize Israel. Interestingly, precisely the same percentage of Israelis in a recent Hebrew University poll support the government of Israel negotiating with such a unity government.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/03/23/poll-american-jews-strongly-support-obama-israeli-palestinian-peace-settlement

here is a poll from a few years ago that compares the opinions of Jewish-Americans with the opinions of Arab-Americans:

The poll also confirms what many of us have known for years--that American Jews diverge strongly from the views of their leaders and the Israeli government when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian peace.

90% of American Jews support a "secure, independent" Palestinian state.

88% of Arab Americans support a "secure, independent" state of Israel.


34% of Jews believe that Arab Americans support a secure independent Israel.

60% of Arabs believe that Jews support a secure independent Palestine.


87% of Jews and 94% of Arabs support a negotiated two-state solution.


68% of Jews and 64% of Arabs would be more likely to vote for a Presidential candidate who advocated strong engagement in the Mideast peace process.


20% of Jews and 21% of Arabs found George Bush's policy "effective" in "handling the Arab-Israeli peace process."


73% of Jews and 79% of Arabs feel it is vital to engage in diplomacy to resolve the Iran nuclear standoff.


21% of Jews and 30% of Arabs feel "optimistic" about Middle East peace.


40% of Jews and 66% of Arabs feel the U.S. should "steer a middle course" between Israel and the Palestinians.


58% of Jews and 59% of Arabs said they would be more likely to support a Presidential candidate who supported peace negotiations between Israel and Syria.


81% of Jews and 84% of Arabs support Israeli-Syrian negotiations.


89% of Jews and 92% of Arabs believe it is important for both communities to work together for Israeli-Palestinian peace.


65% of Jews and 89% of Arabs believe it is imperative to end the Israeli Occupation.


63% of Jews and 77% of Arabs believe in a settlement freeze.


70% of Jews and 82% of Arabs support the Arab League initiative.


80% of both Jews and Arabs agree with the Iraq Study Group report that finding a comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is necessary for advancing U.S. Mideast policy goals.


This poll tells us a number of interesting things. It reinforces the absolute divorce between the views of average American Jews and their leadership and the leadership of the State of Israel. AIPAC and other other groups constituting the Israel lobby do not support Syrian-Israel negotiations, are highly suspicious of pursuing a diplomatic strategy regarding Iran, oppose the end of the Occupation, oppose a settlement freeze, and are dubious about the Arab League Initiative.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/richards1052/2007/06/american-jews-favor-israelsyri.php

[shira]

85. Nice try, Douglas. Now look at #82, the AJC poll WRT American Jews' views on Israel.

Your views on I/P are nowhere close to compatable with American Jews.

Another thing is that many of the things highlighted in your post WRT American Jews' views are roughly the same WRT Israeli Jews in Israel.

[Douglas Carpenter]

97. and other polls show other results. Is that so difficult to understand?

I never claimed that my views are the same views held by the majority of American-Jews or even the majority of non-Jewish Americans. I'm sure they are not and neither are yours.

From the Same March 11, 2011 Jerusalem Post article:

The same goes for the connection with Israel; 68% of Orthodox Jews say that they feel strongly, as opposed to only 21% of Reform Jews. The members of our communities, said Salkin, are becoming more and more American, meaning, they sympathize with Israel in general, but they don’t have the desired Zionist fervor.

http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?ID=211520&R=R1

[King_David]

86. Well its easy to explain.

Most Jews consider Zionists to be Jews who go on Aliyah.

The 82% number seems low to me, I think its not accurate.

[King_David]

91. Clearly you are in the tiny minority.

And its not `many` as you claim its a very small minority.

[pelsar]

147. you of all people....

there to be open discussion of every choice it makes in the name of "security", both within the state and without. It needs new ideas and freedom to speak truth to power

you can't even do that here? (speak truth...)

you exaggerate, make up stuff, refuse to do basic research, generalize/demonize, believe both the Palestinians and israeli cultures mimic your own (i.e. you don't accept the cultural differences).

you can't even discuss different ideas, that differ from your own without screaming "right winger"......

[Ken Burch]

18. The real point it, denouncing the Palestinian leadership over and over again

wouldn't stop acts like this.

Nor can keeping the Occupation going stop them. Nor can building more settlements.

It's not possible to use a military occupation to change anyone's political leadership...at least not for the better.

The only thing that can is to accept that Palestinians must get a state of their own and that that state must have parity of esteem with Israel.

It's disgusting that you insist, shira, on implying that this killing proves that Palestinians, as a group, are evil. If the power dynamic created in 1967 were reversed, there's no reason to assume the nationalist movement YOU support wouldn't be doing EVERYTHING that you denounce Hamas and Fatah over. If the Irgun and Lehi were the dominant resistance militias, they might even be doing worse

[Ken Burch]

20. Juliano Mer-Khamis' death is horrible

It's enough, at this point, to denounce the person who committed the act. We don't know that anyone in any Palestinian "leadership" position ordered it, and there's no obvious reason to assume that anyone in said "leadership" even disliked the guy.

Mer-Khamis' life story wasn't a vindication of ANYTHING the Israeli government ever did to Israeli Arabs OR to Palestinians.

And it was disgusting and inflammatory for the author you quoted to insist on equating protests against what the IDF or the settlers do with denunciations of "Jews". The IDF and the settlers are criticized when they do horrible things...NOT because they purport to be Jewish. They'd be denounced just the same if they were Catholics or Protestants or Scientologists.

[Ken Burch]

24. If Juliano Mer-Khamis could post in this thread from beyond the grave

I strongly suspect he'd be outraged that you are using his death to demonize Palestinians, Iranians, and those fighting for democracy throughout the Arab world. Mer-Khamis used his life to work for justice and reconciliation. How DARE you use his death to start an inflammatory thread designed solely to provoke contention and to reduce the chances for peace and justice between Israelis and Palestinians?

Mer-Khamis would NEVER accept that what happened to him justifies the "no partner for peace" meme, or Likudnik demands to wage a war against Iran(a war that even YOU know couldn't have any positive results for anyone anywhere)OR denunciations of the Arab democracy movements(c'mon, shira, you HAD to post another column in which somebody says it was wrong for Mubarak to be overthrown by the Egyptian people?)

You have no right to use Mer-Khamis' death to fight against everything he stood for in life. Unlike you, shira, Mer-Khamis wanted an end to repression and injustice.

[shira]

26. One strawman after another...

Did you even read the OP? What is it about, Ken? Can you summarize?

[Ken Burch]

32. It's about a bogus claim of double standards.

There's no reason to attack anyone yet for their response to Mer-Khamis's death.

And it's time to stop implying, over and over again, that people should have to be obsessed with denouncing the "Palestinian leadership" just for the sake of denouncing them.

The issue is the Occupation. If a Palestinian state actually existed, groups like Hamas would have no support.

[Ken Burch]

33. I've told you down thread I've read the OP

It's a whole series of false accusations of double standards, it's an attempt to force progressives to waste their time and lives spending more time denouncing Arabs and Muslims than in dealing with the immorality of the Occupation.

It sets up a whole series of hoops progressives are to be forced to jump through just to prove they aren't "anti-Israel"(and also to prove something else that everyone already knows we aren't).

And it uses the death of a man who worked for peace, justice, equality and reconciliation to argue for a right wing agenda of pushing for war with Iran and other Muslim countries.

Worst of all, with the puerile "Mer was killed because he was free" canard that this author uses, the article takes Mer's death and uses it to bash other Arabs and Palestinians, and even to insinuate that Mer's death somehow vindicates the way Israel treats both its Arab minority AND the Palestinians living under the Occupation. To do that is to attack everything Mer stood for.

Mer was NOT a Likudnik and wouldn't agree with anything in that article(other than the fact that it's a horrible thing that he was killed, of course-he probably would agree with that).

[oberliner]

35. The author is a leftist who is regularly critical of the occupation

He is certainly not a "Likudnik" by any stretch of the imagination.

Have you ever read any of his other op-ed's in Haaretz?

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. the author, Ari Shavit is hardly consistently left-wing and even less consistent

in his denunciation of reactionary forces in the Middle East.

Even though,the uprising against Mubarak was supported across the entire Egyptian spectrum (I have yet to meet one single Egyptian who wasn't enthusiastic about seeing Mubarak's rein come to an end) Ari Shavit characterized the downfall of Mubarak as a betrayal by the United States:

The consequences of the West's betrayal of Mubarak will be no less severe. It's not only a betrayal of a leader who was loyal to the West, served stability and encouraged moderation. It's a betrayal of every ally of the West in the Middle East and the developing world. The message is sharp and clear: The West's word is no word at all; an alliance with the West is not an alliance. The West has lost it. The West has stopped being a leading and stabilizing force around the world.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-arab-revolution-and-western-decline-1.340967

[oberliner]

38. He is absolutely consistently left-wing and especially

with respect to his criticism of reactionary forces in the Middle East.

It's a neat trick to pull one paragraph out of an editorial to try to make someone out to be something other than what they are.

Most folks are able to see through that nonsense.

No one who has regularly read his work over the years would call him anything other than a consistently left-wing journalist.

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. oh for crying loud!! writing an editorial accusing Barack Obama of betrayal for not siding with

President Mubarak of Egypt against the Egyptian people sounds more like Glen Beck or Sarah Plan that someone who is consistent with opposing reactionary forces within the Middle East.

Obama's betrayal / As goes Mubarak, so goes U.S. might

Obama's betrayal of Hosni Mubarak is not just the betrayal of a moderate Egyptian president who remained loyal to the United States, promoted stability and encouraged moderation. Obama's betrayal of Mubarak symbolizes the betrayal of every strategic ally in the Third World. Throughout Asia, Africa and South America, leaders are now looking at what is going on between Washington and Cairo.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-arab-revolution-and-western-decline-1.340967

Anyone reading Ari Shavit is well aware that he expresses some left-wing tendencies mixed with some very reactionary tendencies. Anyone doing a perusal of his past writing will see this pattern very clearly.

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. a correction on the link : "Obama's betrayal / As goes Mubarak, so goes U.S. might": by Ari Shavit

I seemed to have provided the wrong link for the quote above.

Here is the correct link to this article by Ari Shavit, titled: Obama's betrayal / As goes Mubarak, so goes U.S. might:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/obama-s-betrayal-as-goes-mubarak-so-goes-u-s-might-1.340244


.

[oberliner]

56. Look at the actual article itself rather than your imaginary version of it

The author begins the article with this paragraph:

"Two huge processes are happening right before our eyes. One is the Arab liberation revolution. After half a century during which tyrants have ruled the Arab world, their control is weakening. After 40 years of decaying stability, the rot is eating into the stability. The Arab masses will no longer accept what they used to accept. The Arab elites will no longer remain silent."

Here the author clearly does the exact opposite of what you falsely claimed.

He speaks out against the reactionary forces in the middle east, against tyranny, and in favor of the Arab people.

This theme continues to pervade the piece, in paragraphs which you conveniently excised in your attempt to reconstruct the article into the opposite of what it is.

The section that talk about Obama and the United States makes note of several facts that are undeniably true. First, that the US has been the leader of a 'post-imperial empire' which has recently been challenged by emerging nations. Certainly, no leftist would argue with that. And that the current administration has decided to pick and choose how to deal with individual undemocratic leaders across the region who are facing civil unrest. Again, this phenomenon has been addressed by many leftists, including many folks on this very forum.

The question he poses, is one that every leftist ought to be asking:

"How can it be that in May 2009, Hosni Mubarak was an esteemed president whom Barack Obama respected, and in January 2011, Mubarak is a dictator whom even Obama is casting aside?"

The US still looks at the leadership in Saudi Arabia for example, a dictatorship as oppressive as that of Mubarak, as a respected ally - will that change with increased civil unrest - if not, why?

These are questions leftist are most certainly asking.

He also takes the leftist position that our foreign policy is not moral. That we support some dictators but not others for reasons that have nothing to do with human rights. How is it possible that you do not agree with this?

The US was a major supported of the Mubarak regime for many years. In fact, one can argue that US backing is the very reason he had been able to stay in power for as long as he did. How can you not see something askew here, as the author does. It's certainly not as if Mubarak's regime suddenly changed between 2009 and 2011. Similar, if not worse oppression was going on in Egypt during the years when the US was his primary benefactor. And similar, if not worse oppression, is going on in other countries ruled by dictators that the US is bankrolling, and others that we are not.

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. oh nonsense - but people should read the articles themselves

link:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/obama-s-betrayal-as-goes-mubarak-so-goes-u-s-might-1.340244

Obama's betrayal / As goes Mubarak, so goes U.S. might

by By Ari Shavit

Obama's betrayal of Hosni Mubarak is not just the betrayal of a moderate Egyptian president who remained loyal to the United States, promoted stability and encouraged moderation. Obama's betrayal of Mubarak symbolizes the betrayal of every strategic ally in the Third World. Throughout Asia, Africa and South America, leaders are now looking at what is going on between Washington and Cairo.

Everyone grasps the message: America's word is worthless; an alliance with America is unreliable; American has lost it. A result of this understanding will be a turn toward China, Russia and regional powers such as Iran, Turkey and Brazil.

The second result of this insight will be a series of international conflagrations that will result from the loss of America's deterrent power. But the general result will be America's rapid disappearance as a superpower.

The policy setback which Washington will experience will be no less dramatic than the regime debacle which Cairo is experiencing. Barack Obama is, indeed, poised to make history. Should he not change direction, he will be remembered as the U.S. president who undid the American empire with his own hands.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/obama-s-betrayal-as-goes-mubarak-so-goes-u-s-might-1.340244

or from his other article....damn this sounds like vintage Charles Krauthammer - the Neoconservative - not some progressive.

There is one answer: The West's position is not a moral one that reflects a real commitment to human rights. The West's position reflects the adoption of Jimmy Carter's worldview: kowtowing to benighted, strong tyrants while abandoning moderate, weak ones.

Carter's betrayal of the Shah brought us the ayatollahs, and will soon bring us ayatollahs with nuclear arms. The consequences of the West's betrayal of Mubarak will be no less severe. It's not only a betrayal of a leader who was loyal to the West, served stability and encouraged moderation. It's a betrayal of every ally of the West in the Middle East and the developing world. The message is sharp and clear: The West's word is no word at all; an alliance with the West is not an alliance. The West has lost it. The West has stopped being a leading and stabilizing force around the world.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-arab-revolution-and-western-decline-1.340967

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Douglas Carpenter]

63. I defer to LeftishBrit who eloquently described her problems with the article

I could not have put it better myself and can think of nothing to add.

links:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=348457&mesg_id=348476

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=348457&mesg_id=348594

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=348457&mesg_id=348600

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=348457&mesg_id=348607

.

[shira]

65. Do you think the author's criticism is not legitimate or unfair? If so, how? n/t

[azurnoir]

70. The author contradicts himself

let's take a look at this paragraph


It is not yet clear yet who murdered Mer-Khamis. The motive could have been financial, personal, religious or cultural. But it is clear he was not murdered for being an occupier, or an oppressor or a settler. Mer was murdered because he was a free man, who spread freedom in a society that is not free.

now sentence by sentence

It is not yet clear yet who murdered Mer-Khamis.

well that's not exactly true the PA have arrested a Palestinian man of whom it is said has in past been associated with both Hamas and Fatah but was recently released from an Israeli prison and is currently associated with neither, he was described as a 'free agent'

The motive could have been financial, personal, religious or cultural.

True enough

But it is clear he was not murdered for being an occupier, or an oppressor or a settler.

again true if the man arrested is indeed the killer, and his being 1/2 Jewish had nothing to do with his murder, but can we assume that at in Shavit's mind Mer-Khamis was just another Arab, despite his mother being a Jew? There is an inconsistency in the reporting intial reports said Mer-Khamis was killed by a 'masked attacker' but later reports claim that Mer-Khamis's wife saw the attackers face

Mer was murdered because he was a free man, who spread freedom in a society that is not free.

this is what could be called the 'money shot' after saying that we do not know why Mer-Khamis was murdered he ascribes a reason, one meant to appeal to the emotions perhaps but in reality is drivel in the same vein as "they hate us for our freedoms"

but apparently some here think this is some deep meaningful self introspection by a leftist when in reality it comes off more as political opportunism

[bemildred]

155. Well it's clear but it's not clear, see?

Why is that so hard to understand?
:sarcasm:

[LeftishBrit]

37. My problem with this article goes beyond left or right

It is that the man is using Juliano Mer-Khamis' death to make a political point against the 'Israeli left', rather than paying tribute to him, or even attacking the real murderer.

He may be left-wing himself; the left-wing everywhere is extremely factionalized, and often turns on itself. But I still think that such an article is inappropriate at this stage.

[oberliner]

39. What about Rachel Corrie's death?

Do you see any similarity in how each death was used to make a political point, shortly after the individual was killed?

[LeftishBrit]

40. Not the same IMO...

I do think that Rachel Corrie's death hasn't been misused and exploited by many on all sides. From people assuming that the bulldozer driver MUST be guilty of murder, without a trial (and if the expression 'innocent till proved guilty' means anything, then it needs to be applied to all, regardless of sympathies with any particular cause) to the vile 'St Pancake' and similar taunts and images.

But in this case, Shavit is using his death to attack people of broadly *the same group* as Mer-Khamis: people who would have supported him, and whom he would have regarded as allies. And not even for something that they're actually doing, but pre-emptively: 'if he had been murdered by Jews, they *would* have done X, and since he was presumably murdered by an Arab, they *won't* do Y'. To me, it's like turning up at a funeral, and giving a speech, not to pay tribute to the person who died, but to attack the family members and other mourners.

I hope that Mer-Khamis' memory will be kept alive, both in Israel and the left. For now, those of us who can do so and feel this appropriate could perhaps donate in his memory to a Middle Eastern peace project.

[oberliner]

42. We make those kinds of observations here all the time

I don't know that I see anything wrong with an opinion writer putting out their opinion. Ha'aretz did run several other pieces that paid tribute to the person who was killed.

Look at what is going on in Libya. Many commentators (and posters here) have said - if this had been Bush rather than Obama, the response from the left would have been different. And in Libya, we are talking about multiple people being killed.

[LeftishBrit]

45. Perhaps the UK has so many opinion-writers prepared to turn people's personal tragedies into

something negative about them and their views, that I have lost all tolerance for such.

To give just one example, Cristina Odone in the Daily Telegraph took the atheist writer Christopher Hitchens' cancer diagnosis as an opportunity to be smug about his secularism, and to discuss whether she should pray for him even though he'd object (she decided that she should).

I could imagine an article making almost the same points that would not hit me in the same way as that one did. For instance, if the writer had emphasized that Mer-Khamis' death showed how we should fight against all forces of hate, and that includes the Muslim Right as well as the Jewish (or Christian) Right; Arab hate as well as Jewish hate. But this article seems (on my reading, which may be influenced by my experiences with the British media) to divide rather than unite; in a way that is contrary to Mer-Khamis's purposes. The way it comes across to me is almost as expressing hostility to Mer-Khamis' supporters in the peace movement, and thus, by implication, to Mer-Khamis himself.

To give a parallel on the other side of I/P opinion: a few years ago, there were people, even one or two on DU, who took Congressman Tom Lantos' cancer diagnosis and subsequent death as an opportunity to upbraid him for his pro-Israel views and for his support for the Iraq war. I disagreed with him on the latter at any rate - but that wasn't the time or place for it.

[oberliner]

46. But your examples are written attacks on dying individuals

This piece is a general observation, not specifically directed at the person who was recently killed, but rather but other pundits and writers.

If there was an op-ed piece written that criticized him directly, like the two examples you gave, I would have a similar reaction.

[Ken Burch]

48. Then again, as HItchens pointed out in one of his Vanity Fair articles

several evangelical groups have a kind of metaphysical turf war/sales battle going over who can convert him on his deathbed.

[LeftishBrit]

47. Correction

I got a bit tangled up in double negatives when drafting my post. The first line should of course read, 'I do think that Rachel Corrie's death *has* been exploited and abused by many on all sides.'

[Ken Burch]

96. check your pm's. shira.

n/t.