J'Accuse! Continued

What has happened to this blog???? This use to be a place
for irreverent but meaningful dialogue that was not the usual Jews for
Liberalism that so many others blogs have become. Now it seems that this blog
has become a vile anti-Republican hate blog. There is nothing critical allowed
of Obama? Any Jew that finds him wanting is smeared by the likes of Daniel
Kloffer. Is there any balance at all? This sickens me, as I thought Jewcy was
something different, but it seems to really want to be another Tikkun O’lam bs
rag.

That's pretty thin gruel, Koffler. Besides ludicrously calling Power "the foremost theorist of
human rights of her generation," you accuse Pollack of bowdlerizing a quote by removing the reference to Halliburton. Well, ok. But string the whole thing together again (see below) and you will see, if you will allow yourself, that she is talking about Halliburton and Israel. Note the inclusion of the world "also":

 Another longstanding foreign policy flaw is the degree to which special
interests dictate the way in which the “national interest” as a whole
is defined and pursued. Look at the degree to which Halliburton and
several of the private security and contracting firms invested in the
2004 political campaigns and received very lucrative contracts in the
aftermath of the U.S. takeover of Iraq. Also, America’s important
historic relationship with Israel has often led foreign policy
decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments,
and to replicate Israeli tactics, which, as the war in Lebanon last
summer demonstrated, can turn out to be counter-productive.

If Powers meant a paragraph break there, if she meant to keep Israel separate from the evil Halliburton, and has said so...well, I will believe her. But it Pollack's reading of that paragraph is equally plausible, and to suggest that he is somehow cheating with the ellipses is unfair.  

Interesting!  To me this article was anti-BS, anti-lie, anti-politics-as-usual, but apparently you think that translates into anti-Republican.  Is there something false or inaccurate in this article?  Perhaps you could start there instead of attacking it on false idealogical grounds.

Way to cut through the filth.  Keep up the good work.

Anon 1: a) note the spelling of my name; b) on the contrary, there is no shortage of criticisms of Barack Obama allowed here, including, most recently, my contention that he was lying his head off about his trade position to win votes in Ohio, and Michael Weiss's post about his flip-flopping on taking public finance. What's objectionable is claiming that he's an antisemite.

Anon 2: I see the word 'also' tripped you up, so let's go slowly. Your reading of Pollak's reading of Power isn't Pollak's reading of Power. Pollak claims Power "is also arguing that Israel had something to do with the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003." The passage has absolutely nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

Now then, difficult though it might be to comprehend two conceptually distinct thoughts in one paragraph --- though as you might have pointed out, 'also' is something of a tip-off --- the role of private contracting firms and Israeli agents could scarcely be more incongruous in Power's analysis. Particularly because Israeli agents do not figure into it, and no causal arrow flows from Tel Aviv to Washington. She is merely making the obvious point that US decision makers should be more healthily conservative about mimicking Israeli tactics. Conversely, she is clearly attributing a malign influence to Halliburton et al. A debatable point, but one entirely disconnected from Israel.

Just to clarify.

1)Are you saying that the controversy around Power's statements and beliefs are completely unfounded? That is, a reasonable person could not possibly interpret Power's statements as disguising an anti-Israel approach to Middle East politics?

2)Are there 'code words' with which people announce anti-semitic sentiments (for examples of this lexicon, the speeches and writings of Pat Buchanan might be helpful)? And if such code words exist, why would someone with Power's credentials be unaware of the codes--and then choose to use these words when formulating policy?

3) Given the present state of affairs in Israel, is it possible that we've moved out of a Likud/Labor model, to one of simple existence? And if this is the case, then isn't even the most generous reading of Power's statements showing her to be about ten years out of touch with reality?

http://sandbox.blog-city.com/speaking_truth_to_power.htm

You see, it seems that some believe that Obama should be asked about his friends and advisors. 

We're ultimately talking about people we know very little about, presidential candidates, because the job is always bigger than their careers.  One very reasonable way to get to know these folks, as best we can without meeting them personally, is by the choices they make--who they listen to for policy formulation.

I'm sorry, but if you are choosing people from the Carter Administration (Brezinski), an administration known for making horribly bad decisions, then that, for me, is a problem.  Not exactly indicative of the change rhetoric we hear about so much.     

No offense, but I'll take Brezinski and his baggage over what we're going to get with McCain.  As for Samantha Power, she's spent the greater part of her career as an academic studying and writing about state-sponsored murder of innocent civilians.  If you have a problem with someone like that, then it is more likely that you are the problem, not her.

First of all, I don't know a thing about McCain's advisors. I'm waiting for this information.

Second, regarding Power, not familiar with her work--although from what I read lately, there are red flags. I'm not calling her an anti-semite, I'm just saying that there are quite a few red flags. So, also, I'm waiting for more data to come in.

But you raised another red flag. I assume in her work she devoted a considerable section to WWII and the Nazis. I also assume she spent time study the Soviet Union and China, not to mention Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, and so on.

However, the nature of warfare has changed considerably since WWII, where civilians are more involved in conflict, where civilians are used as human shields, and where the 'armies' are not necessarily institutions of government, like a real army. Nevertheless, these unofficial 'armies' can still kill quite a few people. So, has her thinking evolved to reflect this?

There isn't an example of this new warfare that is more clear than in and regarding Israel. So, my question (again, not drawing conclusions), does she see the situation with Israel as breaking with the previous paradigm or reflective of the previous paradigm? If she sees it as reflective of her previous paradigm, that's a red flag--since I see a new paradigm of warfare that has emerged. And that has a great bearing on the ideas and prevention of genocide, and the problems facing states that find their populations under threat from terrorism.

You raise some good questions, particularly about her view on this shift in methods of warfare.  In her book about America's response to Genocide, she certainly spent a good portion of time addressing America's lack of response and indifference to the systematic slaughter of Jews during WWII.  She provides a great deal of insight into why that happened.  Much of the information, I'm sure, is taken from other sources that have already made that information public, but it is packaged in a way that makes it easy to read and understand, and consequently, really drives the point home.  I think there is a perception in America that the U.S. saved the Jewish people from Hitler.  There may be some truth to that, but it is inescapable that there was a concerted effort by the U.S. government and the media to downplay the magnitude of the crime as it was happening, and Samantha Power provides countless examples of how that was done.

Now, regarding your question about whether her thinking has evolved to reflect the change in nature of warfare.  Her book includes treatments of contemporary massacres and Genocides including all the ones you mentioned, as well as Bosnia, Kosovo, and Saddam Hussein's massacre of Kurds during Bush senior's tenure.  What should put your mind at ease, however, is that she does not include the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in her book.  So, I don't think she considers that to be a case of massacre, genocide or ethnic cleansing, and I am not aware of anything she has said or done that would suggest she believes the Palestinians to be innocent victims of crimes of this nature.

So, now I have a question for you.  You mentioned that there are red flags about Samantha Power.  Please elaborate.  What red flags are there?  Is it a red flag that she wants to end human suffering?  Is it a red flag that she wants to end a cycle of violence and death?  What has she said or done that could be interpreted as against the interests of Israel?

One more thing I would like to suggest: rather than "waiting for more data to come in" why not read her book.  It will provide you with first-hand, direct knowledge of her world views rather than second-hand spin doctored by who knows who.

Did she explain how she would end human suffering?  What would she do about the Dafur genocide if she is in charge?  Would she recommend a US invasion of Dafur?

There are plenty of people who want to end human suffering, but so far all they are willing to do is write chain mails, sign petitions, buy T-shirts and *gasp* form facebook groups.

I'd still have to ask specific questions if I read her book, and since there is no chance I will ever talk to her, I let folks who are more passionate about the issue than I am, which is a lot of people, throw volleys back and forth. In all of that static, I will hopefully find answers to my questions. You said that she didn't specifically address the issue of Israel. I think someone is going to ask that, and it will get quite a few writers very busy.

But how she answers that is going to be an important bit of data for me.

And no, ending human suffering is not a red flag. But how many plans do people have that end up making the problems they want to solve much worse? It's a long list. So, I really have to hear some specifics, in any number of areas, not just concerning Powers, but regarding addressing disease, the issue of fuel, long list.

For me, a red flag isn't necessarily a warning of bad things to come, it's more like something I need to watch. So, when I come across Powers name, I'll read the article rather than skim over it. But I'll be looking for how she sees the issue of Israel, whether the IDF is an extension of a state killing civilians, or if she sees the PLO and Hamas also as agents of a state, funded by Iran and the Saudis, not to mention the EU and the US. If she sees an Likud/Labor dichotomy rather than an issue of Israel's very survival--that tells me something, that she isn't seeing the problem clearly enough to form an effective solution.

That's it. So I wait. I don't have to make up my mind until November, our state already had its primary, and I didn't vote.

Are you insinuating that that's all Samantha Power is willing to do, write chain mails?

Regarding how she would end Genocide, she's written, lectured and reported on this many times.  See here for some of her ideas, which involve a host of options, none of which are mutually exclusive, such as condemnation, economic sanctions, freezing bank accounts of the leaders, and finally military intervention:

http://www.facinghistory.org/Campus/reslib.nsf/all/1C597309452CA3FB8525718100699BA7/$file/preventinggenocidetoolbox.pdf

Naftalia, ok, I understand your position, and I agree with your approach to thoughtfully observe and reflect on what the candidates and their advisors will be saying during the upcoming months.

Regarding your suggestion that Daniel and I are the same person, I'll take that as a complement.

It's kind of cute, actually.  But my goodness your styles are almost identical.  Speaking of which, CSI Miami is on in a while, but first, the news.

Daniel went to Yale.  I barely managed to crawl into a UC school.  Daniel is a writer.  I'm just a lawyer, and the only thing I can write with marginal effectiveness is a license agreement.  I'm an Armenian immigrant, and Daniel is an odar (that means "other" as in "other than Armenian").  We're not the same person.  But again, I certainly do take your confusion as a complement.

I assure you I'm not Phantom. I have much too big an ego to publish anything anonymously.

There you go.  Daniel has pointed out another difference.  I'm apparently a coward and he's the second coming of Charlemagne.

I really don't like repeating myself, but this piece suffers from the exact same fallacy as Hamburger's: (1) There is a smear campaign against Obama.  (2) This campaign lumps together absurd and malicious charges (e.g. radical madrassa myth), along with attacks on Obama's advisers positions on Israel.  (3) Therefore, any criticism of an Obama adviser on Israel is a smear.

This is nonsense, and its nonsense driven by the same "logic" of the ZOA and uber-Israel hawks, which is that advocacy for certain positions (applying more pressure on Israel to make concessions or "exercise restraint") is equivalent to being anti-Israel which is equivalent to being anti-Semitic.

What we now have is a situation where any criticism of someone who  take a Realist or dovish view towards Israel (e.g. believes that the U.S. should apply more pressure on Israel or more frequently restrain Israeli responses to terror) is deemed to be smearing the person as an anti-Semite.  

It would be a lot healthier if we were debating the underlying issues.  (1) When should the US unconditionally support Israel and when should the U.S. apply pressure to change Israeli policy? and (2) Which candidate - Obama, Clinton or McCain is most likely to the offer the ideal combination of unconditional support and pressure.

Sorry phantom, I think you misinterpret me. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with commenting anonymously; simply that I, as a professional writer, would want my byline attached to anything I write.

Cool, thanks for the clarification.

In the case of Dafur:

condemnation, check.

economic sanctions, would hurt the local population more than the leaders, besides they don't do a lot of trading with United States anyway.

freezing bank accounts of the leaders, do they have any bank accounts in the United States?

So it seems military intervention is the only option.

So both Daniel and Phantom studied the relationship between language and logic in different parts of the country (Daniel, I suppose you had to take at least one course on that, but hey, I've been wrong before), and you let mhpine's comments just breeze by. His first paragraph contradicts his other paragraphs--if his points are that smeary tactics are unethical, lumping together apples and oranges is also unethical, and that certain types of criticism on its face ends up false by its dishonest nature.

And in the rest of the post, he does those very things.

Now, if he just wants to win a debate, then anything goes (and all of the ethical umbradge is just wind). Just winning might be his actual point. And I think much of the criticism of Obama might just be coming from the Clinton organization, which is also trying to win. But this is the political process. Which is why I take my time.

And in the rest of the post, he does those very things.

I'm not sure you read my comments clearly.  The first paragraph summed up the Koffler-Hamburger thesis, not my own.  I explicitly reject the idea that simply because right-wing hatchet jobs against Obama include Israel as part of the litany of smears against Obama that all criticism of Obama's advisers on Israel are smears.  Which is precisely the position you took earlier in this thread. 

The rest of my post is neither contradictory nor an attempt to score cheap debating points.  I meant what I said - let's discuss where the candidates stand on the substantive issues on US-Israeli policy, rather than throwing around charges of anti-Semitism and counter-charges of smearing opponents as anti-Semites. 

I see that now. I'll consider myself corrected.

But your rhetorical technique labeled certain points of view as driven by the ZOA and Israeli uber-Hawks--which is the technique you didn't like applied to the other side. That's what prompted my response.

My position isn't quite as cut and dried as you stated.

My position is that after the second intifada, after the withdrawal from Gaza, after the destruction of the Greenhouses within which the Gazans built tunnels to smuggle weapons, after seeing clips from Palestinian television, after this death-worshiping martyr cult seems to have taken root, I think the intentions of the Palestinian powers, whether Fatah or Hamas are pretty clear. And I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume this destructive ideology is shared by the general population, that they simply want to kill every Jew in Israel, and that is just about all that they want. They are certainly picking up no small amount of pocket change towards that end.

And so the issue has changed from one regarding boundaries and territory to one single issue, the survival of the people of Israel. Hamas and Fatah, by their actions, have framed the issue into a yes/no on the propostion of killing Jews.

And that is why the issue of anti-semitism is so easily brought up. The substantive issue is so basic--what exactly is going on there, what are the facts on the ground? If you don't have agreement there, you can't even begin to move towards discussing policy.