Posts

POST A COMMENT

• 
  By Michael Weiss 12/3/08 at 4:46 p.m. UTC

  I might have known as the hours ticked past on the clock you were hard at work on further casuistries and evasions.

  Your nuanced appraisal of Hamas still does not make you a non-supporter of the terrorist organization which can, as you rightly point out, masquerade as a political party. How quaint of you to cite its nasiter exponents who traffick in anti-Semitic blood libel, while conveniently failing to register that Hamas’s very charter does the same. That you have no objections to an ambulance driver who swear upon an oath in part influenced by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the kind of busted-flush moral reasoning that could just as easily be used against you to argue that even the most revanchist Likudnik looks out for his mishpocha.

  But, as you once put it to me in reference to your defense of Hamas actions you do endorse, "When you’re drowning and someone throws you a rope, you don’t ask him if he kicks the dog before you take hold" — a statement that belongs next to the old saw about omelets and eggs in any anthology of cretinous political downplays. But hey, you’re old enough to know better, and I don’t believe in a soul, much less one worth saving.

  For the newbies out there, I support a two-state solution, unlike my friend here who’s more of a binational man. Although I think I’d prefer to call Ismail bi-curious, given that the certain outcome of his dystopian proposal would be the end of both the "Jewish state" and the "state for the Jews," as the original, non-racist Zionist program intended. (Here’s where I’m curious: When you routinely use the word "Zionist" as a mindless epithet and taunt to mean "scoundrel beholden to a grevious nationalist ideology," do you carry in your mind the same historicist sophistication you demonstrated above? Any non-sabra Jew living in Israel is, by definition, a Zionist, even if he works in the Israeli academy — which you would like to see boycotted, tout court — to expose his government’s failures. Or am I reducing things to bumper stickers again?)

  I also oppose Israeli settlements categorically, which means those currently existing and those about to be erected. I am (or was) an avid reader and admirer of Israel Shahak, who’s gone to great lengths to show how the messianic, Gush Emunim contingent of homegrown Jewish fanaticism has infiltrated and corrupted the IDF. And, as Ismail will grudgingly concede after he’s had his morning coffee, I have used this space to rail against haredi-run sweatshops in the West Bank.

  Insofar as these are my stated positions, one would think they’d make me loud and clear with respect to "the ongoing destruction of Palestinian society." That’s a very fine disavowal of euphemism, incidentally, and one that telegraphs an equally muscular use of language in the speaker’s condemnation of all human rights abuses and atrocities such as those inflicted purposefully on Israeli civilians who die after being hit with — what were they, again? — "flying pipes." (I’ll agree to that term if you’ll agree, in your wholly non-propagandist way, to calling a bulldozed home in Ramallah "remixed mortar.")

  "Ron’s point was to throw up his hands at yet another Arab perfidy. No
  one in the Jewcy audience needs to be convinced that impeding travel or
  killing an opponent’s family are wrong-at least when those crimes are
  committed by Arabs (see my earlier remarks about Rosenbaum’s
  indifference to travel restrictions when the victims are Palestinian
  Fulbright scholars)."

  Here’s a useful rule for judging journalists: One who neglects write about subject X is not necessarily "indifferent" to it; he may be uninformed about it or unsure of his opinion. "That’s people for you." You nowhere point to Rosenbaum’s endorsement of travel restrictions on Palestinian Fulbright scholars–that’s just your presumption of his take–and your classification of the above post as his way of clucking, "these fuckin’ wogs, eh?" might itself be classified as a prize-winning case of projection if I didn’t know you better.

  You’re quite the empiricist when it comes to the careful and deliberate dissemination of half-truths and outright bullshit, yet when you encounter a writer who so much mentions the state of Israel without proceeding to spit on the ground and give a roll call of UN resolutions against it, you see an anti-Arab conspiracy. One gets so lost in your reflexive fantasizing of what so-and-so meant to say, as opposed to what so-and-so did in fact say, that one almost forgets that Ron is here defending a Iraqi politician, not Ariel Sharon or Zev Jabotinsky, or the AIPAC board of directors. (By the way, I await Stormfront’s posting of a black thief’s mugshot alongside sympathetic commentary about the poor black storeowner he robbed.)

  How shameful to be tireless in one’s broadcast of Arab malfeasance when the victims of it are Arabs. Yes, I do see what you mean.

  Addendum:  I’ve just checked with Ron over email and he does not endorse travel restrictions on anyone, nor has he ever published or said anything to that effect.
• 
  By Ismail 12/3/08 at 3:05 p.m. UTC

  Whoops. There you go again.

  "…despite your inexplicable support for Hamas…"

  As I’ve explained to you before, my feelings about Hamas are quite a bit more complicated than your remark suggests. For the benefit of the newbies out there, let me recap; I oppose religious states of any variety and so would not welcome an Islamic state in Palestine-bad news for Hamas if they’re looking for my endorsement. I condemn the killing of innocents. To the extent that Hamas has undertaken such crimes, I condemn them.

  Now for the good news. Hamas has not participated in the massive theft from the Palestinian people engineered by Arafat and his successors in Fatah. It has delivered food, education, health care etc.to its constituents. It has put forth a credible military threat to those who murder its people, as patriots ought to do. And please, do not wag your finger at the hurling of flying pipes into Sderot while you remain (nearly) silent about the ongoing destruction of Palestinian society by Israel.

  And yes, I know that some Hamas clerics have made revolting, anti-Semitic remarks. Why anyone would resort to crackpot fictions when Israeli behavior is so condemnable on ordinary humanitatrian grounds I’ll never know, but that’s people for you. Anyway, you know that there are any number of Israelis, both clerics and secular politicians who don’t have the excuse of obeying the commands of a peevish Sky-Daddy, who’ve said equally horrible things about Arabs. I’d argue that their behavior is in fact worse, in much the same way that Richard Pryor making fun of nasal honky speech is more acceptable than a white guy doing Amos ‘n Andy shtick-relations of power make a difference.

  Look, the people of Palestine deserve better than either Fatah or Hamas. But I reject the simplistic equation of Hamas with nothing but terrorism and the attendant proscription of talking with them. This is no way to achieve peace.

  Besides, I’ve had it with those fuckers at Hamas ever since Farfur dissed my mom’s hummus recipe. 

  "…your belief that Israel is the worst aggressor on the planet…"

  When have I made such a statement? This must be your hyperthyroid way of saying that I find no problem with directing criticism at Israel despite there being other malefactors, maybe even worse ones, lurking about the place. As I’ve painstakingly explained before, my position is precisely that a nation need not be "the worst aggressor on the planet" to correctly be the focus of one’s political disapproval. You must stop claiming otherwise.

  "…your conflation of Zionism with racism…."

  Again, let’s be precise. Zionism makes two interesting claims, near as I can tell: First, that Jews constitute a nation, and second, that the best realization of that nation’s interests is to be found in its own state. As for the first, who knows? To paraphrase the excellent old joke, if there were no one left on earth but two Jews, there would be three opinions about what constitutes Jewishness. As for the second, I am no Goldhagen-ite; I believe that history moves on, and that we are happily at a place in which Jews may be assured of full rights and influence in virtually any Western country (insofar as non-western countries go, all bets are off, and not just for Jews). But look, if some Jews think they need a state and they can arrange to found one in agreement with the affected parties, go to town. I have no principled objection-who, besides Naturei Karta types, would?

  So far, no racism. But if we jump from the airy precincts of theory to the actual instantiation of Zionism in Palestine, we have another story. Three-quarters of a million indigenes swept from their homes? Civil privileges reserved for Jewish citizens? Until recently, driver’s licenses distinguishing citizens by nationality? Niceties like building permits doled out effectively according to nationality? Arab areas consistently underfunded in areas of civil necessities (schooling, infrastructure, etc)? Yup, racism.  

  Now, I know you are capable of such cognitive precision as is required to appreciate these points, yet you insist on saddling me with your bumper-sticker version of my beliefs. I can only assume that you do this for the most sordid propagandistic reasons. This is beneath you, and must stop. I’m looking out for your soul, bro.

  "…Ron’s (point) pertained exclusively to the insanity of a capital murder charge leveled against an Iraqi statesman whose only crime was visiting an enemy nation."

  Well, no. Ron’s point was to throw up his hands at yet another Arab perfidy. No one in the Jewcy audience needs to be convinced that impeding travel or killing an opponent’s family are wrong-at least when those crimes are committed by Arabs (see my earlier remarks about Rosenbaum’s indifference to travel restrictions when the victims are Palestinian Fulbright scholars).

  Consider: I’m sure you’ve seen one or two of those noxious sites littering the ether which delight in posting mugshots of African-Americans along with hyperventilating lists of their transgressions. Is it true that Black communities suffer more from certain sorts of crimes than do White ones? Sure. Do ghettos produce a lot of crackheads? Yup-white people prefer their cocaine in more expensive forms. Most of us understand these sad facts as legacies of America’s unhappy racial history. No one is surprised to learn that poverty and discrimination have awful consequences. But the point of such websites is not to inform-it is to gloat and to reinforce ugly stereotypes.

  So it is with Rosenbaum, who is tireless in his broadcast of Arab malfeasance. Or maybe you think there is a benighted constituency out there which needs to be convinced that travel restrictions and killing people are bad policies?

  You are right that Israel imposes no death penalty upon those who transgress its prohibition against travelling to meet with unfavored entities. This is because, for one reason, Israel doesn’t have a death penalty at all-unless you count those carried out without reference to such niceties as courts, hearings etc. Is the death penalty the issue, though? Would Rosenbaum be fine with imprisoning an Iraqi legislator who went to Israel, as Israel has threatened to do to those who would speak to its enemies?

  So here you are, trafficking in those same old manufactured complaints. In light of this, I’ll have to amend my earlier Orson Welles reference: Paul Masson’s promise was, "We will sell no wine before its time". Michael’s appears to be, "I will try to sell the same old whine, time after time".  

   

   

   

   

   
• 
  By Michael Weiss 12/3/08 at 11:01 a.m. UTC

  I harbor some affection for you, too, Ismail, despite your inexplicable support for Hamas, your belief that Israel is the worst aggressor on the planet, and your conflation of Zionism with racism.

  Since you seem determined to miss the point at every turn, Ron’s pertained exclusively to the insanity of a capital murder charge leveled against an Iraqi statesman whose only crime was visiting an enemy nation. You can’t come up with a like example of a Knesset member even tenatively being sentenced to death for a similar infraction. But that’s not a problem because your morally inequivalent recourse is to suggest that, well, Ron would probably find it unwise for a Knesset member to so much as phone up a representative of Hamas. They make a pill for that reductio headache you must experience every morning.

  Oh, and the man Ron stoops to defend was in turn defended by his own party organ, with multiple signatures from intellectuals who were very probably members of that party, too! Will these uncritical defenders of Israel ever fail to surprise in their obfuscatory scandalmongering?

  I’m ego-bound to point out that I also brought you Adam LeBor and Bernard Avishai. Rest assured, however, my fall happened long ago.
• 
  By Ismail 12/3/08 at 10:16 a.m. UTC

  "Was he not aware of it? I hope that’s the reason, rather than that he left it out knowingly."

  Pot, meet kettle. As he suggests that Friedman knowingly omitted a significant datum from his story, Rosenbaum refers to Friedman’s mention of a petition supporting al-Alusi in "an Iraqi newspaper". But Friedman actually names the paper in his piece; it’s "Al-Umma al-Iraqiya". Why is this significant? Because the paper is the house organ of the Iraqi Umma Party. And who leads this party? Why, al-Alusi, of course. So did Rosenbaum leave this fact out on purpose, or did he just not know? Hmmmm?

  More on al-Alusi: upon his return from the Light Unto Nations, he announced that, "In Israel, there is no occupation-there is liberalism". Interesting viewpoint, that, and likely to come as a shock to the besieged indigenes of Palestine. And attending a counterterrorism conference in Israel hardly qualifies the plucky Iraqi for a merit badge. Let’s recall that Israel’s counterterrorism measures include the withholding of pharmaceuticals from infants, forcing a captive population to subsist on animal feed, et al.

  Of course, none of this excuses the brutal and unpardonable extra-judicial killings perpetrated by the monsters who killed al-Alusi’s sons (extra-judicial killings are another counterterrorism measure favored by Israel, let’s remember), and al-Alusi should be free to travel wherever he wishes.

  I wonder if Rosenbaum’s respect for this freedom extends to the Gazan scholars forbidden by their Israeli masters to travel to the universities which have awarded them scholarships? How about the freedom of elderly cancer-ridden farmers to travel for medical treatment? Or the freedom of spouses to visit one another?

  And this is my point. Of course political murder is loathesome, and of course the freedom to travel ought to remain unfettered. But Rosenbaum’s attachment to these values is highly contingent. The political murder of al-Alusi’s sons is horrifying evidence the undying, feral impulses of the Wog, but the political murder of several families in a Gaza apartment block-well, that’s no murder at all, just regrettable collateral damage. Preventing a legislator from meeting with a brutal occupying power-primitivism, pure and simple. And if Israel forbids an MK from talking to, say, Hamas? Good common sense from The Only Democracy in the Middle East.

  This is of a piece with breathless Western reporting on, say, honor killings in Jordan (15 to 20 a year, according to the BBC) despite US per capita rates of murders of women by men far in excess of those in the Hashemite gated community. Of course, the Jordanian killings are performed by exotic sand apes, driven by an unquenchable, prehistoric bloodlust, while American killers of women are properly socialized feminists who’ve just slipped up a little.

  I blame Weiss for this. Despite my inexplicable affection for the little guy, I denounce in the strongest possible terms his packing the joint with such wreckage as Rosenbaum and Chesler, both of them nasty viruses he seems to have picked up during his stay at Pajamas Media. At one time, Michael was responsible for bringing us the excellent Koffler; now, it’s these two. You’re too young for such a disgraceful plummet, Mike. Orson Welles took 30 years to go from "Citizen Kane" to hawking Paul Masson wine. 
• 
  By mwinog2777 12/2/08 at 10:38 p.m. UTC

  Yes, they were gunned down. Maybe you know exactly why, but I cannot.  At that time, with was so much factional killing, we shouldn’t link the trip to the murders.  The murders were in 2005.  The point of the column was that much has changed over the past few years.  I thought it was one of his better columns.  Whether we liked the invasion, or the surge that followed, his point is valid.  Much has changed. 

   

  mwinog2777

Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!