Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Pages

• Home
• Photo Gallery
• Advertising
• Comment Rules
• Subscribe to Posts (per post)
• Tikun Olam Store
• Donate
• Subscribe (daily digest)
• Contact
• About
• Monthly archives
• Terms of Use

46 Responses to “Jerusalem Post Slams My Mumbai Comment is Free Post”

1. Peter D says:

   December 16, 2008 at 5:54 AM

   Ron, I agree that my post was snarky and sarcastic and apologize for that. I wrote it piqued by your comment “You should be ashamed of yourself for what you wrote, but I think you do not have the capacity for honest shame. This may sound pompous, but I think you are a wicked man, in the old meaning of the word.” which is unfair and mean (and I think you should apologize to RS for that). After all, reading your post you main beef with RS is for him not writing the post for the specific audience (Guardian) the way you wanted — ticking a list of platitudes about the horror of the attacks. I don’t think you really believe he is not outraged or that he thinks the main problem with people being tortured is the setback to Jewish-Muslim relations and other nonsense like that. You concede his point that at least some of the motivation for the attacks was “cynical manipulation”, so, again, the re is no real disagreement here but that of terminology.
   Taking people’s words and intentions out of context is very easy — I could attack your comments, for example, for having a racist bent: why do you spend so much of your outrage on the Jewish victims while vastly larger number of dead in the attacks were not Jewish? Why don’t you start with something like “while I condemn the killings of all the innocent victims of the attacks…” etc? Why don’t you even mention the non-Jewish victims of the attacks? See, that’s easy, yet silly, because your comments were dealing with a specific aspect of the story.

   Reply
2. Mark Gardner says:

   December 16, 2008 at 6:15 AM

   @ Richard S:

   “I am a Jewish progressive. Any site that attacks me consistently is ipso facto not progressive.”

   They didn’t attack you for being progressive or non progressive.

   1.They attacked you saying that Mumbai killings were anti-Israel not antisemitic (See Ron’s post for why that might not go down too well).

   2. They were made far angrier by the fact you’d done this on Guardian CiF.

   Still, being called “right wing” is, I suppose, better than being called a “Jewish jihadi” or “little Jewish holy warrior”

   Reply
3. Mark Gardner says:

   December 16, 2008 at 6:20 AM

   @ Richard S:

   “Oh please. THe JPost article referred to COMMENTERS at those sites and Petra. They all in their individual attacks on me represent Jewish right wing views.”

   Its a Jewish right wing view to get pissed with someone whom you (rightly or wrongly) believe to be going easy on antisemitic murderers? Do us a favour!

   Reply
4. Richard Silverstein says:

   December 16, 2008 at 11:44 PM

   @Mark Gardner:
   

   going easy on antisemitic murderers?

   It is simply a lie or total ignorance to claim that I “went easy” on the terrorists. I did nothing of the sort.

   And btw, I’d like you, Harry’s Place, Engage, Petra and Alex to stew on this terrific piece written by Shaul Magid, Jewish studies professor at Indiana University, which comes at Mumbai fr. a slightly diff. angle than I, but which raises essentially the same pts. & draws very similar conclusions. I only wish I had known about Magid’s piece when I’d written my CiF piece.

   Now, I dare all of you to call Magid an “evil human being,” self-hating Jew, “half Arab,” “terrorist apologist,” etc. Grapple with his thesis & then get back to me.

   Reply
5. Mark Gardner says:

   December 17, 2008 at 2:37 AM

   Spot the difference between what I wrote and what Richard Silverstein then accused me of saying: (Hint – its the bit in the brackets)

   Me:

   “Its a Jewish right wing view to get pissed with someone whom you (rightly or wrongly) believe to be going easy on antisemitic murderers?”

   Richard Silverstein:

   “going easy on antisemitic murderers?

   It is simply a lie or total ignorance to claim that I “went easy” on the terrorists. I did nothing of the sort.”

   Reply
6. Mark Gardner says:

   December 17, 2008 at 2:53 AM

   That was indeed a terrific article by Shaul Maggid. Compared to your own piece it is in a different league all together.

   It makes many complex points in a calm and rational analysis that explains different perspectives without casting value judgements upon them.

   It ensures that the “anti-Israel” terrorism argument is not open to misinterpretation or politcial abuse by those who are bascially hostile to our community and often to the very existence of Israel.

   It is not in Guardian CiF of all places.

   In its closing paragraphs it shows a keen understanding of the dangers arising from putting your enemies or critics into ideological boxes of hatred.

   This is EXACTLY why I have tried to take you to task for ridiculously and dangerously defining your critics as “Jewish jihadis”; “little Jewish holy warriors” and “right wingers”. Here, read Maggid’s closing paragraphs again, and see if you get the message this time: (if not, try reading it twice).

   “Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists agree with Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Some Jews may even practice another religion. But these distinctions, important as they are, are largely lost in the politics of terror. Hatred erases distinctions, violence has no time for subtlety. Innocent civilians died; some Jews, some not. Some of the “Jews were Israelis,” one was an anti-Zionist, two may have been non-Zionists. Jew and Israeli are not synonymous. And all anti-Israelism is not anti-Semitism.

   The figure of the Jew is a complex one and to flatten it by suturing it to a political reality, good or bad, is unfortunate. Maybe Schneershon was right, maybe the only real weapons to fight hatred are the weapons of mitzvot, charity, and acts of kindness. That is what the Holtzmans believed in, and that is what they died for.

   Reply
7. Danny Bloom says:

   December 17, 2008 at 6:14 AM

   you were right….i watched the whole thing unfold here in taiwan on
   CNN tv screen…they attacked Chab for Israeli connection, nothing
   against Jews as Jews….you are right….sigh…..only a few
   understand this

   keep writing this way

   Reply
8. Danny Bloom says:

   December 17, 2008 at 6:48 AM

   There is another possible explanation for targeting the jewish community here that has nothing to do with anti-semitism or the Middle East. As anyone who has been in the north-western regions of India (including Kashmir) over the past few years would know, its not unknown to see guesthouses with ‘no Israeli’ signs up. Its nothing (to my knowledge) to do with anti-semitism as it is known in the west (an alien concept to most Indians), its simply that young Israeli backpackers are deeply unpopular up there, for reasons that are obvious to anyone who has had to share a guesthouse or cafe with some of the them. Israeli backpackers are to some Indians what boozed up Brit sunseekers are to the Spanish or German sex tourists are to Thais.

   Reply
9. Acai Berri says:

   December 17, 2008 at 2:08 PM

   Perhaps this piece was written so Richard can write more often for the Guardian.

   Reply
10. Richard Silverstein says:

    December 17, 2008 at 2:15 PM

    @Mark Gardner: You’re not reading for comprehension unfortunately. I said it was a lie to accuse me of going easy on terrorists. Where did I accuse YOU of perpetrating the lie? And yes it IS a right wing view to see me as going easy on Mumbai terrorists.

    Reply
11. Richard Silverstein says:

    December 17, 2008 at 2:18 PM

    @Mark Gardner: There is absolutely no difference bet. my views and Magid’s. There may be a stylistic diff. & I didn’t deal w. the issue of Israeli citizenship per se. But otherwise, our arguments are almost identical. So I suggest that the problem here doesn’t lie w. me but with yr readiness to see me as the enemy.

    The fact that the managing editor of Religion Dispatches, where this article was published, sent me the article & asked me to begin writing for the site only reiinforces that some people with less of an axe to grind understand this.

    Reply
12. Richard Silverstein says:

    December 17, 2008 at 2:31 PM

    @Danny Bloom: This comment appeared verbatim at CiF. Alex rebutted it there & now he’s going to rebut it here. Pls. don’t duplicate comments you’ve already published at another site.

    I’m making no judgment on the validity of the comment. It may be for all I know. Just don’t recycle.

    Reply
13. Mark Gardner says:

    December 18, 2008 at 2:10 AM

    @ Richard S:

    Its not a mere stylistic difference its a deep qualitative one.

    Perhaps more importantly, its about location and what your readership at that location take from it.

    If you’d posted your article on your own site, or even on Jerusalem Post or Settlers Monthly, then I’d never have bothered. Guardian CiF however, is playing with fire.

    Still, we’ve been here before, probably at least two weeks ago now.

    Reply
14. Richard Silverstein says:

    December 19, 2008 at 3:14 PM

    @Mark Gardner:
    

    Its not a mere stylistic difference its a deep qualitative one.

    That’s horse manure. The “qualitative” difference is in yr own mind & the minds of the readers of Jpost, Engage & Harry’s Place. And I’m not sure “quality” is the adjective I’d most attribute to all of you. So I’ll rest content that those who solicit my work for publication outside this blog, including the editor who solicited Shaul Magid’s work have an appreciation of the “deep qualitative similarity” bet. my work & authors like Magid. Somehow the fact that I don’t persuade people like you doesn’t much concern me.

    But do keep reading CiF. No doubt you’ll find equally offensive work by me there in the near future.

    Reply
15. Mottel says:

    January 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM

    What say you about this: http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1218869&pageid=0 ?

    “Think 26/11, and images of the carnage at the Taj come to mind. But the terrorists themselves were in no doubt that Nariman House was the prime focus. For this was the place which housed a Jewish centre, and the fanatics from Pakistan were clear that they wanted to send a message to the world from there. . . . When asked during interrogation why Nariman House was specifically targetted, Ajmal reportedly told the police they wanted to sent a message to Jews across the world by attacking the ultra orthodox synagogue.“

    Reply
    • Richard Silverstein says:

      January 7, 2009 at 9:57 PM

      First, this is not a quote from Kassab but rather a paraphrase. Second, it uses the glaring term “reportedly,” which renders the statement devoid of credibility. Third, this characterization directly contradicts the Times of India’s statement. I know which version I’d choose.

      Reply