.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Noa Does a ‘Benny Morris,’ Calls Hamas ‘Nazi-Like’”.
Tags: hamas, israeli-music, mira-awad
Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place
Essays on politics, culture and ideas about Israeli-Arab peace and world music
Recent Posts
- Abbas to Head Fatah-Hamas Unity Government Till Planned Elections
- Rabbi Joseph Lukinsky, May His Memory Be for a Blessing
- Widening Regional Escalation Anticipated After Israeli Attack on Iran
- IDF Torturer Doron Zahavi Wants to Sodomize Arabs and Get Medal for It
- Is Israel’s Iranophobia Virus Contagious?
- Turkey’s Erdogan, Paul Auster Debate Relative Press Freedom in Israel, Turkey
- Obama Administration: U.S. Would ‘Come to Israel’s Defense’ If Iran Attacked It
- If You Want to Be Shin Bet Chief, Get on Sara’s Good Side
Categories
- Arts & Crafts/ Architectural Preservation
- Blogs-Tech-Science
- Children & Family
- Film-TV-Media
- Folk & World Music
- Food and Drink
- Gardening
- Hudson River Valley
- Humor
- Jews & Judaism
- Mideast Peace
- Outdoors
- Politics & Society
- Seattle
- The Arts
- Travel
Mideast Peace
- Abraham’s Vision
- Alison Ramer
- Alternative Information Ctr
- Anarchists Against the Wall
- Arena of Speculation
- Aron’s Israel Peace Blog
- Australian Jewish Democratic Society
- City of Brass
- Daoud Kuttab
- Emily Hauser
- Encounter Programs
- Gaza Gateway
- Gaza Human Rights Blog
- Gaza Mom
- Gaza Today
- Geneva Initiative
- Grassroots Jerusalem
- Hagada Hasmalit
- HaOkets העוקץ
- Helena Cobban: Just World News
- Hybrid States
- Ibn Ezra
- Islamicate
- Israel-Palestine Ctr for Research & Information
- Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
- Jewish Peace Lobby
- Jews for Justice for Palestinians
- Jewschool
- JNews
- Just Vision
- Lawrence of Cyberia
- Lingua Imperii Israel
- Live From…
- Loonwatch
- Magnes Zionist
- Middle East Alliance
- Mideast Brief
- Mideastwire
- Mondoweiss
- Musings of a Muslim
- Muzzlewatch
- Mya Guarnieri
- Negev Co-Existence Forum
- Nur-al Cubicle
- Occupation Magazine
- Palestine Think Tank
- Palestine-Israel Journal
- Peace Now
- Peace Oil
- Political Islam Online
- Progressive Jewish Alliance
- Promised Land
- Rabbi Brian's Blog
- Ray Hanania
- Refuser Solidarity Network
- Religion & State in Israel
- Revealing Gaza
- Roi Word
- Rua da Judiaria
- Sam Bahour
- Shalom Rav
- Sheikh Jarrah
- Stephen Walt
- Strategic Assessments Initiative
- Syd’s Blog
- The Media Line
- The Only Democracy
- The Third Way
- The Villages Group
- Things and Stuff
- TikkunTree Project
- Velveteen Rabbi
- Wallwritings
- Window into Palestine
- Women’s Lens
- Zochrot
My Sites
Progressive Blogs (and One Conservative)
- Banned by Kos
- Challenging Christian Zionism
- Global Voices
- Jesus’ General
- Jews on First
- Jon Swift
- MaxSpeak, You Listen!
- Transatlantikblog
Tech/Blogs
Follow Tikun Olam
Books I Love
CDs/DVDs: Give a Look & Listen
![Image of West-East Divan [DVD Video]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51vPRxjvAhL._SL110_.jpg "West-East Divan [DVD Video]")
Moje,
Why don’t you CONSISTENTLY condemn all use of torture, including that described as conducted by Hamas?
During the Gaza War, they took the opportunity to summarily execute “SUSPECTED” Israeli informants, mostly associated with Fatah.
That is not even close to what Lieberman proposes to “disloyal” Arab supporters of Hezbollah during similarly times of war.
If you treat mutual assault (and terror) as only oppression, then you ignore the reality, and apply inneffective medicine to the problem.
I will proudly attend a pro-Israel demonstration that sincerely presents itself as pro-fair and just peace, and I will walk away from one that expresses any racism toward Arabs or contempt for Palestinian condition and aspiration.
I will proudly attend a demonstration that is critical of Israel that sincerely presents as pro-fair and just peace, and I will walk away from one that expresses ANY sentiment of “Zionism is racism” as a formula.
Yesterday, I attended a pro-Israel pro-fair and just peace demonstration in Amherst, MA, organized by two Jewish Hampshire College students that opposed the divestment petition and primarily violently condemning tone of the petition leaders.
Pro fair and just peace.
How do you get there? Not by ignoring fact that is inconvenient to a side’s propaganda, and not by hate in any form, and not by the active or even passive support of terror on civilians.
You can’t really get around it. Terror must stop for there to be any progress at all. It is an INVALID means of dissent.
And, to suggest otherwise is a brutality to the term “tikkun olam”, which is why I repeatedly suggest that Richard change his brand name.
Again, Richard. Did you see the movie “The Mission”?
Witty,
I don’t like Hamas, I never have. Any person that tortures/kills another person has dick issues as far as I’m concerned and should be publicly humiliated as such.
However, I’m a firm believer in justice. For me to condemn one side of a conflict would be to excuse the other side. I cannot do that. So in answer to your question: The day I “CONSISTENTLY condemn all use of torture, including that described as conducted by Hamas” is the day Israel consistently condemns torture of Palestinian political and civilian prisoners. The day Israel lifts the (torture) blockade of Gaza. The day Israel declares it is willing to negotiate peace and/or settlement with the Palestinians. You can’t ask me, today, to condemn Hamas torture only for me to read in tomorrow’s paper how Israel and some western superpower has provoked them in to further acts of barbarism in order to assert their authority. Where does one draw the line?
Hamas is nothing more than a bunch of ragtag fanatics. But to me, the bigger problem is the Israeli occupation and all that it entails.
I commend you for attending the rally you mentioned. But lately, with the I/P situation worsening (maybe even at its lowest in decades) I’m starting to wonder if Israel and Justice and Peace can co-exist or if it’s just a contradiction in terms.
I do expect you to condemn Hamas torture if you become aware of it, and to condemn Israeli torture if/when you become aware of it.
In that way, you will be dissenting against torture, rather than picking one torturer’s side.
Have you written to your congressman to condemn the torture of innocent Iraqis and prisoners held in Guantanamo?
Believe me Witty, being Muslim myself when Hamas tortures, to me, it becomes personal. But excusing context is, on your part, an epic fail.
You can sit here and condemn Hamas until you’re blue in the face but it won’t change the fact that Israel is the occupier and the Palestinians are the occupied. Israel is the oppressor and the Palestinians are the oppressed. For me, oppression is the worst form of torture. And this torture has been going on for more than sixty years. Condemn that.
I see it as conflict, not primarily oppression.
The reason for that observation is that I identify oppressive efforts extending in multiple directions. For example, the prohibition from Jews owning land (even as prospective Palestinian citizens) in the West Bank, strikes me as an oppressive effort (whether it is the chicken or the egg is of no significance).
Seeing the problem as conflict rather than as oppression affords the opportunity to clarify needs, even angers, as peers worthy and deserving of respect. Oppression is language that enables dismissal of the other. To my mind, the dehumanization of the other is THE problem. That the political and other means are tangible design problems that can be mostly reconciled. (There probably are some needs/demands that are mutually exclusive. There still are likely solutions, but then require mutual renunciation of demands.)
Towards that tangible design, the other IMPORTANT effort for a dissenter that actually wants to accomplish change, is to identify what SPECIFICALLY constitutes an oppressive relationship that can be changed. In that way, the specific reforms to a potentially co-existing relationship can be described, communicated, considered.
There are many dissenters against Israel that have no room in their minds in any way for Israel to exist as Israel. When those speak of “the occupation”, they are not seeking to reform to conditions of co-existence, but to remove.
Witty,
You can sugar coat it all you like with a term such as ‘conflict’, but in the end what’s taking place on the ground is, literally, oppression.
The time for identifying what specifically constitutes an oppressive relationship that can be changed has long past. It’s been in your face for sixty or so years. If you’ve failed to identify it by now, you’re hardly likely to after another sixty years are you? Actually, you’ve identified the problem of ‘dehumanisation’, I’ll give you that – but again, on the ground, what has dehumanisation accomplished? It has legitimised the oppression. And legitimate oppression is worse than illegitimate oppression because it ensures the international community will turn the other cheek – as history has proven.
To the list of dissenters against Israel that have no room in their minds in any way for Israel to exist as Israel I would add Israelis themselves to the very top of that list. Rather than swiftly and justly resolve a conflict of their own making they would choose to fall on their own grenade, as it were. And no, criticising the occupation does not warrant the end of Israel and co-existence, it is merely criticism – that Israel should be making the most of. It would seem, Witty, that my argument with you has come full circle. Hardly surprising.
Oh, you mean Lieberman’s public call in the Knesset to string up Arab MKs by the lamp post was different than summary execution? Or perhaps you’re claiming that Lieberman would convene a court of some sort before the hanging? Certainly not the Israeli Supreme Court which he detests. Maybe a Moldovan style kangaroo court since he’s originally from that lovely country? He’d surely want Baruch Marzel and Dov Wolpe on his judicial panel as disinterested parties.
An anti-divestment demonstration that favored peace? Howso? The only content of the demonstration you mentioned was opposition to divestment. I see that’s being “fair” to Israel. But how is it “fair” to Palestine & how does it advance a pro-peace agenda?
Speakers consistently referred to the condition of Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank, including settlement construction, and urged Israel to apply policies and practises that facilitated a viable Palestine.
Not all did. Some expressed more right-wing sentiments, and didn’t get much applause.
Enough for me to regard the intent as there, with details to fill in and correct.
The rally was a contrast to the divestment approach, which the peace advocating Hampshire students that organized the rally described as coercive, censorial, and periodically fascistic on that campus. (A couple of students have left Hampshire because of the rancorous tone. So, even if you laugh at Dershowitz comments, they are at least partially observation, not just threat.)
The behavior of a minority portion (maybe 20%) of the counter-rally, pro-divestment, anti-Zionist, was aggressive, taunting, threatening.
It was an observably stark contrast.
In 1999, I worked in the adminstrative offices of Hampshire, and know their policies and processes more than folks here. I worked in fiscal oversight of grant funding, and other accounting functions.
Hamas attacked Israel unilaterally, over years, NOT in response to specific incidents.
Finkelstein is rationalizing.
I don’t support Likud in any way, or Israel Beitanyu. I oppose their initiation and encouragement of settlement construction and expansion. I oppose their unencumbered free market ideology. I oppose their inconsistent application of the rule of law.
I do NOT apologize for Hamas in any way, and it is complicity in continuing crime for dissenters that are otherwise motivated by compassion for Palestinians’ condition, to do so.
When Hamas renounces terror on civilians as its chosen means of “dissent”, then there is some prospect of co-existence. Until then, Hamas’ behavior towards Israeli civilians remains criminal and any prospect of forced opening of borders by dissent, is a fantasy.
“When Hamas renounces terror on civilians as its chosen means of ‘dissent’, then there is some prospect of co-existence.” Are you suggesting a final peace settlement lies with Hamas? This is beyond laughable, what planet are you on? What about Fatah and the West Bank, why don’t they settle with Israel as an example to those in Gaza?
Hamas elected Netanyahu.
Hamas has so much influence over the context of the conflict that dissenters’ description of its status as victim is ludicrous.
If Hamas had a consistent even conditional approach towards Israel, then your points might be valid.
But, its contempt and rejection of Israel remains unconditional. Nothing therefore can change for Palestinians to the extent that they are in power in any manner.
Israel as a sovereign state has the RIGHT to close its borders to another entity that is in active war with it. Egypt does similarly.
It is adolescent immaturity on the part of Hamas to FAIL to rise to its role as prospectively governing.
Then who elected Hamas – Ehud Olmert? Your lack of ability to see context is disturbing. No member of Hamas had control over Olmert’s grand theft of the treasury, and certainly no control over the pathetic leadership of the Israeli left.
BTW, Gaza is not at war with Egypt. And the coast of Gaza is certainly NOT an Israeli border.
IRT above usage of the word “conflict” v. “oppression”
Israelis are free to drive from Haifa to Eilat, and from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. They are free to engage in their (regulated!) vital market economy, as well as freely move out of the country to tour India or make yerida to the United States. Now this is ALL despite attacks from Hamas potentially stifling freedom of movement. Palestinians could only wish they had such luxury.
Some of Palestine’s lack of liberties can be blamed on their own government (in particular freedom of speech, association, and assembly), but neither Hamas nor the PLO closed down borders, built up walls, or set up checkpoints that crush any hopes of Bibi’s vision of “economic peace”.
Lets put Palestine on the map, by assertion, by commitment.
Lets leave Israel on the map, and condemn any permanent attempt to remove it.
Lets insist that Hamas put Palestine on the map, by confidently accepting that Israel is on the map.
“Can you not even acknowledge Finkelstein’s point that Has only resumed attacks in retaliation to Israel’s attack on them?”
Not only is this not true, even Hamas doesn’t claim it’s true.
“As for “fundamental documents”, if you bother to look at Likud’s platform you’ll see they don’t accept Palestinians right to exist either.”
I don’t know what the Likud platform says but the state of Israel has already accepted a two state solution when it accepted the Annapolis framework. In theory the Palestinians also accepted it, but Hamas has said id will not honor agreements reached with the PA. The Likud on the other hand says it will accept prior agreements.
Hamas ended the Tahadiyah because it wanted to extract concessions from Israel by terrorizing its civilian population.
This is a lie.
Why not, you’re a fine upstanding Israeli rightist. Netanyahu is going to be the next P.M. & determine Israel’s policy regarding a 2-state or no-state solution. You’d think you’d want to know what Likud has to say about this (unless you already agree that the Palestinians don’t deserve a state of their own).
What nonsense. Likud will no more allow the creation of a Palestinian state during its term than the Lubavitcher rebbe would eat ham.
Once again, there are some who would like to forget that Israel dropped the first attacks on the day Barack Obama got elected. Hamas honored the ceasefire in spite of attacks continuing to be launched from within its borders. It only ended the ceasefire when Israel violated it..
How about you stop putting the chicken before the egg and come to terms with the fact that Israel has been wiping Palestine off the map since long before Hamas existed. Pushing the onus onto Hamas here is absurd.
Lazy,
Finkelstein is adept at discouraging dialog outside of his pre-requisite that all agree that nothing that Israel does is understandable, rational, just in any way.
It makes dialog difficult.
I love much about Israel, and criticize much. I love that dissenters that are motivated by compassion for all humans, act that.
I am disturbed when in the name of compassion, dissent adopts a punitive approach.
Richard Witty,
I disagree with Finkelstein one quite a few things but I don’t think this is a fair characterisation of his position at all. You seem to have taken some soundbites as representing the entire thrust of his approach. Not that he is above criticism but I don’t think this is a particularly powerful criticism of him. He is actually very open to dialog and interaction with people opposed to him and whenever I have seen him and interacted with him he has been almost obscenely polite, even when I have been rude to him. You do him a disservice in your comments on him not being open. He does not share the same assumpstions or movtivations as you do but that is not a bar to having engaged and constructive dialog.
Re the rest of what you say it is of a personal nature so I won’t comment on most of it. I think it is very clear that you feel strongly towards Israel and ‘love’ it as you say you do. It is difficult to see how this has not hampered your understanding of the subject. I have two close Israeli friend from my time at university and we argue a lot about various things. While we have differences over the Palestinian issue we don’t argue that much simply because they are aware of the reality of what is going on; the only difference being that having an attachment to Israel and to their interpretation of mainstream Zionism they feel regrettably that they have no choice. They don’t pretend to defende their actions on any grounds of morality or compassion because they have not deluded themselves into beleiving that this is possible. While I disagree strongly with their position, I respect it since we don’t disagree over the main details merely on the conclusions we reach from it.
Your problem seems to be somewhat different; you claim you criticise much; but from what I can see the vast bulk of your criticisms are always directed either at Hamas, Fatah or some other Palestinian target. You hardly ever criticise Israeli action or ideology unless forced to accept a point by another commenter and then only to qualify and hedge it with excuses and rationales which seek to put the blame back on the Palestinians. Maybe I am being overly harsh on you since I haven’t been reading this blog for very long but this seems to be my impression. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that you basically are a pro-Israeli apologist in that for you the blame and responsibility for any problem and outbreak of violence wil inevitably be Palestinian, Arab etc. bascially any source but Israel.
I have a lot of admiration for the early generation of Zionist leaders and pioneers; however in their vision of settlement and establishment and in the nationalist values they esposused and bequeathed, “compassion” was certainly not one of them. your desire for ‘compassion’ etc may come from a number of sources but I feel it does not match well with the reality of Israel today nor did it match with the reality of Israel in the past. It is the same with all nations.
You say you “love Israel”; to me this is actually a troubling statement. Like many who profess a love of nation, in this case I feel that you have created a vision of the object of your desire that bears little relation to the Real. I hold little hope that anything I say or that anyone can say will change this; for such is not the relationship between the object of desire and the desiring subject. And alas, love as well all know is all too often blind.
To (mis)quote Huxley on hearing Darwin’s theory:
“How stupid of me not to have thought of that!”
I wish I’d written this post.
“He does not share the same assumpstions or movtivations as you do but that is not a bar to having engaged and constructive dialog.”
I had extensive e-mail correspondence with him, in which I very respectfully disagreed with his comments, to which he responded that I was the equivalent of a “holocaust denier” for not adopting his conclusions. I’m glad that he responded to your rude comments civilly. He responded to my civil comments rudely.
I said that “there was much that I love about Israel”, close to but also with a different inflection than your “paraphrase”.
I had extensive e-mail correspondence with him, in which I very respectfully disagreed with his comments, to which he responded that I was the equivalent of a “holocaust denier” for not adopting his conclusions. I’m glad that he responded to your rude comments civilly. He responded to my civil comments rudely.
Finkelstein can be very brusque, some people are like that paritcularly those with very strict standards and views on life, I don’t think this is rudeness we need to judge people differently. He had always been polite to me in email exchanges; the incident I am referring to was a personal encounter where we met and I was unfortunately quite rude to him verbally and physically in the heat of the arguement, which I now deeply regret. To his credit this has never been brought up by him in our subsequent meetings.
I can’t comment on your exchange with him since I don’t know the details but it would be unlikely that I would agree with your assessment of him even if I were privy to the details. He makes very strong judgements and assertions which people may find rude but if you interact with him directly in person you will find that this is not his character.
I said that “there was much that I love about Israel”, close to but also with a different inflection than your “paraphrase”.
I am sorry to have misquoted you, that was my error – my English isn’t perfect and I write too quickly sometimes. My point though still isn’t really affected that much. I think yoiu have idealised certain conceptions about Israel, which is far removed from the reality. removing them won’t make you agree with me or anybody else on this side of the divide; but it will change your appreciation of the facts on the ground. This is one reason why it is generally much easier to debate these issues with Israelis than it is with their supporters based abroad; the former don’t share the illusions that the latter labour under.
Also completel off-topic, can I just say that Mira Awad looks very hot!!!
“The term siege could be applied to fifty or so land-locked countries…”
Are you so ignorant as to believe Gaza is landlocked, or are you just being intentionally disingenuous here?
More apt to call Gaza “Israel-locked” than “land-locked.”
Richard – what about Rafah?
Witty is talking about Gaza & claiming there are 50 OTHER nations under siege. Try again.
It’s sas long as the Egyptians maintain their policy on Rafah, it’s still inaccurate to refer to Gaza as ‘Israel-locked’, whatever this fellow Witty may or may not say.
Alex, from what I understand Egypt maintains its blockade of Gaza mainly under pressure from Israel and the US. In other words, were it not for that pressure, Egypt would have lifted its blockade, as it has more to gain than lose from such a move. I haven’t researched this too deep, though. Will appreciate any pointers anybody could supply.
Actually, I have reason to believe that Mubarak wants to keep Hamas at bay. Hamas and the Islamic Brotherhood (the bane of Mubarak’s existence) are joined at the hip, and any empowerment of Hamas empowers the IB and threatens the Pharaoh’s own power base. Open crossings between Gaza and Egypt might benefit Egypt as a whole more, but keep in mind that Egypt as a whole does NOT call the shots.
That’s not to say that Mubarak doesn’t have plenty of support/pressure from Israel and the West.
OK, but it is arguable what empowers Hamas more – closed border or open border. In fact, it is more nuanced: it seems to me that closed border empowers mostly the militant wing (the Damascus leadership and the young radicals on the ground) while open border empowers mostly the pragmatical wing. Thus, if my thesis is correct, Mubarak is actually shooting himself in the foot by empowering the wrong guys (Israel does too, only in this case it is all but obvious it being not a mistake but rather a deliberate strategy.) Since I don’t believe he is that stupid, in addition to all the domestic problems the role of Egypt in the blockade fosters, it seems reasonable to me that Mubarak is first and foremost doing the US-Israel bidding. (Still have to search the web to find whether there is a good, credible analysis besides me talking out of my ass…)
Afghanistan, Iran, Mali, Niger, Chad, Ethiopia, Uganda, Zambia, Mozambique, Botswana, Lesotho, Rwanda, Burundi, Switzerland, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Bosnia, Macedonia, Andorra, Lichtenstein, Armenia, Azerbhaijan, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Krgystan, Tajikistan, Nepal, Laos, Palestine, Bolivia, Paraquay are all definitively landlocked.
Thats around 30.
Another large number have very limited borders, comparable to Gaza (if it were a state).
For each of those communities to thrive, they need to retain (and/or construct) good relations with their immediate neighbors.
Hamas on the other hand shells civilians, and foments revolution, in its immediate neighbors, complying with the “encouragement” of Iran.
“But when it all comes down to it you both serve similar functions. Yes, you are better than a 2 bit apologist, but only by a little.”
Only in relation to terror could you say that. And, if you adopted an actual principled refutation of terror as means, then you would conclude oppossite, that I am in fact ENGAGED in supporting Jewish awareness of the nakba for example, and ENGAGED in collaborative efforts to improve Palestinian life.
You forgot Jordan. Also, Gaza has a coastline that would be open if not for the Israeli blocade! Now who’s selling the Bridge in Brooklyn?
Peter – needless to say I think it’s a bit more complicated, although obviously that’s one factor. There’s also the obvious domestic concerns – fears about Muslim Brotherhood, fears of suddenly becoming fully responsible for Gaza.
Sure, I heard these arguments, I also heard counterarguments. In general , it seems reasonable to me that the blockade undermines the regime domestically more than its lift would have; thus, external influence needs to be accounted for. Again, I could be wrong. Are you aware of any credible analysis on that that I could read? I will search myself, of course, as well.
Nothing offhand, although I think your counterargument is based on certain assumptions about Egyptian public opinion (not to mention how the regime reacts to that public opinion).
Repairing the world demands confrontation with those who craft graven images of it; your incessant fixation on Hamas’s terrorism while ignoring Israel’s own being one notable example.
[...] Rizzo and Richard Silverstein have already outlined the racism of Awad’s partner in whitewashing, Noa. « [...]
Direct quotes from the HAMAS charter:
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”
“After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).
-So, lets see…the “freely and democratically elected” (just like the Nazis) representatives of the Palestinian people calls for genocide against Jews, calls peace initiatives “vain endeavors”, and invokes the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in their CHARTER. Then these same “resistance fighters” launch thousands of rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilians and the world blames Israel for there not being peace?!?!?!? If this isn’t anti-Semitism, I really don’t know what is…
I can’t think of anything more tedious than respond for what feels like the 80th time to people who quote the Hamas Charter (circa 1988) as if it is the Magna Carta & U.S. Constitutional rolled up into one. It may surprise you, but the NY Times wrote a piece about the Charter and asked Hamas leaders if they knew these quotes were in the Charter. Many of them swore it could not be so. When told they were they had no idea these passages existed. In other words, a 20 yr old document sits in mothballs in someone’s closet and on the browser screens of the extreme pro-Israel crowd like notamoron. This document means nothing to anyone except those who wish to use it to browbeat Hamas.
If you want to do that you’ll have to find something more timely, more relevant & more operative. Show me a current senior Hamas leader who’s advocated any of these views. You can’t. So give it a rest.
Oh, wow. I hope everyone reads this one. What you’re saying is that I (a random American) know more about the basic, fundamental Hamas charter from doing a simple google search, than Hamas’ own leaders?!? Come on, even an anti-Israel partisan like you needs to realize how ridiculous that is. You’re implying that Hamas leaders are incredibly stupid. “Many of them swore it could not be so” LOL. Well it so, now they know, so now they should change it. Maybe it isn’t obvious to the mentally deficient Hamas leaders (what you think) but to most people, a document calling for the genocide of Jews while many in Israel are survivors or children of survivors of the worst genocide in recent history would expectedly lead to more than a little anxiety and a strong reaction. “Show me a current senior Hamas leader who’s advocated any of these views. You can’t. ” Do you really want me to do another quick google search of recent statements made by Hamas leaders? It’s only going to further undermine your argument. Hamas is an anti-Semitic, vile, terrorist organization. So, you give it a rest.
I’m disturbed by the fact that I specifically told you that the NY Times did a story in which they queried Hamas leaders about the Charter & they were so unfamiliar w. it & it had so little to do with their lives that when read passages fr it they specifically denied that they could be in it. That’s how irrelevant the Charter is to Hamas. So get off the Charter. I’m sick & tired of this stupid issue. Bring it up again & your future comments WILL be moderated.
Further, READ MY COMMENT RULES. Call the leaders of Hamas “mentally deficient” one more time & you’ll not only be in violation of the rules, but you’ll be in danger of losing yr comment privileges. Ad hominem attacks on Israelis or Palestinians or your inane sort are treif. Note bene (“mark this well”).
When I said you can’t find statements by senior Hamas leaders calling for genocide against Jews that’s what I meant. Don’t bother asking me whether I want you to do a Google search or not. I don’t care what you do. I’m just stating a fact.
You obviously misunderstood me. I do not consider Hamas leaders to be mentally deficient. I was saying that if you were right (which you are not) and they didn’t even bother reading their own founding charter than they must be. Here’s a good quote by a Hamas leader I found after searching for less than a minute on google:
“Before Israel dies, it must be humiliated and degraded. Allah willing, before they die, they will experience humiliation and degradation every day.”
-Dr. Mahmud Al-Zahar, Hamas leader in Gaza, Washington Times, February 4, 2006
- But I guess any sort of language or brainwashing is okay as long as it is against Israel, right? If anyone is interested I can also find some nice video footage of what they teach their children in Hamas controlled Gaza and other parts of the Arab and Islamic world, but I think I’ll spare you all for the time being.
Humilitation and degradation are not the same as genocide, which is what you claim that Hamas believes. Humilitation and degradation are what Israel metes out to the Palestinians every day in one form or another. Yet I don’t even believe Israel wants to commit genocide against the Palestinians.
Try again.
See here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/12/israel
Richard – I understand the point that the significance of the Hamas charter is exaggerated. Given the bad effect it has on Hamas PR, though, why don’t they just change it? Especially if it doesn’t hold any significance? What would be the big problem in changing it?
As far as I know, there are several “versions” of what the Charter actually says. I am a translator (not in Arabic though) and I can attest that there are a series of acceptable, legitimate AND VASTLY DIFFERENT ways to interpret and translate a text. At any rate: where is the Israeli constitution so that we can make a comparison? We instead have thousands of quotes from PMs, officials, leaders, Statesmen, who basically declare that Palestinians are fair game for transfer (deportation, to those who remember WW2), extermination, siege, etc. These are apologists for atrocities, and not only do they speak, they ACT. We can see what they do to anyone they feel threatens them.
The use of Pro-Zionists of pulling out off the dusty shelves the Protocols, the Hamas Charter and Farfour the Mouse is convincing only to the “uninitiated” in the complexities of the struggle. Those who know better see them for the propaganda tools they are.
Why would the Hamas need to change something so that people stop criticising them?
One more question: recently we translated a video of one of the sole survivors of the Beit Hanoun slaughter, a child. She said, “The Jews shot at us”, and so on. On a French site, the translation was “The soldiers”, so those who did not understand Arabic were asking why our (Tlaxcala) translation of the French was different and why we used “Jews”. The fact is: this is what the child said. Besides, if the IDF, the army of the Jewish State comes into your home and their uniforms carry the insignia of the Jewish State, their F16s have the symbols of the Jewish State emblazoned on them, all of a sudden, when they exterminate 26 members of a family in their courtyard, they are suddenly not Jewish? They become plain old “soldiers”.
Israel was very clever to create this body shield where they were exempt from criticism because they are Jewish. Where else in the world does this happen?
Well Mary, as far as you know is obviously not that far. One Hamas charter. One version. One simple translation. The Israeli constitution is available online. What do you expect to find-some statements that will make you say, “oh, you see-invoking the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and calling on all Muslims to kill Jews in the Hamas charter isn’t wrong…look at what Israel’s constitution says!”? I disagree with many of Israel’s policies (just like I disagree with many of the US’ policies, just like I disagree with many of Guatemala’s policies, etc.) but I would hope that you people would at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that Hamas is a terrorist, Islamofascist, anti-Semitic organization. Your failing to do so only undermines your position. “Israel was very clever to create this body shield where they were exempt from criticism because they are Jewish.” Israel didn’t “create a body shield”…Israel is a Jewish state. LOL, it’s not like they did bad stuff and then decided to be Jewish. “Israel is exempt from criticism”? I love how you’re saying that on a blog devoted to criticizing Israel. Israel gets more criticized than any other nation on earth. More criticized than Sudan in which 300,000+ people have been murdered in the past 6 years, more criticized than China for their genocide in Tibet, more criticized than Russia for their genocide in Chechnya, and the list goes on. I thought I could engage in a meaningful debate with people with different views than me on this site, but so far I’ve only encountered imbeciles. Is anyone else on this blog reading this nonsense?!? Have I entered the twilight zone where everyone’s IQ has dropped below 70?!?
notamoron, are you sure about your nick? Israel doesn’t have a constitution.
Mea culpa, Peter D. Sorry, not a constitution but a declaration of independence. I’m glad that after reading all my points you manage to find the most irrelevant and tedious detail to criticize me on. I guess that says more about the opposing position than mine.
Claiming Israel has a constitution is a “tedious, irrelevant detail?”
Alex, it does hold significance. Imagine the outrage that there would be if similar statements were in the Israeli constitution? Do you people not understand that Hamas and their ilk do not think like us? They are Islamic radicals! To alter their charter would be to fundamentally change their worldview.
Actually, your “handle” should be “notabrain.” As Peter pointed out Israel has no Constitution. But it does have a Declaration of Independence which calls for complete equality among all ethnic groups in Israel. This wish is not honored in reality. That’s a problem for me . How ’bout you? How much do you know about Israel or Palestine?
Considering that my father spent his whole life in Israel, half my family lives in Israel, and I spend much of my time there, and I study the conflict in a university, I think I know a lot about Israel. Thank you for clarifying…Israel’s Declaration of Independence does call for equality among the ethnicities. Tell that to Mary Rizzo who was hoping that she could compare it to the Hamas charter. You are right, there is discrimination against Israel’s Arab population and I of course condemn it. That is not right and I hope them and the Palestinians get the justice they deserve. But you should acknowledge the truth – that in many ways Israeli Arabs have more rights and opportunities than Arabs in Arab countries (especially Arab women and of course Arab Christians, and Arab homosexuals). There are literally Arab parties in the Knesset that call for the destruction of Israel and meet with Israel’s sworn enemies…no other democracy in the world can claim that feat. Noa’s remarks are well said, true, and poignant. Am Israel Chai!
You need to do more studying.
That’s a lame, stupid statement. There are parties in the Knesset who call for Israel to be a state of ALL its peoples rather than one that treats Jews as superior. Is that what you mean by “calling for Israel’s destruction?”
I despise people who shout slogans. Do that again here & you’ll lose yr comment privileges.
Mary – are Hamas incapable of providing an authoratative translation?
Hams should change the charter because it would be sound PR. The fact that they don’t do so tells you all you need to know.
How’s your mate Gilad?
This isn’t the Republican Party or Labour Party. Hamas is trying to survive. It’s got bigger fish to fry than amending a Charter which isn’t even operative. For you, this is important. But Hamas actually has to decide what it’s priorities are & right now it’s got to figure out how to do its best to run Gaza, create a unity government, end an Israeli siege. If I were Hamas I wouldn’t pay much attention to the Charter either until I’d figured out to handle more pressing matters.
Mary, Alex seems unable to control his snark factor. So I’m asking you not to be dragged into any off topic discussions with him. And Alex, I’m happy to place you on moderation as well if you misbehave. When & if I ever write about Gilad Atzmon is when you can delve into that subject. Till then, write about him on your own blog.
If it isn’t operative, why don’t they say so? Surely de facto acknowledging that it’s not operative would be to acknowledge that is defunct? Given that the Charter is one of the main reasons the international community is still unwilling to deal with Hamas, are you sure that this isn’t an important fish to fry?
As for Mary, it was an honest question. As far as I know, she is an ally of Atzmon, who is an anti-Semite. Let’s say I ran a website with Avigdor Lieberman. Would I be welcome here?
“…Atzmon, who is an anti-Semite”
Nu-nu-nu, why an “anti-Semite”? Let’s say a person struggling with his Jewish heritage? I’ll take Gilad over Lieberman (both A. and J.) any time. He’s also a great musician.
That does it. I told you commenting on Gilad Atzmon is off topic. The thread isn’t about Gilad Atzmon. The blog has never mentioned him.
That’s a violation of my comment rules PLUS you went right ahead though I’d already warned you not too. Your future comments will be moderated. And you dug your own grave on this one. As for being welcome here, you are if you can read & follow the rules. If you want to thumb yr nose at them & act like an immature child, then you’ll pay the price.
My apologies for adding fuel to the fire. I replied to Alex and it looks like caused Richard to ban him. Richard, you have a right, of course, since it’s your blog, to decide what comments should be and I realize that you found Alex’s “snark” objectionable. That said, a lot of times comments swerve from the topic of the post, so, it is natural for people to assume that it is fine to discuss other matters.
Anyway, my apologies again.
I didn’t ban Alex. I’ve moderated his comments because I was concerned when he insisted on posting about Gilad Atzmon though it was off topic & I’d explicitly requested that he not continue that discussion. Moderation means I approve the comment before it’s published.
You have nothing to apologize for.
Because Michael Goldfarb equated Stephen Walt with Fr. Coughlin during the Chas Freeman affair and because Fr. Coughlin published The Protocols, I revisted Fr. Coughlin, The Protocols, and The Hamas Charter.
The blog entries — especially the 2nd — are relevant to this discusion:
Stephen Walt: New Father Coughlin??
Was Fr. Coughlin an Anti-Semite?
I haven’t read Walt’s book about “The Israel Lobby” because I heard it was very poor scholarship (i.e. not interviewing any actual pro-Israel lobbyists) but I don’t think Walt is an anti-Semite by any stretch of the imagination, just because his work is often used by ignorant anti-Semites to further their hatred of Israel and Jews. I do know that Walt is a super-realist when it comes to international relations, meaning he doesn’t believe that any state would ever engage in a policy that does not increase their power. So, when it comes to America’s support for Israel based on the fact that most Americans identify with Israel as the only bastion of liberalism and democracy in a region that is truly lacking in those regards, and most Americans are sympathetic to Jews and understand their desire to determine their own destiny after 2000 years of being at the mercy of others who were usually not too merciful; this is a clear contradiction to his worldview. That is to say that ideology and human rights sometimes impact state’s action more than simply seeking more hegemony and power. In other words, it would obviously be much easier for Americans to support the enemies of Israel, being that Israel is a tiny country with a small population and no natural resources, and Jews worldwide amount to less than 0.3% of the world’s population, while there are 57 Islamic countries with vast oil and other resources and comprise well over 20% of the world’s population.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read the same exact statement from people afraid to read something that might jar their tender sensibilities. You HEARD it was poor scholarship. That’s like saying “I don’t believe in Einstein’s theory of relativity because I heard he flunked out of science class when he was in elementary school.” Yours is a lame excuse & totally discredits anything you might say on the subject.
There is no such thing. There are realists, there are neocons. I know which one I would prefer. You can have the other.
You haven’t read his book yet you have enough confidence to expound on Walt’s beliefs about the nature of states. Ridiculous. He believes that a state should engage in policies that reflect their interests. What you wrote is nonsense though perhaps it might fit well with a Hitler or Bismarck.
No, those are YOUR views, not the views of Americans. Most Americans have a vague sympathy for Israel & have little or no idea about the issue of liberalism or democracy. BTW, Israel is neither liberal or a full democracy.
And if Israel continues along the road it’s traveling that may indeed happen.
I haven’t read his book,but I’ve read articles by him and I’ve been to a lecture of his where he explicitly called himself a super-realist. He does feel that states only care about their power – ideology, regime type, etc. are completely irrelevant in his opinion. I personally disagree with him, though not completely. America’s support for Israel is just a good example of policy based on ideology as opposed to pure hegemonic interests, which is personally why I think Walt is opposed to it.
“Actually your handle should be ‘notabrain’” Does that not break the comment rules regarding ad hominems?
I’d say anyone who calls themselves “notabrain” opens themselves up to ridicule.
As for violating the comment rules, maybe when you show us all you understand them then I’ll address your concerns about my own alleged violations.
[comment deleted for violation of comment rules]
My apologies – I hadn’t seen the rule about staying on-topic.
Now can you explain why you used an ad hominem against one of the posters?
What about my specific warning to you not to introduce the topic of Gilad Atzmon to the thread? Did you miss that too?
And come to think of it I’m really ticked off by yr insinuation that because Mary Rizzo agrees with Gilad Atzmon or quotes him in her blog that that means she has no place at this blog. That would make you in favor of censorship.
There are rules in this blog for commenting. If Mary Rizzo or you or anyone else break them, then I take action. What the hell does Gilad Atzmon have to do with anything? It’s a snarky, over-cute red herring. I’m sorry, Alex but sometimes you act like you’re a hyper-argumentative teenager instead of an adult. Smart undoubtedly. But really must you deliberately attempt to provoke people as you did Mary?
As for ad hominems–I think commenters who come across as insufferable know-it-alls and yet make the most basic mistakes like not knowing it has no constitution deserve a tweak or two. But just between us, don’t you find the nickname “Notamoron” a tad (unintentionally) humorous? I won’t tell anyone if you do.
Well, what matters is that the person claims there is an “Israeli Constitution” when there clearly is not one, so all of the OT or other information I take with a chuckle.
I hate ill-informed bags of air more than I hate anything. I have no trouble debating anyone on any topic whatsoever, as long as they are able to substantiate any information they give with fact. If they come up with a whale of wrong info like that, how can they be expected to be able to debate with correctness or accuracy. They can’t, full stop.
I am used to people using sexist, racist, offensive and insinuating comments about me, pulling all kinds of affiliations out of their hat, thinking it is meaningful to the issue at hand. I generally do not accept the provocation. Especially when they think they are coming up with something to try to paint me as anti-semitic. All they have to do, and I dare and double dare them, is to look up Mary Rizzo and Michael Seifert. Yes, I might be probably the only person most of you will know who had an active part in the capture and arrest of a Nazi war criminal. So give it up or get some real argument rather than lies.
That said, I am proud of my affiliations, and I don’t run the blog that much anymore, in fact, after attempts by a self-labelled Anti Zionist Jew to close it down, which failed miserably, my two closest affiliates opened a News site together with me, http://www.palestinethinktank.com which contains over 50% original content and most of that from Palestinian writers. These two people are Haitham Sabbah and Gilad Atzmon.
If people have problems with either of them, that is their problem.
You are the one who called him ‘notabrain’; his original moniker is ‘notamoron’, neither of which sound either clever or funny to me. I think people should be encouraged to stick to their real names on blogs.
[I am beginning to wonder how this thread relates to Noa]
If Walt said it, he was yanking your chain, for Mearsheimer & Walt are certainly not superrealists.
They write on page 92 of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy:
I dispose of the this nonsensical belief in Introduction: The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy expose the flaws of the book in Freeman, American Naiveté, Israel Lobby.
I checked out the rules, and while I didn’t see the GA rule (maybe you should write one!) I did see that you consider Cactus48 a propaganda site. That surprises me, because while it is hasn’t been updated for ages, it is a pro-Palestinian site that I would not consider “propaganda” like MEMRI or any of the other sites mentioned. Why do you say this about them Richard?
Oh, my G-d…I said “constitution” instead of “Declaration of Independence” therefore all my opinions are completely invalid? That would be a fallacious argument, Mary. I chose to use the handle “notamoron” because I felt that that would differentiate me from the other posters, like you. I like to point out that Joachim Martillo thinks that “Jews suffered greatly from the despicable legacy of anti-Semitism” is a “nonsensical belief”. Is there gonna be any moderation against offensive comments like that, Richard? I guess that my grandmother is lying that she lost her whole family in the Holocaust, and barely escaped with her life. I guess my father is lying about how Jews were mistreated in Morocco. Don’t tell either of them though, they are really attached to the lie. Also, the reason I haven’t read “The Israel Lobby” is not because I’m afraid it will upset my “tender sensibilities” but because I don’t really agree with Walt on most of his points, and yes I did hear it was poor scholarship. Am I obligated to read every book? I’m sure I can give you a long list Zionist books that you wouldn’t want to read, I wouldn’t assume that its because they “frightened” you, but rather because you maybe have other things to do. I don’t understand why say there can’t be supper-realists if someone refers to themselves as a super-realist. Statements like that make me assume you don’t understand the definition of realist when it pertains to international relations.
That’s correct. You claim there is a constitution, act like anyone in the world can find it online, bla bla bla… Of course it’s untrue and a constitution is a different document than a Declaration of Independence, so if you are the one making such massive errors or simply don’t realise the difference, this does illustrate to me your capacity to participate in a debate with facts and evidence, so yes, it does make your “opinions” worthless to me. I correct that, you are entitled to your opinions, as wrong as they may be, but you are wrong to exchange them with facts, since you can list this that and the other thing about your family, but it does not stand as a substitute for such an elementary lacune in reasoning or presentation of facts.
You claim you’re not a moron, yet don’t bother to trouble yrself to read the comment rules here that specifically prohibit such ad hominem arguments. Therefore your future comments will be moderated until you can prove you can both read the rules & observe them.
Thanks for pointing that comment out to me which I hadn’t noticed. It is troubling.
You have no right to attack the arguments in the book if you haven’t read it. It makes you look like an intellectual charlatan. Sometimes it’s actually useful to read the views of someone you disagree with; it opens up the mind to new possibilities (though possibly not your mind).
No, just the ones you want to attack.
I’m quite well read in that subject area. You might find that I’d read most books you’d suggest.
Here is a discussion that a Jewish Zionist racist, Arie Brand and I had on the Mondoweiss list.
Jewish Zionist racist [Bar Kochba]:
Phil, if you have any regard for the truth left, read George Orwell’s article written in 1939 called “Marrakesh” (it is available on-line). He writes at length about the poverty, degradation and antisemitism directed at the Jews in Morocco (and remember Orwell was ANTI-ZIONIST).
My Comment 1:
What sort of sociological observer was Orwell?
Did he at least understand the local Arabic, Berber, and Judeo-Spanish dialects?
Did he compare Moroccan Jews with other Moroccans or with Europeans? Did he take into account the attempt of Moroccan Jews to act as native collaborators for the French and the hostility that such behavior might engender? Did he take into account the persistence of depression conditions in French dependencies?
My Comment 2:
It is also worthwhile to mention that Moroccan Jews had higher education levels than non-Jews and were the targets of Alliance humanitarian assistance.
I read Masa ba`rab by Romanelli when I was an undergraduate. It was not obvious that Moroccan Jews lived worse off than Moroccan Muslims in the 18th century, and by the 20th century they were on the whole quite better off.
The whining about exceptional Jewish suffering is simply not credible and is just another scam like the Refusenik Movement [in which I was conned into taking part.]
Arie Brand:
Professor David Pinto is a Dutch Jew of Moroccan origin. His family moved originally from Morocco to Israel but in 1963 he transferred from there to Holland.
He is presently professor in intercultural communication at the University of Amsterdam, President of the European branch of the World Federation of Moroccan Jews and of the Cooperative Alliance between Moroccan Jews and Moslims. According to the Dutch language journal “Maghreb Magazine” it was nothing to be amazed about that Moroccans have taken the iniative for this alliance because Morocco has “a 2000years old tradition of a peaceful living together of both groups”.
The prominent Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf” reported on 20th September 2005, on an interview it had with Pinto at the burial of a prominent Dutch Rabbi:
“Many Dutch youths of Moroccan origin do, according to Pinto, not realize that Morocco was for a long time a very pleasant country for Jews. The professor said: “In my time there were about 300,000 Jews in Morocco”. Jews can (could) function in all parts of society. There was no discrimination whatsoever.
This was confirmed by Job Cohen, Mayor of Amsterdam, after a recent visit to Morocco. Cohen also pointed to the fact that one of the most important advisers of the Sultan, Mr.Andre Azoulay, is Jewish.
I have the most profound respect for Orwell (though not for Bar-Kochba) but one wonders how accurate his information on pre-war Morocco, gathered during a short visit, was. In fact the only information he provides on discrimination against Jews was that certain places had been allocated to them to live. For the rest he reports that they were engaged in all the trades the Arabs had. Their poverty was not different from the overall poverty there on which Orwell commented:
“When you walk through a town like this—two hundred thousand inhabitants, of whom at least twenty thousand own literally nothing except the rags they stand up in—when you see how the people live, and still more how easily they die, it is always difficult to believe that you are walking among human beings. All colonial empires are in reality founded upon that fact.”
Orwell was told by (French ?) locals that Jews had a prominent place in local finance and the banks, a fact that he could not rhyme with the poverty he had seen in the Jewish quarter and probaly dismissed as anti-Semitic prejudice.
You are really funny. You’re the one that first referred to the Israeli constitution. You said something along the lines of “I wonder what the Israeli constitution says” with the hopes of finding something comparable to Hamas’ unabashedly anti-Semitic charter when I quoted it. I assumed that if they had a constitution that it would be easily found online, because Israel is a democracy. They don’t, they have a declaration of Independence which IS easily found online and contains no racist statements coming near Hamas’ in their founding charter. My reference to my family was a response to Joachim’s claim that Jewish suffering was “nonsense”. Not to you.
Irony is wasted on the young & the ignorant. I specifically mentioned the Israeli constitution because I wanted to point out that THERE IS NONE. You beat Hamas over the head for a charter its leaders renounced years ago & yet Israel doesn’t even have the equivalent–a constitution. I find that ironic.
Israel unfortunately upholds its Declaration of Independence about as faithfully as Hamas upholds its Charter–that is to say, not even close.
Don’t be ridiculous…. in fact, I said that it was going to be some kind of child’s play for the likes of you to go on about a Hamas charter you never read in its original language and perhaps have only seen a dodgy translation, when there was NOTHING comparable like an Israeli constitution that others would start to look into. In fact, they were so clever to not create one. They can act as they like and it’s never unconstitutional, they escape criticism and scrutiny.
If you think that I suggested there was one, read again, because apparently, you jump to aprioristic conclusions and you can’t even engage in a debate responding to the issues raised and only that. It was you who encouraged people to look it up, easy as it was to find and all that. So, your mistake is your mistake and you are caught with your pants down, sorry.
not a moron, this is what I wrote:
At any rate: where is the Israeli constitution so that we can make a comparison? We instead have thousands of quotes from PMs, officials, leaders, Statesmen, who basically declare that Palestinians are fair game for transfer (deportation, to those who remember WW2), extermination, siege, etc. These are apologists for atrocities, and not only do they speak, they ACT. We can see what they do to anyone they feel threatens them.
I don’t know how it could be any clearer than that. Where is a constitution? Instead we have thousands of quotes and their actions. But they can refuse to recognise Palestinians and do them the most harm possible, just as long as they cleverly do not put it down on a paper people will debate about and accuse them of things for… clever indeed.
Since Salo Baron first criticized the lachrymose version of Jewish history, Jewish and non-Jewish scholars have developed a much better picture of Jewish life in E. Europe and the Russian Empire.
In Drone Attacks, Buenos Aires JCC, I include the following passage from Michael Stanislawski even though I do not fully agree because he makes some very important points.
While anti-Semitism existed in the 19th century, it was simply not an important determinant of the treatment of the Jews. Pogroms, which included violence by non-Jews on non-Jews, Jews on non-Jews, and Jews on Jews arose because the Russian Empire did not deal with modernization particulary well while the main causative factor in the increase in hostility was wisespread disgust and reaction toward Jewish violence, which included sabotage, radicalism, and targeted assassination (including Czar Alexander II). By the 1860s non-Ashkenazi Jews seem to have been at least as annoyed at ethnic Ashkenazim as non-Jews in general.
BTW, notamoron’s style of discussion is intellectually dishonest. He quoted me selectively and materially changed the meaning of what I wrote.
Typo:
Pogroms, which included violence by non-Jews on non-Jews, Jews on non-Jews, and Jews on Jews arose because the Russian Empire did not deal with modernization particulary well while the main causative factor in the increase in hostility toward Jews was widespread disgust and reaction toward Jewish violence, which included sabotage, radicalism, and targeted assassination (including Czar Alexander II).