Today’s Washington Post brings dueling statements by DC bookstore owner Carla Cohen and Saree Makdisi about the controversy she initiated when she invited him to speak and then disinvited him. In doing so, she claimed that hosting him would mean she could never be taken seriously again the DC community. In his statement, Makdisi further discloses that Cohen wrote to him:
“I do not believe that your book will further constructive debate in the United States. A single state is not a solution.”
Cohen is dead wrong on both counts. First, Makdisi is not only a respected English professor at UCLA. He is a respected Palestinian-American analyst of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His book has been favorably reviewed by distinguished individuals like Desmond Tutu and Tony Judt. Cohen may disagree with Makdisi’s views (as I do), but how can she possibly claim it “will not further constructive debate?” This is patently untrue. Second, a one-state solution IS a solution. It may not be the one she or I or most Israelis or American Jews would advocate. But it’s certainly a legitimate approach to resolving the conflict and deserves being debated as such.
In her own Washington Post statement, she made some questionable and dubious claims:
When I finally got a chance to read his book, especially its conclusion, I was very disturbed. As an American Jew, I support Israel, but I disapprove of its policies in the West Bank. I have been active in organizations and in programs expressing my opposition to the occupation by Israel and its policies toward the Palestinians.
I’m sorry, but anyone can make such claims. The fact that says nothing about what she specifically has done on this score does not confirm her bona fides as a critic of the Occupation.
Makdisi’s critique of Israel was not what bothered me; it was his solution. He advocates one state in the place of the partition that was established by the United Nations in 1947. His solution would result in the elimination of the state of Israel.
Not quite. It would result in the elimination of a JEWISH state called Israel and replace it with a state closer to the U.S. model in which no religion dominates; but all are guaranteed the right of worship. Again, I want to make clear that I am not in favor of a one-state solution. But calling a one-state solution eliminationist as Cohen does, is overheated rhetoric.
What is more, there is no guarantee that such a state would be democratic since, except for Israel, there is no history of democracy in the Middle East.
I’m starting to believe that Cohen got her talking points from the ADL or American Jewish Committee. It is informed by their erroneous characterizations of Arab societies in the Middle East. There IS a guarantee that such a state would be democratic since the Palestinians actually held a democratic election in 2006 which chose Hamas to run the PA. Neither Carla Cohen, the ADL or AJC like the choice the Palestinians made so it’s as if no election was held at all. But one WAS held and presumably more will be held in future.
Further, Lebanon is a democratic society. It is not a terribly successful democracy presently. But it IS a democracy. And has she forgotten Turkey, another Middle Eastern democracy? Isn’t it interesting how selective Jews can be when they wish to present Israel as perfectly virtuous and the Arabs as the opposite?
I feel that we in America, both Jews and Palestinians, have an obligation to lean on the United States to be a mediator to promote a peaceful conclusion to hostilities. My opposition to Makdisi’s book is that I found no such commitment. He is highly critical of Israel but not of the Palestinians or the Arab nations.
This statement is simply a jumbled mess. She feels that Jews and Palestinians have an obligation to pressure the U.S. to mediate the conflict. But Makdisi doesn’t feel the same way? While I don’t know his precise views on this I would highly doubt that he opposes the idea that the U.S. should play an honest broker role in the conflict.
Finally, I didn’t know that an author writing a book about the I-P conflict had to write a book which blames each side equally. Since when is that, or should that be a criteria for judging a book’s worth? Since when should that even be a criteria for judging whether an author is worthy of appearing at a bookstore to promote a book?
Cohen spends almost her entire statement defending and explaining why she cancelled Makdisi’s appearance and tosses off this startling one sentence:
Nevertheless, I now believe that I was mistaken to cancel Saree Makdisi’s presentation at Politics and Prose.
She never explains why she changed her mind. By not doing so, she leaves herself open to the suspicion that she is doing so not for the right reasons (i.e. principle) but rather for the wrong reasons (fear of falling out of favor with DC’s liberal cultural community). In fact, I suspect that she wishes she’d never agreed to have Makdisi at the bookstore to begin with.
How firm can someone be in their conviction that they made a mistake if, when someone criticizes them as I did her in a private e mail, she writes to me that she wishes she could now take back her re-invitation (because she found my criticism “beyond insulting”)?
My impression, not knowing Cohen or her bookstore, is that she is a confused and frightened individual when it comes to the I-P conflict (a characteristic of many American Jews). She seemingly hasn’t done enough serious thinking on the subject to have strong convictions and the strength of those convictions.
I have lived in many American cities with wonderful independent bookstores like Politics and Prose. I’ve shopped in many of them too. But I’ve never heard an instance in which such a store invited an author and then disinvited him or her because his or her political views were seen as unacceptable to the owner. This is an astonishing phenomenon and one that Cohen’s customers should consider in making their future purchasing choices.
But do go hear Saree Makdisi at Politics and Prose and buy his book there or elsewhere (or here). Show Carla Cohen that if her heart isn’t in supporting a diverse range of debate about the I-P conflict, her community doesn’t feel the same way.
I have just written this letter to the Post editor about the controversy:
Dear Editor: I am a progressive American Jewish Zionist who has written the Tikun Olam blog since 2003, advocating Israeli-Palestinian peace. I have been following closely the controversy over Carla Cohen’s cancellation of Saree Makdisi’s appearance at her bookstore. What happened here is unfortunately a fairly common occurrence in the American Jewish community. People like Carla Cohen are frightened of ideas, like a one-state solution, that stray beyond the Jewish consensus. That’s why Saree Makdisi’s book threatened her Jewish world view. That’s why she cancelled him. That’s why talks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by Stanford professor Joel Beinin, NYU professor Tony Judt, and Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer, have also been cancelled in other communities. People, especially Jews, are afraid of what Israel skeptics have to say.
I have lived in many communities with wonderful independent bookstores like Politics and Prose and I’ve never heard of any which invited an author and then disinvited him or her because his or her politics was deemed too contentious. That is why I believe Carla Cohen wildly overreacted in this case.
I am pleased that she has reconsidered her ill-considered original decision. But I am concerned based on what she’s written in the Post and to me privately that she has done so for the wrong reasons. When I criticized her original decision in an e mail, she replied that after reading my criticism she wished she would not have re-invited Makdisi. If someone genuinely believes they made a mistake, why should criticism make them want to revert to their original supposedly mistaken view?
My sense is that Carla Cohen values her good reputation in the Washington DC liberal community. She changed her mind because she feared that she would lose its approbation. In other words, she changed her mind out of fear, rather than because she saw the light and decided to do the right thing.
Carla Cohen claims Makdisi supports a one-state solution. I support a two-state solution. But unlike Cohen, Makdisi’s views do not threaten me and they should not threaten her nor anyone else. The more open discussion there is of this conflict the more likely we will be able to solve it.
Democratic may not me the most correct term. The word “Democratic” has come to encompass a lot of things that aren’t specifically democracy. But I think if she had substituted the word ‘liberal’ she would have been on firmer ground. Again, I don’t know how accurate she would be on this count either, so I could easily be wrong but it seems like a gay pride paraades happen a lot more in Tel Aviv than they do in the Gaza Strip.
The last time there was a Gay Pride parade in Jerusalem a participant was stabbed & very seriously injured by a haredi (ultra-Orthodox) nutcase. So much for liberal democracy.
Hamas was elected democratically. It could be voted out of office in the next election. That’s democracy. Do you really believe that a society cannot be a democracy unless it supports gay rights? You & I may wish all democratic societies endorsed gay rights. You & I may deplore Hamas’ rejection of basic western values like this one. But that doesn’t dispute the fact that they won a democratic election.
The last time there was a gay pride parade in Jerusalem – last summer going along King David street, the event went off without a hitch. Gay pride parades and events also take place in Tel Aviv without incident. Back to Jerusalem, while it is true that amongst religious circles, opposition to Gay pride events is the one thing that unites the leadership of Haredi Jews, Christians and Muslims, Gay advocacy organizations like The Open House carry on their activities unmolested. The Supreme Court of Israel with its seat in Jerusalem regularly issues rulings that are amongst the most Gay positive in the western world, let alone the Middle East. You may wish to diminish Israel’s role as a liberal democracy, but when it comes to Gay rights, I think you’re a little off base.
As for Hamas, while it was indeed elected democratically, that ought not give it a free pass to do as it pleases. I need not remind you of other regimes in the past that came to power democratically only to go ahead and terrorize their population and commit all kinds of less than savory horrors. The word coming out of Gaza is that the situation for those that oppose Hamas is less than rosy – and of course the effective coup d’etat that took place there is not exactly legal. Or particularly democratic.
With all due respect Richard, is it any wonder that you are sometimes viewed as a bit of an apologist?
Mia, it feels as if you were alluding to us Germans and the Nazis with this:
“I need not remind you of other regimes in the past that came to power democratically only to go ahead and terrorize their population and commit all kinds of less than savory horrors.”
Two things.
How much do you know about the Nazis seizure of power? Do you think they won the first election? Then please look into January 1933, after I suggest you look closely into how the Nazis took advantage of the Reichstags Fire, used it to close down all political dissent.
And then think again, if this really can be called: came to power democratically.
Why do you think these matters are swept under the carpet, as we Germans say, to get them out of sight for an easy comparison with no doubt autocratic Arab systems. Wrong comparisons do not help analysis, You solve a problem by studying it carefully and not by using misleading and fast analogies. Neither does to create a new scapegoat.
What does support from this side makes you feel like? http://nasofi.blogspot.com/ “German neo-Nazis: We’re pro-Israel, condemn anti-Semitism”
and throwing people off buildings and shooting them in the street is a very democratic way of dealing with political opponents?
LeaNder: The point I was making is that a government being legally or democratically brought into power does not give it carte blanche to do whatever it likes. This includes suppressing dissent, violating basic human rights and following a path of belligerence that does not benefit its constituents. This applies to Hamas as much as it applies to Bush, Olmert or any democratically elected government that pursues policies that can be subject to legitimate criticism.
The bottom line with Hitler and that Nazis is that they came to power legally. They may have never been elected by a majority of Germans, but their rise to power was legal. As for your pro-Israel neo-Nazis, they can say whatever they like but I do not support neo-Nazism and derive no comfort or support from their nonsense.
“I’m starting to believe that Cohen got her talking points from the ADL or American Jewish Committee. It is informed by their erroneous characterizations of Arab societies in the Middle East. There IS a guarantee that such a state would be democratic since the Palestinians actually held a democratic election in 2006 which chose Hamas to run the PA. Neither Carla Cohen, the ADL or AJC like the choice the Palestinians made so it’s as if no election was held at all. But one WAS held and presumably more will be held in future.
Further, Lebanon is a democratic society. It is not a terribly successful democracy presently. But it IS a democracy. And has she forgotten Turkey, another Middle Eastern democracy? Isn’t it interesting how selective Jews can be when they wish to present Israel as perfectly virtuous and the Arabs as the opposite?”
Thank you for recognizing this, Richard. But what about the very undemocratic treatment of the Palestinians in the West Bank and in Jerusalem?
Charles Jacobs always insists that he is a genuine liberal and concerned with human rights.
In any case, the story reminds me of some of the grief associated with The Scar of David.
Speaking of democracy in the Middle East, our buddy Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be up for re-election next year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Election_and_Term
Would anyone like to place any bets as to whether Iranian voters will return him to power or kick him out?
“The word coming out of Gaza is that the situation for those that oppose Hamas is less than rosy – and of course the effective coup d’etat that took place there is not exactly legal. Or particularly democratic”
The coup occurred because the US was pushing Fatah to stage a coup against Hamas. Left to themselves, there was a danger the Palestinians might have worked out some form of unity government, but the US wasn’t about to allow that.
@mia:
Is it any wonder that you appear to be an apologist yrself? Did you read the coverage of the Gay Pride issue in the Israeli press? Did you read the incredible vitriol levelled against gays by these so called religious leaders? What about the stabbing? You conveniently omitted that. I don’t “wish to diminish Israel’s role as a liberal democracy,” you said that. I only report Israel as it is. I report the good, the bad & the ugly. That seems to make you uncomfortable.
As for Hamas, again you conveniently left out the fact that Fatah, with the connivance of the Bush neocons urged Abbas to perpetrate their own coup under the guidance of Dahlan. Hamas only pre-empted what might’ve been an even greater Fatah led bloodbath in Gaza. Talking about democracy, Fatah now runs a rump government with no internal legitimacy. That’s democracy? As for doing as it pleases, in a democracy the winner can’t do as he pleases because he can be voted out of office in the next election. If Israel and the U.S. had recognized Hamas’ victory then there would have been no Fatah coup attempt & there might already have been elections which would’ve voted them out of power. Because the U.S. & Israel did not respect Palestinian democracy that we have much of the mess we now have.
Unlike you, I believe in democracy in whatever form it takes. You seem to only acknowledge those democracies of which you approve. Israel=good. Palestine (if it’s Hamas)=bad. Not the way it works, I’m afraid.
And really, are you calling Hamas Nazis?? Don’t you think it’s dumb when people do that to Israel? So why should you pepetrate the same nonsense? Keep in mind Hitler never had a 2nd election. Unlike, Hitler I have no doubt that Hamas will participate in not only a 2nd election but many elections to come once politics & Palestinian society settles into a more normal groove.
Ah, the pro-Israel snark crowd has arrived. What about Abbas’ videotaped recording in which he tells his security chief to “annihilate them?” That’s Fatah. Those guys are spotless democrats too aren’t they? What about Elliot Abrams and David Welch trying to ship guns to Fatah for a Fatah-sponsored coup against Hamas? Bush policy toward Hamas too has cherished the values of democracy in a Palestinian context, hasn’t it??
Richard, Carla is justifiably upset. You shot your mouth off without knowing what was actually going on. Not the first time you’ve done it.
Let’s see. Richard hasn’t read the book, but he knows the author should get to make a presentation at a bookstore owner’s store. Would Richard be so demanding that he would ask Ms. Cohen to give a platform to Libby Kahane, who just wrote a book insisting that her husband was a swell guy? I wouldn’t, and neither would I demand that Carla give this author a platform, though it is her right to do so if she wishes.
And you still can’t figure out why the owner may regret her decision? Maybe because you attacked her personally without knowing the facts. Maybe because, like so many of your entries, you read a paragraph somewhere that justified you attacking someone who doesn’t hate Israel as much as you do. Of course you could have investigated, or asked questions, or actually tried to approach the issue with integrity. But you’re on a rant, so why bother?
Richard claims he likes open debate, but selectively edits and delete posts that show factual information that makes him look foolish. Richard claims he’s knowledgeable on the Middle East, but didn’t even know what Barack Obama was talking about when he mentioned the Blue Line. Richard claims he calls “the good, the bad, and the ugly,” but fails to admit that his ranting about Israel using depleted uranium in Lebanon was debunked a day after he reported it (lamely saying that he doesn’t get a chance to read every article). Richard claims he wont let hatemongers post on his board, yet he allows arch-racist Joachim Martillo to make comments (I guess Martillo’s pseudo-academic gobbledygook is part of the “legitimate debate”).
Because for Richard, there are two sides to the I/P conflict. There is the side that wants to abolish Israel entirely, and the side that nominally talks about its right to exist but still doesn’t hesitate to launch into tirades about anything Israel does. The only legitimate opinions for Richard are those that hate Israel as much as he does.
@Josh:
Talking about shooting one’s mouth off. Here we have one of the original member of my Troll Academy. Joshua S.C. Parkhurst, banned so many times I can’t begin to count. Even used his own law firm’s computers to gain access to my blog & leave derogatory comments (pls. make sure you’re not doing so now or Cary Kane might not approve of the fact that you’re using the firm’s computers for this purpose; in fact just for the hell of it I’m going to contact Cary Kane to let them know about the unprovoked campaign you’ve waged against me for four years and counting). Even claimed he was a member of Peace Now to establish his supposed liberal street cred (of which he has none) w/o any proof of course. Even goes to other progressive blogs to smear me. He’s a swell example of a Jewish mensch. He even runs a historical preservation group in Jersey City. I hope he’s better at preserving housing than he is at preserving Jewish values like derech eretz. You know, I’ve never even heard him talk a single time about any Jewish value come to think of it. I don’t even know if he has any or knows what the concept is.
Let’s see. In order to have an opinion about whether someone’s speech should be permitted you have to have read their book. You couldn’t possibly get an idea that Saree Makdisi has a valuable role to play in the debate based on the fact that he’s a distinguished, tenured professor at UCLA & has written a widely reviewed & respected book on the I-P conflict.
Saree Makdisi=Libby Kahane? Nah. I don’t think so. Even a twit like you appears to understand that.
For the 1,000 time, I don’t hate Israel. That’s why I ban you. Because you’re an unadulterated liar. Is this the type of tactic you use in your employment law practice? Lying about your opponents record?
Integrity? You want to talk about integrity? Don’t make me laugh. When God gave out integrity you were off somewhere gazing at yr navel.
Open debate? Yes, for people unlike you who have integrity even in disagreeing w. me. You have none which is why you’ve been banned here at least 20 times or more. Did I delete yr piece of garbage? No. Even though it reeks to high heaven. I still let you have your say.
And when did you learn about the Blue Line? I’ll bet it was first here at this blog. I’d like you to prove in anything you’ve ever written online that you knew what the Blue Line was before you read it here. You won’t be able to prove it because you’re more feeble as a debater than you prob. are as a human being.
Depleted uranium? God, you have to go back & fight battles you lost two years ago. That report I wrote about was supposedly debunked by one right wing unreliable source. So no, it was not debunked except in your fevered pro-Israel brain.
I let a hatemonger like you post here. Why shouldn’t Joachim Martillo? BTW, he knows that he & I disagree about much & that I say so here in the comment threads when we do. But he doesn’t disrespect me like you do. That’s why he’s still here & you won’t be hopefully very soon.
Actually, I’d like you to level some really disgusting insults against me. Even worse that the feeble attempts you’ve made thus far. I hope Larry Cary and Walter Kane will enjoy reading what you do either in yr spare time or while you’re waiting for someone to throw some legal business your way. I’ll be compiling every comment you’ve ever posted here plus the nasty things you’ve written about me at Muzzlewatch & anywhere else. We’ll see whether Messrs. Kane & Cary believe that constitutes conduct that yr firm approves of in their staff attorneys.
You provoked this Parkhurst. I didn’t know who you were until you started venting yr spleen here. I am only responding in kind. I have repeatedly asked you to stop harassing me and you have acted with obssessive disregard for my wishes. I still retain the hope that you will see reason and leave me alone.
Richard said: Is it any wonder that you appear to be an apologist yrself? Did you read the coverage of the Gay Pride issue in the Israeli press? Did you read the incredible vitriol levelled against gays by these so called religious leaders? What about the stabbing? You conveniently omitted that. I don’t “wish to diminish Israel’s role as a liberal democracy,” you said that. I only report Israel as it is. I report the good, the bad & the ugly. That seems to make you uncomfortable.
I was merely correcting a factual error. You said that there was a stabbing at the last parade. There wasn’t. The last Gay Pride parade went off without a problem. You are thinking about the parade before the last. The fact remains Richard that Israel is pretty good to its Gay population. Of course there are elements that are less than welcoming, homophobia exists everywhere. But to attack Israel for its record on Gay rights is a little bit of a stretch.
Richard added: As for Hamas, again you conveniently left out the fact that Fatah, with the connivance of the Bush neocons urged Abbas to perpetrate their own coup under the guidance of Dahlan. Hamas only pre-empted what might’ve been an even greater Fatah led bloodbath in Gaza. Talking about democracy, Fatah now runs a rump government with no internal legitimacy. That’s democracy?
I never mentioned Fatah and just because I am critical of Hamas does not mean that I support Fatah. Both are subject to criticism as is any government when certain standards of governance aren’t maintained. I was simply noting that while Hamas was democratically and legally elected, its subsequent behavior has been worthy of criticism and the fact that it came to power legally ought not give it a pass to do as it wishes. Is that really that difficult to understand? Here, let me put it another way – just because Olmert was legally elected, that does not prevent me from leveling criticism against him and his government when such criticism is warranted.
Ricard wrote: And really, are you calling Hamas Nazis??
Nope. I never did. I was merely making a point that being elected legally does not mean that you will exercise your authority justly.
Mia: I of course have no problem with criticizing any democratic government whether it be Hamas or Israel. And I do criticize both. But my problem is that you went beyond mere criticism. IN fact, you invoked Hitler in comparing how Hamas came to power & what it did after it came to power. That comparison is totally off-base.
“The bottom line with Hitler and that Nazis is that they came to power legally. They may have never been elected by a majority of Germans, but their rise to power was legal. As for your pro-Israel neo-Nazis, they can say whatever they like but I do not support neo-Nazism and derive no comfort or support from their nonsense.”
Somehow I am hesitating to answer this. But I think I have to, since the Nazis and associative terms have been turned into a standard in smearing political opponents.
This is the first step, and the legal frame to shut down dissent and start a reign of terror:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire#Political_consequences_of_the_Fire
And Richard, there were in fact two elections, let me see if I find them:
January, 30th 1933: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Appointment_as_Chancellor
March, 6h 1933: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election%2C_1933
********************************************************************************************************
Somehow I have an enormous aversion against the use of the Nazis as a standard comparison, and no it’s not 1938, not even for Israel and the Jewish people.
I am not interested in a rhetoric of apologetics concerning us Germans, Our history is here to stay. I am objecting, since I consider it a dangerous road. Sit down and dissect the issue from all perspectives and you will discover it leads to a basic tread to apologize the Nazis. It’s all over the net, and in many ways it feels like a natural counterstrike rising out of the argument. And that is something I fear could become stronger as a result of this political use, if things get worse.
Basically the argument leads into the Nazi’s room full of mirrors. Why do you think they did not print the protocols after 1939?, They feared thinking people would realize it were their own plans. Instead they fed them fiction, a chapter of a 19century adventure novel, that contained the basic idea.
Last word to Mia; I hpe it doesn’t show up twice, something seemed not to work a second ago:
“The bottom line with Hitler and that Nazis is that they came to power legally. They may have never been elected by a majority of Germans, but their rise to power was legal. As for your pro-Israel neo-Nazis, they can say whatever they like but I do not support neo-Nazism and derive no comfort or support from their nonsense.”
Somehow I am hesitating to answer this. But I think I have to, since the Nazis and associative terms have been turned into a standard in smearing political opponents.
So I consider it important. Yes, no doubt legally, but also a lecture learned. This is the first step, and the legal frame to shut down dissent and start a reign of terror:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire#Political_consequences_of_the_Fire
And Richard, there were in fact two elections, let me see if I find them:
January, 30th 1933: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Appointment_as_Chancellor
March, 6h 1933: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election%2C_1933
********************************************************************************************************
Somehow I have an enormous aversion against the use of the Nazis as a standard comparison, and no it’s not 1938, not even for Israel and the Jewish people.
I am not interested in a rhetoric of apologetics concerning us Germans, Our history is here to stay. I am objecting, since I consider it a dangerous road. Sit down and dissect the issue from all perspectives and you will discover it leads to a basic tread to apologize the Nazis. It’s all over the net, and in many ways it feels like a natural counterstrike rising out of the argument. And that is something I fear could become stronger as a result of this political use, if things get worse. [& Josh, I consider Joachim as an outstanding example in this context, although his lore is mixed and I can’t say I know it deeply]
Basically the argument leads into the Nazi’s room full of mirrors. Why do you think they did not print the protocols after 1939?, They feared thinking people would realize it were their own plans. Instead they fed them fiction, a chapter of a 19century adventure novel, that contained the basic idea.
Joachim, no harm meant, I enjoy our occasional verbal fights. I understand your basic instinct. But focus, which ironically is a standard in academia, contains its dangers. And you probably will admit you collect evidence for one side. As Hannah Arendt I am enamored with paradox. In a 1964 interview she told that the terror in the streets surrounding the Nazi elections could only be forgotten by the much worse terror that was to follow.
If we had time machines, I would sponsor a flight back for you into Buber’s perception at the time. …
But maybe we would need a future machine seeing the outcome of all pragmatic endeavors. Unfortunately that would render us immobile.
“As for Hamas, while it was indeed elected democratically, that ought not give it a free pass to do as it pleases. I need not remind you of other regimes in the past that came to power democratically only to go ahead and terrorize their population and commit all kinds of less than savory horrors.”
Mia if you weren’t comparing Hamas to Nazis, whom were you comparing it to? It’s important since the first sentence is intrinsically connected to the second.
“Richard wrote: And really, are you calling Hamas Nazis??
Nope. I never did. I was merely making a point that being elected legally does not mean that you will exercise your authority justly.”
You may not have called them whatever was on your mind, but you suggested something. And the moral fervor: “I need not remind you”, definitively points in that direction.
Man, that Godwin thing is a bitch! OK, so for the sake of further clarity. Hamas are not Nazis ok? As political movements, ideological orientations and standards of conduct go, there is no comparison. Are we clear? Yes? Good. And yes Richard, I know you have been critical of Hamas. I think though that the standards by which you criticize Hamas are not the same as the standards you use to criticize Israel and certain of Israel’s supporters. I say this as one who has been following your blog for a while and I say this with the utmost respect due. If there is a universal standard of conduct that we expect from people and governments then that standard ought to be applied universally. Your various critiques would be stronger if that was clearer in your writing.
“Hamas are not Nazis ok? ”
Fine! We are all aware of the suppressive tendencies in the occupied territories. But we are also irritated by the handling of the issue by Israel.
******************************************************************************************************************************************
May I ask you a favor? Judit, to whom Richard introduce us, reporting on Finkelstein’s arrest, wrote this: http://yuditilany.blogspot.com/2008/05/only-democ-oops.html
“I don’t necessarily agree with everything Norman Finkelstein has to say. And perhaps i would use different wordings.
But a true democracy should not be scared of criticism. A true democracy should welcome political discourse.”
I would be really pleased, if you could watched his lecture AND the question and answer session in Amsterdam to the very end (I know, I know it’s 2 hours), and tell me what you object to. You can mail me here: lea2n2der@googlemail.com.
I should have said: “handling of the issue by Israel and America”, since after all America seems to have forced the election.
@mia:
This may not be apparent in what I write though I have written this a number of times here. If it appears that I write more often & more passionately or more critically about Israel it is because I am closer to Israel, feel more moral responsibility for its actions, & have more desire to see it become the nation that it could become if it were ever to achieve real peace.
Though of course I care for justice & human rights for both sides & see the Palestinians as integral to the blossoming of a Middle Eastern future for both nations, I simply feel more engaged with Israel’s fate. That in no way is meant to denigrate the Palestinians.
I appreciate your frankness but you can see then how that would call into question the notion that you are a dispassionate observer. I think your critiques in general would benefit from a more even handed approach – one that criticizes Israeli excesses to be sure, but also recognizes the role that Palestinian hardliners play in perpetuating the cycle of violence. Both Hamas and Fatah commit outrages on an almost daily basis, but one hardly hears about that here. Just once I’d like to hear a clear and unequivocal condemnation of some of Hamas’s well documented violations of its citizens’ fundamental human rights – one that doesn’t posit blame or part of the blame on the occupation but that simply states that no matter the circumstances, some things are just plain wrong. Just once…
I’m NOT a dispassionate observer & make no pretence that I am. I am a passionate observer. That’s why I’m a blogger and not a journalist. I want to take a position. But I also believe in presenting reality as dispassionately as I can before I take that position. That’s why I try to acknowledge the validity of arguments on the other side whenever I feel they have merit.
My role is not to chronicle Palestinian excesses or to point to the evil that lurks among them. I acknowledge that it exists & criticize them & move on to other issues. I write about what I know and what I care about. I’m Jewish & a Zionist. I’m not Arab or Palestinian. Nor am I a student of Palestinian nationalism. My field is Israel, Zionism and Jewish identity. It’s what I know & care about. There are thousands of blogs devoted precisely to chronicling the evils in the hearts of Palestinians. Why do they need me? There are far fewer progressive Zionist blogs. That’s why I’m here. That’s my role.
You can hear those clear & unequivocal condemnations everywhere on the web & not just fr scuzzy sites & people like Pipes, Podhoretz & Dershowitz. You can also hear it from so-called liberals like Michael Walzer & lots of others. If you’re not hearing it you’re not visiting the right sites.