Gershom Gorenberg refused my request that he correct the record in his American Prospect post about J Street, in which he linked to a critical blog post I wrote about the group’s second national conference. He called my criticism of J Street typical of “the grim anti-Zionist left.”
Yesterday here, I accused him of payback for critical pieces I’ve written about his work in the past, notably his Palestinian Gandhi essay in The Weekly Standard. Today, Gorenberg replied that he gives little thought to what people write about him and that he could care less about anything I’d said about him. The upshot being payback was the farthest thing from his mind.
But in the blog post I wrote about the J Street conference, I said this about the roster of speakers for the gathering:
I’ve reviewed the speakers and generally (with a few exceptions) I find the American speakers are standard issue liberal Zionist fare including figures like Dennis Ross, Peter Beinart, Gershom Gorenberg, Bernard Avishai, Ken Bob, Daniel Sokatch, Daniel Levy, and David Saperstein. [UPDATE: a characteristically thin-skinned Gershom Gorenberg writes to complain that he is Israeli, though interestingly doesn’t reject the “liberal Zionist” label. The fact that Gorenberg was born in the U.S., retains U.S. citizenship and earns a considerable portion of his living in and from the U.S. seems to have been lost on him. But I promise I’ll call him an Israeli-American liberal Zionist next time.]
Now, you tell me: payback or no payback?
Gorenberg adds that the “implications” of the views I expressed in my recent essay at Israel Reconsidered about the Right of Return and Nakba were “anti-Zionist.” This is the desperate act of someone who can’t actually find any real evidence to support his claim, since I’ve never called myself anti-Zionist or even supported any overtly anti-Zionist position. Thus he calls the “implications” of what I wrote anti-Zionist.
So why is it important whether or not I’m anti-Zionist? And why does Gorenberg relish throwing me out of the Zionist camp? Most American and Israeli Jews are Zionist. They may have differing definition of what this means, but most feel comfortable under this rubric. If you define yourself as anti-Zionist or allow someone else to define you in such a way you almost automatically become “damaged goods” in the eyes of 90% of the world’s Jews. That is why Gershom Gorenberg needs to label me anti-Zionist. If I weren’t, then he’d have to actually deal with my views. By dismissing them so cavalierly he uses shorthand that allows his audience to automtically discount them as being beneath contempt (and beneath analysis).
Speaking of analysis, Gorenberg in his reply to me offered none. You’d think that when someone takes you to task in the way I did, that you’d at least attempt to support your claim with some evidence. I’ve challenged him to offer any.
I’ve also asked the web editor at TAP to correct the record. I await word from him though I’m not holding my breath since a regular contributor would almost always trump an aggrieved victim.
He is definitely trying to keep you as an unperson at the AP, but it doesn’t matter because he’s a dinosaur, like most of the hasbarists. File this away and use it against him later.
Why are you so concerned about labelling?
Does it really matter if one is labelled pro-zionist, anti-zionist, non-zionist, liberal-zionist, progressive-zionist, post-zionist or just plain zionist?
Surely what you write and believe is what is important and what best describes you?
You’re probably aware that some of your commentators also write on “mondoweiss”, and there you’d be considered no different from a settler for insisting on being called a zionist. They make no distinction there.
Keep writing good posts and you’ll be appreciated for what you are and not for what others think you might be.
Mondoweiss is a different blog than this one. Different style, different content, different politics.
What you’re labelled is important for reasons I discussed. If you were labelled a ‘shyster lawyer’ by another respected lawyer I think it’d bother you because it not only damages yr reputation it harms your professional opportunities to earn a living.
Having read you for a long time, Richard, and having paid much attention to your views on internal Israeli democracy and Israel that is NOT but should be a State for all its citizens, your view on the Palestinian ROR and also your opinion on the Jewish Right of Return – but not endorsing the One State-solution – I don”t consider you a political Zionist but a cultural/spiritual Zionist like Judah Magnes or Martin Buber (though I’ve changed my opinions on Buber since I read about his taking over of Edward Said’s family home in Talbiyyeh 🙁 )
That’s a fair characterization. If only Gershom Gorenberg had half your insight on this matter! In fact, I’ve written that I’m more comfortable with Ahad HaAm (founder of cultural Zionism) as my Zionist mentor than Ben Gurion or Jabotinsky.
One issue with your invocations of cultural Zionists lile Magnes, Buber, etc: who’s to say they would agree with you if they were alive today? They lived way before many of the current problems, and may have taken a more “right-wing” position if they were alive. It would be like someone suggesting a certain route as superior, but he wasn’t listened to and the party took a different route and now they’re in trouble. Fine, they should have listened back then, but that doesn’t mean that person would still cling to the original route after going the wrong way for so long! The original
advisor (ie cultural Zionists) would maybe have some other ideas in mind to get out of the current mess because of how much things have changed.
It matters what people are called. It shouldn’t, but it does. Political debate should be about substance, but one of the standard dirty tricks in politics is to mislabel people to evoke a visceral kneejerk reaction.
Not that I think being labeled an anti-Zionist should put one beyond the pale, but since it does in some circles, that’s all the more reason why Gorenberg should be accurate.
Amen. I agree it shouldn’t matter whether I’m a Zionist, post-ZIonist, anti-Zionist, whatever. Ideology in so many other parts of the world is passe as it should be. But if so many American Jews & Israelis are going to see political reality through the prism of Zionism, then it matters very much whether you’re called Zionist or anti-Zionist.
I think that it varies depending on situation. I am quite openly anti-Zionist, and I don’t have much difficulty in talking to Israelis of all political hues. I’ve certainly never felt myself to be ‘beyond the pale’. Probably things would be different if I were Jewish, as Zionism has become a litmus test of Jewish loyalty. Taking part in the debate on Palestine is far harder for Jews in this respect, as a large proportion of the worldwide Jewish community has certain expectations of them. Non-Jewish anti-Zionists face no such constraints.
While I understand and agree with your reasons for rejecting the label, Richard, I’m a bit uncomfortable with the photo and caption you have chosen to illustrate this piece. It makes it seem as though ‘anti-Zionist’ refers to people who go around befriending Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The term could just as well refer to me or Deir Yassin, and I don’t think you’d find either of us doing that.
Who was the last “settler” (i.e. Jew living in “Palestine”) that you spoke to?
Who was the last Israeli Chareidi Jew that you spoke to? Or frankly an observant Jew in Israel at all? (and by that I mean observant of Judaism – at least the big three that make you Jewish: Kashrus, Shabbos, and Taharos hamishpacha – not observant of the Mapai or of the State)
Speaking to Israeli Communists, the Israeli Nazis and Muslims, and to Israeli Socialists is not speaking to “all hues”.
I have many readers who are observant. I didn’t know that I had to be on good terms with settlers & haredim to have credibility. Thanks for clarifying that.
BTW, none of the areas of Jewish observance you list above “make you Jewish.” Jewishness is not defined by level of observance. Jewishness is defined first & foremost by birth.
Given that Chareidim make up almost 15% of Israel and in the coming years will be an increasing percentage of the population . . .
Given that “Settlers” make up about 10% of the population of Israel, and are also growing at an exponential rate . . .
You would think that the claim that you talk to peeps from “all political hues” is belied by the fact that you are a stranger to a quarter of the population.
Judaism, Richard, is defined first & foremost by the Torah through the Mesorah. Under halacha, Richard, what’s the din of a mechalel shabbos b’farhesiah – one who publicly does not keep Shabbos?
Settlers & Haredim do NOT make up 25% of the Israeli population. I’d say rather that the extremist settlers & Haredim are strangers to me and the rest of the Jewish people, not the other way around. It is THEY who write off Jews like me and express the grossest contempt for us. Who do you think is sending me death threats and threats to violate my children? Palestinians?
Are you arguing that Jews are stoned for violating Shabbat? Because if you are I don’t seem to have heard of such a punishment being meted out for oh, say the last 1,000 years or so. Which would mean that Jews don’t measure Jewishness by this measure. Once again you’ve confused observance of halacha with something much more basic to Judaism, the definition of what is a Jew. That’s, as I said, defined by birth, & not by belief or observance of law.
If you don’t keep Shabbos, you are not “Jew”ish and certainly shouldn’t call yourself as such.
As for stoning: when the satanic Mohammedans reestablish the Khalifa, which you liberals are working so hard for, all sorts of huddud punishments will be enacted here in the United States.
Stoning for desecrating the Jewish religion should be the least of your concerns, Richard. Do you have a grove of Ghardaq trees out in Seattle that we don’t know about? Did it protect Pam Waechter from the bloodthirsty Mohammedan American community when it counted during the Jihad, did it?
Chareidim and “Settlers” make up almost 30% of the under 15yo population of Israel and going exponentially. Frum Jews also make up almost a majority of the under 15yo self-identified Jewish community in the US. You may hate observant Jews, Richard, but they are the future.
You don’t determine whether I’m a Jew or not. Who died & left you the head of the Sanhedrin? I’ll call myself proudly a Jew and you can shove it where the sun don’t shine for all I care.
Racism is a BIG no-no in this blog & it’s clearly stated in the comment rules. I don’t permit anti-Semitism here nor do I permit Muslim-hatred. So this is yr warning. Next violation will be yr last.
Oh, you mean the lone Pakistani-American gunman so confused about his identity that he converted to Christianity for a time. And the one who was so sick he’d been on medication & psychiatric treatment for 10 yrs. And where is this imaginary Mohammedan American community that supported his actions??? The Muslim American community here in Seattle denounced him uniformly. His own family wrote notes asking forgiveness of the Jewish community for their son’s acts. They’ve behaved far more tolerantly & intelligently than you.
Says who? A credible source please.
I’d venture to say that this is a fake statistic & again I’d like to see a credible source as opposed to facts you pull out a certain part of yr body.
I didn’t mean the photo in that way. I meant that the photo represented how Gershom Gorenberg wanted the world to see me.
[By Way Of Demonstration And Proof By Way of Arguing the Absurd, I write this comment in The Hope that it won’t be Moderated/Censored]
@ shmuel and @ free man,
you write
“Does it really matter if one is labelled pro-zionist, anti-zionist, non-zionist, liberal-zionist, progressive-zionist, post-zionist or just plain zionist?”
I ask you
“Does it really matter if one is labelled pro-semitic, anti-semitic, non-semitic, liberal-semitic, progressive-semitic, post-semitic or just plain semitic?
and
“Does it really matter if one is labelled pro-jew, anti-jew, non-jew, liberal-jew, progressive-jew, post-jew or just plain jew?
and
“Does it really matter if one is labelled pro-israel, anti-israel, non-israeli, liberal-israeli, progressive-israeli, post-israeli or just plain israeli?
Of Course It Does Matter You Anti-Zionist Anti-Semitic Anti-Jew Anti-Israel Raghead Kike (See Footnotes 1&2 Below).
Of Course It Matters, Otherwise Get that Frown Off Your ugly face And Smile Smile Smile. I will not think You’re Playing Stupid. I’d Know That You Are Stupid and as Stupid As All Those Other Hasbarista Companieros of Yours. Plain-Stupid.
(FootNote1: “Raghead” is an ethnic slur used against Arabs, Indian Sikhs and some other peoples, denigrating them for wearing traditional headdress such as turbans or keffiyehs.[153] Sometimes used generically for all Islamic nations. See Towel head, Oil Nigger.
(FootNote2: According to Our Crowd, by Stephen Birmingham, the term “kike” was coined as a derogatory putdown by the assimilated American German Jews to identify Eastern-European Jews: “Because many Russian [Jewish] names ended in ‘ki’, they were called ‘kikes’—a German Jewish contribution to the American vernacular. The name then proceeded to be co-opted by non-Jews as it gained prominence in its usage in society, and was later used as a demeaning Anti-Semitic slur.”)
The word Kike refers to the Keikel which Jews were required to wear in the Middle Ages.
It is the formal policy of Neturei Karta to reimpose such clothing distinctions; as their position is that Jews are required to be persecuted.
You don’t know squat about Neturey Karta. I wonder whether you know anything even about Judaism.
I don’t know squat about Naturna? Those spitting folk who hate gays? http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/71669/video-ruben-rabbis-a-rumble/
V’Yoel Moshe, the Bible of Neturei Karta, is very clear about the role it sees for Jews in this world. In addition to the need for Jews to remain in exile it applies to contemporary events the traditional understanding of why the Jews deserved the Exodus. That we Jews did not change their language (i.e. Jews may only speak Yiddish as English and modern Hebrew is satanic); our names (i.e. we cannot have modern names like Richard or Matan); and our levush (i.e. we may not wear short jackets or grow a tchup).
If you’re such a strong supporter of Neturei Karta, Richard, best learn what they actually believe about the role of Jews in the world.
There is no such thing as “V’Yoel Moshe.” That is gobbledy gook Hebrew. You appear to know even less Hebrew than you know about Neturey Karta.
I don’t support Neturey Karta, nor do I support ignorance like yours either. As far as I’m concerned they’re little worse than Haredim, who share some of the same extreme views. But I do believe in actually stating accurately what those beliefs are.
V’Yoel or Va’Yoel Moshe (ויואל משה) is the name of the book that was written by the Satmar Rebbe (Joel Teitelbaum aka Reb Yoelish) who died in the late 1970’s.
The book is sometimes cited by Neteuri Karta in their statements of opposition to Zionism.
Bob Mann and Barry
The Neturai do not oppose Zionism ( a homeland in Israel for Jews).
They believe that it shouldn’t have been a secular movement. They do believe that Jews will eventually end up in Israel. They believe the Messiah should lead the way to Israel. Until then, they live in the diaspora.
Since they do believe that eventually their redemption will be in Israel, they cannot be called Anti Zionists.
Chayma,
You wrote that the Neturai do not oppose Zionism but on their website, they explicitly write: “We are opposed to the ideology of Zionism” in their “About us” section.
In fact, the subheading of the Neteuri Karta website is “Jews United Against Zionism”.
To claim, as you did, that they “cannot be called Anti Zionists” flies in the face of what they themselves state.
On their homepage, they very clearly and repeatedly refer to themselves as “Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews”.
Bob,
Are you Jewish or what? It appears you don’t understand Judaism.
The Neturei Kerta oppose the current state of Israel because it was created by men, not the Messiah. Secular men.
They oppose it becuase it is secular, and because of it’s associated sins.
http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/judaism_isnot_zionism.cfm
They further ignore those prophecies which explicitly describe the last exile’s conclusion as a Divine, not a human process.
The Creator has commanded every Jew to follow the ways of peace and to be loyal to the country where he lives.
Torah true Jewry waits patiently for the Messianic redemption. They have nothing to do with any kind of pseudo “Jewish State” and its aggressions against other peoples. They have a deep sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians who have suffered the most from Zionism’s false teachings and barbaric actions. The Zionist state is not a Jewish state.
Is that clear enough for you?
Here the Neturei Kerta state that they oppose the SECULAR state, but look forward to a theocratic one, in the Messianic era. This will be ruled by God’s laws, not by the likes of Netanyahu.
That state will not be an oppresive one.
Now tell me, how does this translate to anti Zionism? They do believe that their eventual home is in Israel.
Chayma,
I was just re-printing what NK says about itself on its own site with respect to being Anti-Zionist.
They do explicitly say that they oppose Zionism (in those exact words) which is why I felt comfortable claiming that they oppose Zionism.
I would also again mention that their website has a subheading stating that they are “Jews United Against Zionism”.
Bob Mann
If you are not prepared to answer direct questions, which would shed some light as to how you reach your conclusions, then there is no point in continuing this.
Their webiste prove that they are Zionists not anti Zionists. They only differ as to how they will get there, they don’t dispute that the land is not theirs or that God won’t eventually lead them there.
1. If the Neturei Kertai’s Messiah were to appear tomorrow and they all headed to Israel, what would you call this?
If you’re not going to answer this, then please don’t respond at all.
The website title includes the phrase:
“Jews United Against Zionism”
Under the mission statement one finds this statement:
“We are opposed to the ideology of Zionism”
Their “about us” page contains a link to a speech with the title:
“Key to Peace – Why We Are Opposed to Zionism”
In this speech, there is this sentence:
“The pious Jews of whom Neturei Karta is only one of many are seasoned veterans in the anti – Zionist struggle.”
The photo of NK members on their home page has this caption:
“Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews Commemorate 2010 Flotilla Attack”
I am not sure how they could be any clearer about their position with respect to Zionism.
That you believe their website “proves that they are Zionist” is something that I cannot reconcile with the statements I have cited above.
They clearly and repeatedly state their opposition to Zionism and they clearly and repeatedly refer to themselves as anti-Zionists.
The owner of this blog put up a photo of one of the leaders of NK as an example of an anti-Zionist.
I have nothing further to add on this subject.
Neturey Karta are generally known as anti-ZIonist. By claiming they favor a messianic Jewish kingdom but not a secular one, they cannot be called Zionists as the latter is generally considered a secular movement or at least was when it began & for most of its history. Not sure what Chayma’s referring to here.
Gut voch, folks.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/ויואל_משה is THE most important book about Zionism in the Orthodox community. Its the basis for the non-Zionist attitude of the entire Chareidi community; and the basis for the anti-Zionist attitude of the Satmar and Neturna community in particular.
As for why they are indifferent to the State of Israel (in the case of the Chareidim) or actively against it (in the case of Satmar) is partially – as mentioned here – because they want to live under a theocracy (see the Naturna rally in defense of a religious definition of marriage in New York State http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/71669/video-ruben-rabbis-a-rumble/) and Israel is more or less a Democracy.
And partially because of a eschatological understanding of the Messianic Age that doesn’t involve clowns like Sharon and Barak as Jewish leaders.
I’m continually shocked by your ignorance of Judaism – especially about the VERY ISSUES your care so much about.
I’m continually shocked too at yr level of ignorance about what I know and don’t know about Hebrew, Judaism, Zionism and any other subject you care to name.
I forgot you don’t know Hebrew, Richard. Here’s an English article about the shittah al taharos hakodesh toward tzionus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vayoel_Moshe
I know Hebrew. And if you continue with the insults you’ll be gone very soon.
I “don’t know squat”, naming the most important book on the Jewish theology toward Zionism is “gobbledy gook Hebrew”, you “wonder whether I know anything about Judaism”.
You know, Richard, will all due respect: instead of trying to repair the world and solve all the problems of the near east; maybe you should take some time off of blogging to learn some mussar. You know, a daily session with the Chofetz Chayim (more gobbledy gook Hebrew, eh?) or any sefer about bein adam l’chaveiro.
And, Richard, there’s no need to ask. I fully accept your apology for what you wrote about me. After all, its the Jewish thing to do.
I’m not an expert on Satmar religious tracts, but apparently there is such a book which I’d never heard of. But to say that such a book is “the most important book on Jewish theology toward Zionism” is ridiculous. You’ve apparently left out the works of Rav Kook, which are far more influential.
@ Bob Mann
The owner of this blog put up a photo of one of the leaders of NK as an example of an anti-Zionist.
That doesn’t conflict with what I said above. Nobody is saying they don’t oppose Zionism as practiced today by Israel.
They clearly and repeatedly state their opposition to Zionism and they clearly and repeatedly refer to themselves as anti-Zionists.
Who is arguing that they oppose Zionism today or how it is practiced today? I certainly am not. You are cherrypicking that which suits you and you are ignoring the rest because it suits your agenda to do so.
I have nothing further to add on this subject.
I already said, neither do I unless you answer direct questions what would expose your one sided narrow interpretation of what the Neturai Kerta stand for.
The difference is over who leads them to Israel, not that they will not eventually be in Israel. Why don’t you email them and ask them this if you cannot comprehend it from what they say on their website?
@ Richard
Neturey Karta are generally known as anti-ZIonist. By claiming they favor a messianic Jewish kingdom but not a secular one, they cannot be called Zionists as the latter is generally considered a secular movement or at least was when it began & for most of its history. Not sure what Chayma’s referring to here.
It sounds like this disagreement is due to what Zionism means. If you interpret it as meaning only the secular movement that led to the creation of Israel today, then yes, the Neturei Kerta are anti Zionist.
However, Zionism simply means a return of Jews to Israel in it’s most basic sense. That has always been part of Judaism, a return to Israel. The Neturei Kerta believe the Messiah will lead them there. Thus they are not anti Zionists.
Wow, you’re talking about the Orot? Other than the name of a nonprofit publishing company in Jerusalem, I don’t know a single Chareidi who would even be able to name a Rav Kook book that they read. Kook is an absolute non-entity in the Chareidi world, and basically the entire frum world in the United States.
I’m going to make a respectful suggestion, Richard. I understand that you go around representing to everyone how “Jewish” you are – I understand from this blog that you even participate in interfaith dialogue.
I think that to the extent that you – by your own admission – are an absolute stranger to almost a third of the Jewish population of Israel and half the Jewish community of the United States;
To the extent that you cannot distinguish Hebrew from “gobbely gook” and apparently know diddlely squat about the Jewish religion;
To the extent that you engage in a level of beast-like vitriol as a chillul hashem more appropriate for your Mohammdan allies;
May I respectfully suggest you knock off the “Tikkun Olam”, the I’m Mr. Jewish schtick.
Your Mohammedan allies believe that by befriending you they somehow are coming close to the Jewish community – you should explain to them that by your own admission you are a complete stranger to the next generation of the Jewish community of the US and Israel. And that if they want to engage in Peace Activism they ought to find some real Jews to do so with. What do you say, Dick?
Oh, and by the way, the way you insulted me and questioned by religion and didn’t link to a source about Rav Kook violated your rules. So I’m banning you, Richard.
You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
You changed the terms of the debate by originally claiming the Satmar text was the most influential Jewish theological text on Zionism. Not the most influential Haredi text, which is what you’re trying to argue now. I could care less whether the Satmar book is the most influential Haredi text on Zionism. That’s not what you originally argued.
Nor do I care whether any American Orthdox Jew knows Rav Kook. His influence is in Israel & it is very strong esp. among Orthodox Jews, but also on the Israeli political debate as well.
As for your offer of a “respectful suggestion” please don’t debase the English language by abusing that wonderful word “respect.” Since you have none for me & are lying to claim you do.
You have lied about the number of Haredi & settlers in Israel & refused to offer any proof whatsoever for yr claim, a major comment rule violation. You have similarly lied about the number of Haredi Jews in the U.S. & offered no proof.
As for my knowledge of Hebrew…I have an MA in Comp Lit majoring in Hebrew lit. I completely all my course work for a PhD in the same field. You’re confusing the fact that I didn’t recognize a book by the Satmar rebbe w. the fact that I supposedly don’t know Hebrew. This only shows your own ignorance, bad faith, & mean-spiritedness. As for my knowledge of Judaism–I allow NO ONE, least of all you to denigrate my religious identity or level of knowledge. And you are now banned.
Where in the world did you get the word “Mohammedan” from? Is that archaism supposed to be a denigration of Muslims? Or do you think you’re Lawrence of Arabia or Mark Twain in the Holy Land??
That’s the one word of yours I’ve enjoyed reading & I’m going to confirm that its the case by banning you for egregious violations of my comment rules.
I’m wondering if it is not counter productive to have public fights with other bloggers, Richard.
It wastes time and energy which could be better spent elsewhere. If others attack you, and you ignore that surely that’s better than responding, which leads to counter attacks, which require a response back. I don’t know how other readers feel but i’m sure some will agree with me that silence is maybe better or just ignoring..
It’s a shame to waste your talents on frivolities like blog wars and bloggers you disagree with or attack you.
I hestitate to say more for fear you’ll come down on me like a ton of bricks, but you get my gist I hope 🙂
I don’t agree with you Chaymy. Gorenberg is a well-known writer and in general, mischaracterizing the views of others is an all too common tactic used by people who are privileged to write for mainstream outlets against people who do not have that sort of access. In the days before the internet there wasn’t any effective way to respond. Now there is.
I understand your point, but I have a policy of not holding back when someone lies about my views. Gorenberg is, among some circles, a respected analyst as it The American Prospect. So no, I can’t allow his errors to go unanswered. It may be inside baseball to you, but not to me. You let someone do this one time & they’ll do it regularly. If he wants to tussle with me in future he’ll either be more careful or face the same response.
@Richard,
Thank you. I get your points. Perhaps I should have said to refrain from name calling and labels like “liars” just on the offchance that one can misunderstood or take offense at what may be a genuine error. Genuine mistakes can happen, and it’s better to err on the side of caution even if you think your opponent is 100% guilty. In the one sided equation of this, it’s the slurrer that loses especially if his/her opponent doesn’t respond in kind.
I’d say it would be sufficient just to correct their lies and ignore the insults and personal things. I know some won’t agree with this, so I guess it’s just personal choice. We’ll agree to disagree on this.
In your case, you have interesting unique news snippets to bring from unusual sources not found elsewhere, i’d rather hear about those, than what other bloggers and journalists are saying about you 🙂
@Donald
Yes, true, by all means you should respond to mischarecterisations, and any misinformation, or libellous material. No objections there, I meant to say just refute the facts, and leave the name calling and labels and personal slurs out of it. This way it does not become personal.
Dragging it out into personal quarrels is a waste of time, and counterproductive if you have something more positive to offer.
@ Chayma, you write:
“I’m wondering if it is not counter productive to have public fights with other bloggers, Richard.”
I answer:
No. It is not Counter-Productive. Edge it up intelligently and your counterparts might just give up, learn from you the correct path, or just shut up and disappear from the blog scene in the hope that they might go study and get themselves to better rational thinking and less imbecility.
It works in oral argumentation. It works in blog argumentation.
Kalaam, yes, see my response above,
Richard,
The way you feel when someone calls you anti-zionist is the same way people who respond in your blog feel when you call them “hasbara agent”. You do that thuoghtlessly with no evidance and to many responders here.
Maybe now when people treat you this way will give you insight as to how you treat others.
The difference is that “Zionist” or “anti-Zionist” is a very specific & concrete category of Israeli political philosophy. There is a set of beliefs loosely defined that constitutes Zionism, which I find myself in agreement with even if I’m in disagreement with other aspects.
The term “hasbara” is not the same. It’s a vague, amorphous concept with no commonly agreed upon principles or definitions. I use the term to define the quality of the argument than anything else. I realize hasbara may mean one is a shill or agent of the Israeli gov’t. And in some cases I do suspect some commenters here may fit that description. But I generally don’t use it in that sense here.
Aside from the plethora of words here, both terms are used to scale down the writer.
Not sure what “terms” you mean. And are you saying that I’m demeaning Gorenberg or he’s demeaning me?
I would hereby like to pose a public challenge to Silverstein. You claim you consider yourself a “Zionist.”? Fine, here is your chance to convince us. All you need to do is post the following statement as a posting on Tikun Olam, unedited, and we will embrace you as a Zionist. The statement must say this:
I, Richard SIlverstein, support the right of Jews to have their own sovereign state in the Land of Israel, a state that is as Jewish as France is French or as Syria is Arab. I support the right of Israel to use military force to defend itself and its citizens. I support the right of Israel to retaliate against terrorists. I support the right of Israel to retain sovereign control of Jerusalem, including the Old City, and I support the right of Jews to live anywhere in Jerusalem. I support the right of Israel to grant immigration preferences to Jews via the Law of Return.
If you will post this in you name, we will acknowledge that you are a Zionist. Of course you will still have a lot of explaining to do, such as your endless endorsements of the Arab agenda, support of the “Palestinian right of return,” and denunciation of all “hasbara” defense of Israel.
Sorry, bud. I don’t take orders from you or anyone else. My ZIonism is quite comfortable as I define it & I don’t need you to assist me in any way to do so. Stop wasting your time & stop preening & pandering to your own ideological biases.
And btw, you don’t define ZIonism nor speak for Zionism so cut out the “we” crap.
Reminds me a bit of the story of the Lone Ranger & Tonto surrounded by Indians who are about to attack, when the Lone Ranger turns to his sidekick & says: “What’re we going to do, Tonto?” Whereupon Tonto replies: “What’s this ‘we’ shit white man??”
@ Eric,
Eric I believe you are a Zionist. The kind of Zionist that real Jews call “Apartheid Zionist”. The conditions you listed above for Richard have earn you the title “Eric The Apartheid Zionist.” Of course as all decent people know Apartheid Zionists are not real Jews and cannot be Jews at all. So Eric, now that you have implicitly stated that you are a racist immoral person by nature and persuasion, tell me publicly who you are and what you really are ? Or perhaps you might want to repent, cast away your guilt, and recognize the Palestinian ROR for a start. You’ll feel better and metamorphose into a new lover of freedom and decency blessed by YHWH.
This is one of the strangest comments I’ve seen on this site.
Was it meant to be a satire of some kind?
“Israel is as Jewish as France is French”.
I wonder whether the French example is taught in Hasbara 101. It’s always taken as an example, though it is particularly inappropriate.
The equivalent would be “Israel is a Israeli as France is French”.
Being French is having the French nationality, no matter what ethnic or religious origin you may have, and religion is a private affair. Laurent Fabius is Jewish, Lionel Jospin protestant and Sarkozy Catholic with a Greek Jewish maternal grandfather. I’m not sure the majority of the French population know that ….we all know the pathological obsession the State of Israel has with ‘origins’.
wishing Right of Return and glorify Nakba makes you “damaged goods” in the eyes of 98% of the world’s Jews
and you know that
and pretty sure your jewish neighbours feel that way
but hey rick write whatever you wish but be very careful
not to ever write something that may endanger the
lives of real people – people that do something meaningful beyond suburbn hobyy farshteit ?
typing
Pretty much the way Israelis felt about negotiatons with the PLO in 1970, which were then illegal. I supported them. And the way Israelis felt about a 2 state solution in 1980 or 1990. I supported it. And the way some of them (though not anywhere near 98%, a figure you made up out of whole cloth) feel about BDS, Nakba and Right of Return. In a few yrs. these too will be normative concepts in Israeli discourse.
Would you remind your own government, if you’re Israeli to “be very careful not to ever” do anything “that may endanger the lives of real Palestinians.” If you’ll do that then I’ll promise to obey your suggestion. A deal? Didn’t think so. At least I tried.
It’s very interesting the way that zionism is justified to the larger public, I personally find most of these justifications flawed, or morallly troubling. I find the whole Zionist outlook to be troubling, any movement which seeks to define any place on this earth, or any positions in society as belonging to any one group of peope is troubling. I’m not opposed to we are Jews and we’re proud of this, or even sayin, we are proud jews who wish to return to Israel. My only problem is when it becomes, no one else can live here but us Jews. And since that is precisely what they mean, why not be openly “anti-zionist”? Why not push hard against the dangerous forces of nationalism and racism?
My view is that I am a proud Jew and support other Jews who wish to return there, make aliyah, etc. as long as Palestinian refugees can return as well. In fact, since they have a more direct tie to Israel as refugees, they deserve priority over the Jew wishing to make aliyah. But generally I believe Israel should be open to the return of both Jews & Palestinians. I believe the land must be shared & that no one religion or ethnic group owns it or has sole say over it.
Constantinus, I couldn’t agree more that those people who choose a specific place for an “aliyah destination” are setting the bar unacceptably low. In my book, a true Zionist holds that a Jew should be able to live anywhere and enjoy the rights accorded to her/him by Natural Law.
The reference to you is no longer in the article.
Its impossible at this point to know what he said about you, what language, what accompanying comments, what context.
Perhaps you should publicly state “thank you”.
It’s still there. I’ve just checked. Richard was never named personally, but there is a link to one of his posts in the article. Search for the phrase ‘grim anti-Zionist left’ and you’ll find it.
Oh, Mr Witty giving moral lessons as usual.
You didn’t bother to read neither Richard’s nor Gorenberg’s article, did you ?? As usual….
There a link to this blog after the ‘grim anti-zionist left’ in Gorenberg’s article.
Perhaps, you should publicly state “I’m one big joke but I can’t help it”.
Perhaps you should read more carefully. YOu’re only the 2nd person whose made the same erroneous claim, as Vicky told you.
Richard is then making a MOUNTAIN out of a molehill.
The language that he uses to describe those with differing political views than himself are far far more insulting.
A buried link to his site responded with “Gorenberg is a LIAR” and “Gorenberg refuses to apologize”.
I guess somehow that American Prospect is the voice of Israeli hasbara, influsing the liberal worldview with inevitably corrupt, “racist”, liberal Zionist thinking.
Oh, stop Witty, don’t be an idiot. I didn’t call him racist or corrupt. Cut out the histrionics would ya.
The link wasn’t “buried.” It was clear as day. YOU couldn’t find it. But I’m afraid you’re intellectually as blind as a bat. There ARE ways to really bury links so you don’t know they’re there. But of course you don’t know yr ass fr yr elbow when it comes to such technical matters. You should stop while you’re ahead. Any further argument will only make you look lamer than you already do.
Richard,
You often unnecessarily pick fights with those that share your goals, share your proposals, share your sensivity to events.
“Gorenberg is a liar” was your headline.
Gershom Gorenberg picked a fight with me, Witty. You’re blaming the victim.
And you won’t be the judge of whether the principles for which I fight and those with whom I dispute those principles are “necessary” or not.
You mean you don’t like what I call you, Richard W.
I definitely don’t like what you call me.
I think it indicates more about you than about me, particularly for your complete unwillingness to dialog earnestly, to actually understand how I (or others) think and conclude.
Its a scorched earth politics in the realm of discussion.
Very small tent.
I object strongly to your taking a deep and broad religious and ethical concept as a brand (an abuse of the word in itself, expropriation of a word) and for such a small tent of concerns and range (a further abuse of the word).
Witty, SCORES of people write far worse things about you here, @ Mondoweiss & I imagine any other progressive haunts you might have. Half the time you talk barely articulated nonsense. The rest, when your ideas are clear, are usually offensive. The following is a perfect example:
Tikun Olam is not my “brand.” I’m not in advertising or marketing. It is a religious concept with a specific political, moral, theological meaning. And if you talk such nonsense about something as basic to this blog you may not be talking that nonsense much longer here.