Mr. Rosenberg, I am interested in your assertions. I despise bigotry and having been a victim of anti-semitism i am particularly sensitive to this (in my opinion). Would you please be specific. Where has anti-semitism specifically occurred? Greenbaum for example has accused me of being anti-semitic (go look it up on the Baer post "Where is W"? Is my post the sort of remark you are referring to. Or is this a blanket charge? Or are there a lot of anti-semitic comments that are beyond the pale? Which is it? Can you please give some specifics?

I very much appreciate you writing this essay of your impressions and Josh Marshall giving voice to it with front-page placement.

Ir seems to me that it has been typical for most political blog sites to ignore the hate of all kinds being exchanged in comments under each post in the interests of "freedom of speech." But if the main contributors never address or challenge the nastiness going on beneath their publications, all they end up doing is creating two classes, one having civilized discourse via links back to other contributors's posts, and the other having bar room brawls that often ignore the original framing. The problem is that it is not just ugly, the problem is that there is no chance of learning and improvement. If you don't want to confront the "noise" your own writing produces once in a while, why are you doing it? Just to talk to others of your same "class"? The public interactivity of the "net" brings more responsibilties for writers, no? Not to just ignore like private hate mail?

You know, Mr. Rosenberg, the point of this site is to encourage and foster free, intelligent (hopefully), and calm discussion of political ideas, even difficult ones. I can think of no quicker way to corrupt that purpose than this type of screed. I have no doubt that many people and/or posters have crossed the line into anti-semitism, but you make no effort to identify those, or to cull out those posters who disagreed with you for legitimate reasons. By blasting out indiscriminately in this manner, you've certainly left the implication that to criticize your earlier post is to be a "Jew-hater." I'm sure you understand that this is a tactic that is not unknown in the annals of debate over the Middle East.

You're obviously offended by what some people have written you, and no doubt in some cases you have every right to be. But I think you have a higher responsibility, as one who has gotten prominent placement here, to respond in a more reasoned, careful manner. Your response, in other words, was disproportionate and undifferentiated, and I for one find it wholly inappropriate. Perhaps you should count to 10 before your next post.

Now I understand you Jew-haters out there prefer the term anti-Zionist. Yeah, yeah. But this litle device is about as convincing as when white supremacists, homophobes and other haters argue over semantics. If you want to see the State of Israel eliminated, a nation with 6 million Jews living in it, you are advocating the mass murder of Jews. And you know that.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Aren't many of the Aryan Nation types big supporters of wars and bombing brown people?

Many on this site admire the courage of Uri Avnery and Gush Shalom.

Photo's of peace demonstrations in Israel by Rachel Avnery at link. 

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

I hope everyone just heard the Prime Minister of Lebanon's plea to the world to be rescued from the predatory Zionist entity - the Butchers of Beruit  

How long America must we fund this criminal enterprise and tolerate their insults?

Letter From IsraeL
The Great Fiasco - The Army Wanted Action

Ran HaCohen

Hosea 8-14

Set the trumpet to your lips! One like a vulture is over the house of the Lord, because they have broken my covenant, and transgressed my law. 2Israel cries to me, “My God, we—Israel—know you!” 3Israel has spurned the good; the enemy shall pursue him. 4They made kings, but not through me; they set up princes, but without my knowledge. With their silver and gold they made idols for their own destruction. 5Your calf is rejected, O Samaria. My anger burns against them. How long will they be incapable of innocence? 6For it is from Israel, an artisan made it; it is not God. The calf of Samaria shall be broken to pieces. 7For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. The standing grain has no heads, it shall yield no meal; if it were to yield, foreigners would devour it.

Securing the Realm
Israel Crosses the Line

Israel Bombs Civilian Convoy, 17 Killed

Relations between the United States and Israel are crucial to stability in the Middle East, where the road to peace and prosperity continues to be fraught with many obstacles.  In this regard, Congress has placed considerable importance on the maintenance of a close and supportive relationship with Israel. Dianne Feinstein

If you want to see the State of Israel eliminated, a nation with 6 million Jews living in it, you are advocating the mass murder of Jews. M.J.Rosenberg

Substitute "whites" for "Jews", and isn't that what the Nasionale Party of South Africa said for forty some years?

Is the advocacy of a single-state solution, by definition, anti-Semitic?

N.B. "6 million Jews living in [Israel]" -- unlikely to be accurate but a tres sneaky way of reminding us of the Holocaust. 

Oops! Thanks, I should have provided the link.

Yet again with the generic "some posts" etc. The classic way to end all debate and paint all your opponents as racists.

Unless you cite specific posts to object to then your entire rant is worthless and you are simply trying to shut down debate.

Well, frankly, I am glad to see this:

What's my definition of anti-semite? Simple, you simply want the Jews dead. You advocate reform or revolution everywhere else but for Israel only destruction. And you love chortling over the deaths of six million Jews in the holocaust?

Why am I glad to see it?   Because I am sick of Israel constantly provoking problems in the world.  I am sick of Israel getting the highest per capita financial aid from us, which they then use to build up their army and weapons.  I am sick of the attitudes of both victimization and superiority that comes from their every proclamation. 

I am glad to see your definition because I was sure you would label me a "jew hater" or "anti-semite" before I read it.  I don't want jews dead.  I don't hate jews, nor do I wish them so much as bad luck!  I want them to behave like civilized human beings.  I don't think anything about the holocaust was funny, and I don't think it is funny what the Isrealis are doing to the Palestinians, which is another kind of holocaust.

By the way, I think that over in Iraq, where "people" are beheading those they disagree with are also uncivilized and  I can't imagine what is wrong with their minds that they gleefully kill and maim.  I don't wish them dead either.  I also want them to behave like civilized human beings.

Sometimes I fantasize that a chemical cloud would render everyone in the Middle East with religious amnesia.  No one would be able to remember who they hate.  What a concept! 

Jan Knaus

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

It's so funny I forget to laugh...the US Sec of State gets bitch-slapped by the cimrinal sadist Olmert and Bush like a puppet on Israel's string, as the world's condemnation builds and the PM of Lebanon cries for help, what do we hear from Rosenberg???

The same old Lobby Shit

Anti-Semitisim Lives!

But what I see here is pure and simple race hatred. Frankly, if I saw any of you walking down the street, I'd hide my kids. You are old fashioned anti-semites, what my father-in-law would have called pogromchiks. I suspect Jews are not the only minority you despise. Haters don't usually confine themselves to one group.

 What is HERE?  Are you saying that you see anti-semites when you walk down the street, and hide your kids from them?

Man, you are at LEAST paranoid, and a very hate-filled person yourself.  You need to get a grip, grow up, and maybe move somewhere (like a jewish gated community) where you will not feel so fearful. 

Jan Knaus

Sorry to torture you with another anecdote, Howard, but you reminded me of Captain Shestople.  He worked for the Post Engineers in Cholon, and one morning he showed up and someone had put a swastika on the glass of his cubicle.  He was devastated - I was there.  I could just see him sink into himself, as if someone had let all the air out of him. But I'll tell you, about everyone in the office consoled him.  I was really impressed.

Neoboho

Artappraiser: …some people need to be told how ugly they sound to some others.

Mr. Rosenberg (and your apologists)-this is ugly:

Simple, you simply want the Jews dead. You advocate reform or revolution everywhere else but for Israel only destruction. And you love chortling over the deaths of six million Jews in the holocaust?

… about as convincing as when white supremacists, homophobes and other haters argue over semantics. If you want to see the State of Israel eliminated, a nation with 6 million Jews living in it, you are advocating the mass murder of Jews.But what I see here is pure and simple race hatred.

Frankly, if I saw any of you walking down the street, I'd hide my kids. You are old fashioned anti-semites, what my father-in-law would have called pogromchiks. I suspect Jews are not the only minority you despise. Haters don't usually confine themselves to one group. Get yourselves over to Aryan Nation where you belong.

For those who are stressing a requirement of specific examples from Mr. Rosenberg to go along with his interpretation, note that there aren't any here, either. Though not using the anti-Semitism word, he doesn't limit it to hatred of Israel, using the term "to see Jewish evil":

....But on a day like today I see a different picture, though magified perhaps by the febrile intensity of email. It comes when I'm again exposed to the other side of the coin. American politics leans heavily in Israel's direction; and so does the American media. But there is out there a broad constituency of ignorant and malevolent hatred of Israel and, really, Israelis, that, I think, masks its malevolence even to itself through being awash its own self-righteousness. I think I understand the Palestinians' rage. In any case, I respect it. For this trash from Americans who only seem able to see Jewish evil in the midst of this protracted conflict I can't have anything but contempt. And it puts me on my guard.

-- Josh Marshall
Talking Points Memo
July 15, 2006 -- 12:40 AM EST

I'd suggest that Jews get a grip on demographics and consider how far you can push the overwhelming majority of Americans.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Obviously you didn't agree with my comment in the original thread about the dangers of positioning. What's afoot here, in my opinion, is the arrival at a critical discursive crossroad - that to challenge the primacy of Israeli policy is or is not equivalent to challenging the existence of the state.

Here's my concession to your arugment: some commenters here are possibly not looking at the far reaching implications of their challenge to existing policies. It's a complex situation. People (meaning us here at TPMC) bring all sorts of subsiderary issues to the table, which in turn shape individual positions. It's complex to the degree that there is no totalizing super-position, such as "anti-semitism".

I think, therefore, that you are correct to remind everyone that a certain position if played out in real-world politics whould destroy Israel. But I just don't think the clarion "anti-semitism" can substitute argumentation and debate.

Why don't you instead ask participants here "How many of you support the notion of the survival of the Jewish State, Israel?" It's obvious that the overwhelming majority would support that. Maybe everyone, in fact.

That said, any of us - perhaps by measure of our expertise - are apt to to write something here that someone with greater expertise would see as dangerous to the survival of the Jewish State. Perhaps we are more concerned with indirect issues such as the eruption of chaos in Western Asia, or fear an invasion of Iran or Syria, and see Israel as doing the exact wrong thing that exacerbate the dangers we perceive. I'm just trying to lay out alternatives to "anti-semitism", you see. "The arugment "yes, but if Israel doesn't do x, then y will happen" is perfectly good. Anti-semitism is not. It's a show-stopper. Howard says (with merit) it's a semantic issue. I think it's a semiotic issue. The meaning of "anti-semitic" is by now so overdetermined that it can no longer really "mean" anything (semiosis can not occur). It can only incite. It's very glandular, sort of a bio-weapon.

Neoboho

I agree with you. I would really like to see what it is that Rosenberg is referring to. You seem to appreciate his point, perhaps you could show us when and where opposition to some (on my part and others) or all of Israeli policies crossed the line into anti-semitism. Again i am asking for this seriously before engaging Mr. Rosenberg directly.

For the record let me say that I have heard innumerable times in this and related posts how standards are being applied to Israel that are different than those applied to say France or any other nation. And to some degree this is true; and it is natural. Israel has a unique history; its existence was established by a conscious act of the reviled United Nations, in circumstances quite different than that of any other modern nation-state. Of course there will be different standards. (That doesn't mean of course that every judgement orcriticism is reasonable.) On the other hand, I guess I am not aware of any other country that has a passionate chorus of supporters who level the charge of anti-semitism as soon as criticism is levelled. So the short form seems to be: treat Israel like every other nation and if you criticize you are a bigot and an anti-semite.

Okay, I'm going to indulge in some pure speculation about what may have triggered Mr Rosenberg's rant.

Fear.

Fear of what? Fear that this latest action by Israel may be greasing the slide away from US unconditional support for Israel's actions, no matter what.

Despite the disingenous protestations that Israel and her advocates had little affect on our decision to make war on Iraq, that's bunk. Where did I get that idea? From a comphrehensive daily reading of Israeli and friends" sources since early 2002. The enthusiasm for the Iraq war in Israel and the aid given in pursuit of that aim was so voiciferous that the Israelis were warned repeatedly by Washington to shut the hell up.

Although there was little MSM discussion about the participation of Israel in our war preparations at the time, the speculations about the role of Israel and friends was spreading. Thanks in part to the very public statements of her supporters.

(Note to AIPAC et al: maintaining a low profile does not confer invisibility)

Now, three years into a dangerous debacle that is drawing us ever closer to a meltdown in the ME and the undeniable linking of Israel with our foreign policy aims vis a vis Iran and Syria, Israel is taking actions in Lebanon (and perhaps beyond) that will make things infinitely worse for America and Americans.

IMO, Mr Rosenberg, the potential blowback from Israel's ongoing destruction of Lebanon has upped the ante in terms of Americans maintaining unquestioning support for Israel. My guess is that you are seeing the signs of that inevitable erosion and fear it.

So you lash out at those who are also expressiing themselves in fear-driven angry terms, forgetting that some people are simply a-holes.

That said, I too am angry and afraid.

Enough already.

I can think of two or three posters who have sometimes crossed the line into comments that appear to advocate, or at least take pleasure in the thought of, the violent destruction of Israel.

And why don't you feel free to name them? After all, many are asking for specific examples from Mr. Rosenberg.

Especially since most people use aliases on forums like this?

Here's the big problem I see on blogs with comments: in the guise of "free speech," people don't bother to even downrate extremist comments bordering on hate speech, if they are from wingnuts on their side of the political spectrum, much less challenge them. If it's a right of center blog, there's lots of challenge the lefty hate that appears, if it's a left of center blog, there's lots of challenge of righty hate that appears. But hate that's on "your side" of the political spectrum is tolerated with silence, without much challenge.

To the target of the uglier comments, to someone in a group sensitive to it, silence appears as tacit approval. The comments unchallenged loom larger in their mind; it tells them: this is a group that would never defend me if push came to shove.

I've seen it happen with Christians, too, few challenge or downrate something like a comment lumping all evangelicals together, implying something like they are all "evil" like Pat Robertson, or stupid. To a liberal evangelical, they might feel irrational hate, especially since if someone bashes just liberals in general, they get all kinds of flack for it.

What the community on a blog tolerates without challenge sends a message. If a community is afraid to challenge or downrate a anti-Semitic comment, or simply tolerates it with a shrug, what does that say to Jews out there about how much they can trust those who are not Jews?

The principle of freely allowing hate speech only works if people challenge it. If it's a self-policing community, that's all of us.

I simply meant that Josh Marshall is also complaining about something he feels he sees without giving specific examples.

I myself happen to think that some specific examples would really be helpful from both of them.

That said, it is a tradition in the blogosphere that people can rant/vent about something without giving examples, is it not? We all might ponder why this topic is so special in this regard.

Why don't you instead ask participants here "How many of you support the notion of the survival of the Jewish State, Israel?" It's obvious that the overwhelming majority would support that. Maybe everyone, in fact.

I recall, that Jews and Palestinians at one time co-existed in one state during the 40's.  What happened to the co-existence? Why does there need to be a separate state, when it seems that establishing this 'separate state' is what has been at the bottom of the 40 year war?  Why can't they co-exist in one state?

Blacks, Hispanics, and other racial minorities co-exist in the United States...why is that so difficult in the Middle East?  It seems that minority sects are the most powerful in the Middle East...like how the Sunni's ran Iraq and the Marionite Christians dominated Lebanon. Isn't this similar to whites being the ruling class in S. Africa?

Even Yassir Arafat recalled when Jews and Arabs co-exist during his boyhood. What happened to peaceful co-existence?

I asked the same thing in a posted response to the charge of antisemitism leveled about half way down the response thread to the post Gaza, Lebanon, Two Different Wars.  The response was to start another post in which the charge of antisemitism is leveled even more broadly.

This moves nothing forward.  Others have tried to refute the assertion that anti-Zionism is the same as antisemitism better than I can.  

What I would like to suggest is that nationalism itself is a pretty dangerous ideology, and patriotism attached to it and sanctified by religion is even more dangerous.  I like what Emma Goldman had to say in Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty: 

Gustave Hervé, another great anti-patriot, justly calls patriotism a superstition--one far more injurious, brutal, and inhumane than religion. The superstition of religion originated in man's inability to explain natural phenomena. That is, when primitive man heard thunder or saw the lightning, he could not account for either, and therefore concluded that back of them must be a force greater than himself. Similarly he saw a supernatural force in the rain, and in the various other changes in nature. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.

I've pointed people to the best contemporary source I know concerning this point, sans Goldman's antipathy to religion:  Chris Hedges' War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning.   The link clicks through to Amazon, buyer beware...but the reviews are full of insight and appreciation.  Read them, read the sample pages, and then buy the book from your favorite local bookseller. 

If church and state remain separate, they become contestants for the loyalties of people and the power to invoke harm on the population is minimized.  This is John Locke's point in his Letter on Toleration, itself broadened and secularized.  So what I advocate is the secular state:  Neither antagonistic to religion, nor promoting it.  If all states act as honest brokers of the social contract it doesn't make much difference whether single or multi-states occupy a given geographic area.  I don't think holding this view makes me anti-semitic.

Mike

I agree completely. In 1962, it was the Cuban lobby and a neophyte President out to appease it who got us into the Bay of Pigs and almost got us into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union (and I say that as an Irish-American whose mother took her to see JFK when she was 9). Speaking of the Irish, I know a truly saintly nun who once told me with shocking venom that she'd be happy if the Hispanics took over the US so we'd stop speaking the hated English language. There are zealots in most causes and the hatred sometimes outlives even the cause.

"That said, it is a tradition in the blogosphere that people can rant/vent about something without giving examples, is it not? We all might ponder why this topic is so special in this regard."

I don't think so. Given Josh Marshall's and Rosenberg's and maybe Greenbaum's rants what makes this site different from innumerable blog sites where that is all that the posters do? I mean, we all have frustrations with the direction this world is heading and with some of the others who post, so we use a modicum of sarcasm, wit, and other techniques trying to avoid the invective that cause many political discussions to degenerate into pure rant. I certainly find this post from Rosenberg annoying, insulting, unsubstantiated , and in the end cowardly and dishonest for making serious and highly insulting charges in a sanctimonious manner and not being willing to identify what he is talking about. This whole episode is shabby and disappointing. When everything is said and done what Rosenberg means seems to be: I am willing to criticize Israel and you may too,but if anyone goes beyond what I say then they are anti-semites. If Rosenberg is notwilling to engage in political discussion, and he reviles people who mistakenly take him seriously, then he should find an appropriate church and preach to the choir.

Since in all honesty, by expressing disapproval of everyone I think of as an asshole, I"m afraid I would then have to include myself in that category. Bigtime.

You missed my larger point that I'm speculating that Mr Rosenberg's "fear" stems from a more generalized perception that Israel's recent actions will result in declining support for Israel among Americans.

Given his time and efforts on the front lines of his own battles, I rather doubt that he is literally "afraid" of posters on this blog.

Let me be more precise. How are they different in that they force a small group's policy in a larger electorate that doesn't much care about them?

As far as I am concerned, a pox on both houses...er...lobbies. I wonder how George Washington would view both, in his views about foreign involvments?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Bio-weapon? It's more like a Get Out of Jail Free card that only Jews are dealt.

But that's another issue, Liberal Voice.  I could have left the "bio-weapon" quip off and made my point - which was that language can short-out the human nervous system when abused.  So I might be championing the cause of linguistic revision...that is, choose our words carefully. 

Furthermore what nation on earth has a "right to exist" ? Nations exist as long as they are viable. Nobody here is going to change that little matter of historical inertia.

Again, this is a linguistic issue.  You're parsing words - I think you know exactly what I mean.  "Right to exist" may have been a poor choice of words on my part, but I think that challenging it is a bit of a strawman.  If I had written: "...most here support Israel's continued existence" would your response have been different, for example?

Neoboho

But I do think global frustration with Israel's 40 year illegal occupation of East Jerusalem etc is giving rise to a new anti-semitism. Critics of Israel's expansionist policy should be careful to blame Israeli statesmen and the voters who elected them, but not Jews.

I agree with you about the national and global frustration but I do not think this is fueling a rise in anti-semitism. The frustration is with American foreign policies and tax dollars given to aide a policy, many Americans view as disproportionate to our own national interests. Afterall, most of the Al-Q talk about their hatred of America is not about Americans but focused on the biased pro-Israel policies of America.  That is what you are hearing. Americans no longer find it sensible to support Israel in the way we have over the past 40 years. That is not anti-semitism...it is pro-Americanism..

American foreign policy should  have no permanent allies, there should simply be permanent American interests.  When we have interests in common with our allies we should be supportive, but our allegiance should not be disproportionate to the well-being and world standing of America itself.

I do not hear 'hatred toward Jews' whatsoever...I hear the resounding question of WHY? HOW MUCH LONGER and AT what COST will we support a one-sided policy in the Middle East. It is not about Jews..it is about Americans, American tax dollars, and Americans standing in the world in terms of a foreign policy that fuels terroroism on our own soil.

The US military doesn't seem to keep many statistics based on religious affiliation, but from what I've been able to find out, there are roughly 14,000 Jewish people serving in the US military. Of the 140,000 or so troops currently serving in Iraq, 3% are Jews (couldn't find stats for Afghanistan). I got those statistics from the Jewish War Veterans site, at present there are approximately 100,000 Jewish veterans of US wars that belong to that organization. I mention this because while googling for statistics, I had to wade through links from various left wing and right wing blogs that shared an ugly similarity, they were all repeating the same ugly stereotypes against Jewish people.

I grew up in New England, in mostly small, factory towns. I've known Jewish people virtually all my life. Of the four kids my daughter grew up with who are serving in Iraq, one is of Arab descent (his family emigrated here from Jordan) one is Jewish, both are on their third tour of duty, give or take. Both have baby faces, when I read or hear about deaths of troops in Iraq, theirs are the faces that first come to mind, and bring a fear to my heart.

If that's not enough for you, I read about 26-year-old Army Specialist Joe Kashnow, whose right leg was amputated below the knee, a procedure necessary due to wounds he sustained during his tour of duty in Iraq. I read about David Ashe who served 7 years in the marine corp, and is one of the fighting Dems running for a seat in the house of representatives. I found the names of Army SGT Michael B. Shackelford, Army SGT Howard Paul Allen, Marine LCpl Mark E. Engel, Marine 1stLt Andrew K. Stern, Marine Sgt Alan D. Sherman, Air Force AIC Elizabeth Jacobson and Army SPC Benyahmiin Ben Yahudah all Jewish American veterans who died in Iraq, and here are the names and some personal details of 9 young Jewish troops who died in Iraq between '03 and '04.

Marine Cpl. Mark Asher Evnin, 21, of South Burlington, Vermont, died in Iraq on April 3, 2003, of wounds received in action. He was a scout sniper with the 3/4 of the 1st Marine Division at 29 Palms, California. Evnin is the best known of the Jewish war dead because he was the first Jewish serviceman to die and he was among the first two dozen casualties of the war. His story was told in an April 15, 2003 Jewish Telegraph Agency article: "The first known Jewish casualty of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Evnin opened an emotional outpouring from Jews around the world. 'From Israel to New Jersey, people have been calling, writing. It has been incredible,' said Evnin's mother, Mindy Evnin…'I don't know why it is. Maybe it's because the war might help Israel,' she said. 'Maybe because my father was a rabbi. I don't know, but it gives me pleasure.'"

Evnin was a 2000 graduate of South Burlington High School. He played high school football, lacrosse, and was a cross-country skier. His survivors include his parents, his maternal grandparents, and his paternal grandmother. His traditional Jewish funeral attracted over 1,000 mourners, including Gov. Douglas of Vermont.

Army Spc. Jeffrey M. Wershow, 22, of Gainesville, Fla.; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Orlando, Fla.; was shot and killed on July 6, 2003 in Baghdad. Wershow was a member of the Florida Army National Guard.

His life and death was profiled in USA Today. "... Wershow never let his guard down. His buddies nicknamed him "The General" because he strode about with a sense of purpose and confidence. ….He always stood at attention when addressing officers, when most other soldiers sweltering in the heat here would take a more casual attitude. So it was a shock on July 6 when the aspiring politician from Gainesville, Fla., was gunned down on the campus of Baghdad University after buying a 7-Up. If this gung-ho soldier who wanted another stint in Iraq could be killed in such a brazen way in a crowded place, his buddies figured it could happen to them, too. For the men of "Charlie" Company… of the Florida National Guard, Wershow's death occurred when most thought they would already be home....Buddies say Wershow was intelligent, tenacious and so gregarious that he'd talk to anyone, anytime. He loved to debate, even going so far as to take a position he opposed just to get a good argument going. 'He called himself a conservative Democrat, but we always teased him that he was a closet Republican,' recalls Glass, the company commander who's also from Gainesville. Wershow enlisted in the Army in 1999 after high school and served three years. When he got out in June 2002, he joined the National Guard. He had been back in Gainesville just six months, taking [college classes], when he was called to active duty...After several weeks of training, his company arrived…in Jordan on Feb. 16. Their mission was to provide security and search-and-rescue support to the special operations forces…. Wershow's unit became one of the first to enter Iraq as the war began. Under cover of darkness and using night-vision goggles to see, they breached dirt berms on Iraq's borders with Jordan and Saudi Arabia to allow special operations forces to drive through...The soldiers were led to believe they would be sent home in mid-May. Instead, [his company} was ordered to Baghdad. Wershow fretted that he would miss the fall semester at college. He talked about following his father, Jon Wershow, a former Alachua County, Fla., commissioner, to law school and then, perhaps, to elected office."

Wershow was guarding a detail of civilian Americans meeting with Iraqi university officials when he left the meeting, after two hours, to get a soft drink. He was fatally shot in the back of the neck by a gunman on the campus. The gunman escaped in the confusion that followed the shooting. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida called Wershow's death "an assassination."

Wershow was buried at his family's farm near Gainesville. He was awarded a Bronze Star for valor. More than 1,000 mourners, including many high-ranking officers, attended a memorial in the Oak Hall School gymnasium. Wershow's survivors include his father and mother, a stepmother and a stepfather, and a younger brother.

David Bernstein, 24, formerly of Phoenixville, Pa., a first lieutenant with the Army's 173rd Airborne Infantry Brigade, was killed on October, 16, 2003, in Iraq, when enemy forces ambushed his patrol with rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire. According to the local Phoenixville paper, the 173rd is famous for its quick reactions, most often carried out by parachuting into war zones. Bernstein was dropped into northern Iraq at the beginning of the war and had remained there since, according to his father, Richard Bernstein. His father told the paper, "He was an exceptional man and a wonderful person and he will be missed terribly. He felt very indebted to this country for what it has done for him, and for everyone. He wanted to serve his country, and he did."

David Bernstein was the 1997 valedictorian of his high school. He graduated fifth in his class from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point four years later. His funeral was held at the Jewish chapel at West Point. Survivors include his parents, a brother, and sister.

There was a little joke in the Bernstein family that the first through fourth ranking cadet got an award at graduation, but there was no award for the cadet ranking fifth in their class. Therefore, as a perpetual tribute to David, his family has established the 1st Lt. David R. Bernstein Memorial Award to be given to those in each graduating class of West Point who achieve the fifth highest class standing. The award has Academy approval and donations may be made through: https://www-secure.west-point.org/drb/memorial/donate

Army Pfc. Jacob S. Fletcher, 26, of Bay Shore, NY, was killed in Iraq on November 13, 2003. He was with Company C, 2nd Battalion (Airborne), 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade. Fletcher was killed when a bus he was riding in was hit by an explosive device. He was a 1994 graduate of Babylon High School and was inspired to join the military following the death of a friend in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. His father, Marlowe Fletcher, told Newsday, "Whether people believe in the war or not, you have to believe in our soldiers. This was an American soldier, airborne. He was my beloved son and he was a hero."

Army Spc. Marc S. Seiden, 26, of Brigantine, New Jersey, died in Baghdad, Iraq, on January 3, 2004, when his convoy was ambushed by the enemy who used an improvised explosive device, small arms fire, and a rocket-propelled grenade. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne. His mother told the Fayetteville, North Carolina Observer that Seiden was "a daredevil since childhood" which led him to join the airborne. "I always had to have 25 eyes on him."

Marc Seiden was a New York Mets fan and played soccer in high school. He joined the Army in April 2002 and was assigned to the 82nd in September of that year. His mother, Gail Seiden, said that Marc joined the Army in part because of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. She added, "He joined because he felt he had a duty. I didn't understand it when he did it. I was angry at him because I knew what could possibly happen. But he felt like he could fight for his country and he wanted to." Marc, his mother said, called his family twice on New Year's eve and once on New Year's day. Marc was excited about coming home since his unit was scheduled to come back in February. His brother and sister-in-law, Gail Seiden explained, were expecting their first child. "Our first grandchild [was going] be born in two weeks, and [Marc] just could not wait. He was going to be the godfather." Seiden was posthumously awarded a Bronze Star for valor.

Army Lt. Seth Dvorin, of East Brunswick, New Jersey, a member of the 10th Mountain Division, based at Fort Drum, N.Y., was killed February 3, 2004 in Iraq. His sister, Rebekah, told the Associated Press that the army informed her that "Seth's unit had been ordered to clear the area of the homemade mines and bombs that have killed dozens of troops...they were in a convoy and saw something in the road. My brother, the hero, told his driver to stop. That's when the bomb detonated, when they were trying to dismantle it." His father, Richard Dvorin, an Air Force veteran and retired New Brunswick police officer, told the AP that his son was a loyal, responsible commander who sought to make life as easy as possible on the soldiers he oversaw. Offered two weeks' leave in December, his father said, Seth refused to go because so many of his platoon members had not yet had the chance.

Richard Dvorin, with tears rolling down his face, told the AP, "He was a good human being." Seth's survivors include his father, his sister, and his wife---a college sweetheart he had married a week before he was deployed. Dvorin was posthumously awarded a Bronze Star for valor.

Sgt. Elijah Tai Wah Wong, 42, of Mesa, Arizona was killed Feb. 9, 2004 in Sinjar, Iraq when he and other soldiers were trying to move a cache of unexploded rocket-propelled grenades and mortar rounds, which had been seized from enemy forces. The cache blew up, killing Wong and another soldier. Wong was with the 363rd Explosive Ordnance Company, Army National Guard, based in Casa Grande, Ariz.

As reported by the Chicago Tribune: "He himself was a composite of widely different cultures, a living example of the United States' hodgepodge of infused immigrant experiences, religions and races.His Chinese father, Wong Ning Nam, who was born in 1908, came to the U.S. by ship from Hong Kong. He landed in San Francisco without a suitcase and settled eventually in New York, where he married a Jewish woman, Wong's mother, Olga. 'My father came to this country with the shirt on his back," said Wong's sister, Helga. 'In the course of one generation, he has five children who are college-educated and own their own homes, as well as some of them owning their own businesses.'"

Wong was born and raised in New York, but moved to Israel as a teenager. He went to an Israeli high school and became a soldier in the Israeli army. He enlisted in the Air Force after returning to the States. Wong also served in the NY Air National Guard and the Air Forces Reserves before enlisting in the Arizona National Guard. He worked as a probation officer for Maricopa County, Arizona and was the married father of three minor children.

Helga Wong told the Tribune, "He was probably the most amazing person I have ever met. He really cared about everyone and everybody." She told the Arizona Republic this his work for the probation department was "Part of his plan to save the world. He tried to help the former inmates under his supervision work their way back into society. He believed in his country, with all its pros and cons.... I cannot imagine how many countless lives were saved by the (explosives) he had processed already."

Ironically, Helga Wong, a New York ballet dancer, saw one of the planes slam into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 from the window of her mother's downtown apartment.

Coast Guard Petty Officer Nathan Bruckenthal, 24, was killed on April 25, 2004, along with two Navy sailors, while conducting maritime intercept operations in the North Arabian Gulf. He was guarding an oil platform in the Persian Gulf off the shore of Basra, Iraq, when a cargo ship began approaching. The ship blew up when Bruckenthal and others went out to intercept it. His funeral was held at Arlington National Cemetery and he was buried, at his request, in his tallit. Bruckenthal was given a Bronze Star for valor.

Bruckenthal was born on Long Island, but due to his parents' divorce, he was raised in many places around the country. He finally settled in Virginia, where he joined the ROTC in high school. He served as a volunteer fireman and joined the Coast Guard in 1998. A 1000 people attended the memorial service on Long Island a few weeks ago. Attendees included Ric Bruckenthal, Nathan's father and the police chief of Northport; Congressman Steve Israel; and Nathan Bruckenthal's pregnant wife.

Marine Cpl. Dustin Schrage, 20, of Indian Harbor, Florida, died in Iraq on May 6, 2004. While his death is still under investigation, it is believed that he drowned while swimming across a river in the Anbar province during a mission. Schrage, who had been in Iraq for a year, was a member of the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force.

Dustin Schrage was born in New York and moved to Florida when he was in elementary school. He graduated from high school in Florida. His mother, Nina, and his three siblings described Dustin to "Florida Today" newspaper as a laid-back 20-year-old who enjoyed video games, punk rock and hanging out with friends and family more than anything else.

His mother said of him: "He was all about a good time. We always thought he would be a stand-up comic." Dustin, she added, had always planned to join a SWAT team after he got out of the Corps, about a year from this summer. But more recently, he told his mother that he wanted a job that didn't require living by an alarm clock. He'd had enough of that in the military.

I Recognise I'm a touch pro Israil, to the extent that I would like to see Israel posess Palastine, Lebanon and a few other places in the region. (Let the residents of those countries move to Iran where they can hang out with their budies).

Yes, i'd say just a touch pro-Israeli. :)

I don't think this is true, whiterosebuddy

Well Yassir Arafat spoke of it. He said that as a young man Arabs and Jews co-existed and went to school together and there was none of this virulent hatred. He felt that generations since the 1948 Establishment of Israel, knew nothing but hatred for Jews whereas his generation did not have that type of hatred.

Also the Jewish population in Palestine was about 30% when they co-existed as one state in the 30s and 40s. It seems there was this White Paper doctrine where the British limited Jewish immigration, following the British relinquishing control of Palestine seems to be when there was a mass influx of Jews to Palestine. Followed by increased Arab-Jew conflict.  Declaring two states is when the never ending conflict that exists today seems to have begun.  It seems that 900K Palestinians became refugees as a result of the UN declartion of 1948.

I suppose, this would be like having a mass influx of Mexicans to TX and someone deciding that they were going to divide TX into two states and give 70% of the land to Mexicans despite them making up only 40% of the population and giving the Americans 30% of the land despite them being 60% of the population.  I imagine that would cause a conflict...and especially if the Mexicans insisted that TX was theirs first even before it became part of America.  Imagine that. All those Americans displaced would be quite upset by such a decision.

Well it depends on what you mean by "eliminated." If you think establishing a Jewish state in a land inhabited by millions of Arabs is unjust, you might want to see Israel eliminated as a Jewish state and converted to some kind of state that is neutral about religion and ethnicity.

 

Exactly where things are headed, and at the risk of stimulating their "existential/eliminationist" agnst, they know it too. Israel as we know it today, will not be tomorrow, and the world will be better off for it.

The Fate of Israel

No matter how many or great are its tactical successes, Israel’s strategic picture grows dark. Losing allies. Losing land. Losing people. Perhaps even losing internal cohesion.

 

It seems obvious who will win. Israel might last 100 years if its people are both lucky and skillful. Nevertheless, in the future only historians will know that the war’s outcome was ever in doubt. Much as today’s students see the Hundred Years War between England and France, Israel’s end will seem inevitable to them.

 

It's interesting how y'all get so worked up about Israel. But, I assume, most of you are Americans. Right now a terrible war is being fought in our name. 2600 American kids have died and perhaps 100,000 Iraqis.
Other than sitting around blaming the Jews, what do you fine humanitarians do about Iraq.
Do you spew hatred toward all Americans because you don't like this war? Does this war reflect on you? How about the war crimes? Are you hanging your heads in shame?
Or do you separate our country from the war? Separate the vast majority of Americans from the policymakers who gave us this war?
I'm not "scared" by the comments here. I'm educated by them. I thought old fashioned Jew-hatred was a thing of the past. But I see that it is alive and well, at least among the lunatic fringe.
But why wouldn't it be? Arab-Americans, African-Americans, gays, Hispanics and others face mindless hatred all the time. Why wouldn't Jews?
Don't get so riled up about being called anti-semitic. Embrace the label. You have earned it.

Because I am sick of Israel constantly provoking problems in the world.

Ahh yes the ubqitous "Jewish problem", 60 years ago the Germans had a similar problem.

Then you wonder why Rosenburg is hacked off at folks like you and others here.

But thing is, Israel didn't start this fight. Two groups of Muslim terrorists(who have sworn themselves to the destruction of Isreal) did. But hey, you're on a roll so why bother you with facts.

I am sick of Israel getting the highest per capita financial aid from us, which they then use to build up their army and weapons.

Here's little history lesson missy, Isreal was attacked 3 times in less than 50 years by its neighbors who wanted to exterminate them or at least drive them into the sea.

The Muslims only stopped when they got their collective asses kicked and threatened with having their capitols turned into radioactive glass.

I want them to behave like civilized human beings. I don't think anything about the holocaust was funny, and I don't think it is funny what the Isrealis are doing to the Palestinians, which is another kind of holocaust.

So Isreali Jews are not civilized human beings eh?

You then compare them with the Salafist head choppers and car bombers of Iraq who butcher people by the score everyday.

Sickening. Liberalism in all its glory.

Sometimes I fantasize that a chemical cloud would render everyone in the Middle East with religious amnesia. No one would be able to remember who they hate.

It must be nice to know whats best for people all over the world.

Well this is just plain nasty, and borders on incoherent. Who is "y'all"? Who has earned the anti-semitism label? Whom are you addressing? Please come down off the ledge M.J. - you seem to be having some sort of breakdown.

In fact many of those here who have been most critical of Israel have indeed been bitterly critical of US actions in the Middle East, and do indeed feel shame about American war crimes.

I don't think it is so easy to separate the country from its "policy-makers". Some Americans have actively supported the crimes of the US government, and those Americans deserve to be condemned along with their government. The same is true of some Israelis.

I haven't seen a single comment in this thread that that "spews hatred of all Jews". Where is this coming from?

I won't add to your paranoia by responding to all of your exaggerations; you took everything I said and spun it into your own negative web of victimhood. I don't think for a moment that there is a "jewish problem" that is the cause of all the world's ills; this thread is about Israel and anti-semitism. It is not about "what is wrong with the world." I stand by everything I said, because it is what I think.

I will only say one thing in rebuttal; I brought up the beheadings, NOT to make any kind of comparison, but HOPEFULLY to pre-empt the argument that I was only criticizing Israeli actions. This "Missy" sees that there is plenty of room for criticism, just as there is room for the birth of civility in Israel and elsewhere.

Oh, and to your comment about knowing what's best for the world -- that was a FANTASY -- and it was limited to the Middle East.

Jan Knaus

The story of Ben Salomon, the only US Army dentist to be recognized with a (posthumous) Medal of Honor, is too long to post here, but even more fascinating that the Medal citation below. It took 60 years of trying to reconcile heroic conduct with international law finally to make the award. Both Jewish groups, and his dental school, were active in the appeal.

CAPTAIN BEN L. SALOMON
UNITED STATES ARMY

for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:

Captain Ben L. Salomon was serving at Saipan, in the Marianas Islands on July 7, 1944, as the Surgeon for the 2d Battalion, 105th Infantry Regiment, 27th Infantry Division. The Regiment's 1st and 2d Battalions were attacked by an overwhelming force estimated between 3,000 and 5,000 Japanese soldiers. It was one of the largest attacks attempted in the Pacific Theater during World War II. Although both units fought furiously, the enemy soon penetrated the Battalions' combined perimeter and inflicted overwhelming casualties. In the first minutes of the attack, approximately 30 wounded soldiers walked, crawled, or were carried into Captain Salomon's aid station, and the small tent soon filled with wounded men. As the perimeter began to be overrun, it became increasingly difficult for Captain Salomon to work on the wounded. He then saw a Japanese soldier bayoneting one of the wounded soldiers lying near the tent. Firing from a squatting position, Captain Salomon quickly killed the enemy soldier. Then, as he turned his attention back to the wounded, two more Japanese soldiers appeared in the front entrance of the tent. As these enemy soldiers were killed, four more crawled under the tent walls. Rushing them, Captain Salomon kicked the knife out of the hand of one, shot another, and bayoneted a third. Captain Salomon butted the fourth enemy soldier in the stomach and a wounded comrade then shot and killed the enemy soldier. Realizing the gravity of the situation, Captain Salomon ordered the wounded to make their way as best they could back to the regimental aid station, while he attempted to hold off the enemy until they were clear. Captain Salomon then grabbed a rifle from one of the wounded and rushed out of the tent. After four men were killed while manning a machine gun, Captain Salomon took control of it. When his body was later found, 98 dead enemy soldiers were piled in front of his position. Captain Salomon’s extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.


I do suggest reading the more extensive story.

From a different standpoint, Judah Benjamin was the quite effective Confederate Secretary of War.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Am uprating, not because I think this comment was excellent, but because it was not a troll comment. Geez.

This whole thread is pointless, imo. The post itself is problematic because of the intense emotions shown therein. And I think a lot of people are afraid because of what is happening now in the Middle East. That doesn't bring out the best in anyone.

This subject is difficult and brings out a lot of vitriol. My feelings about this present situation are more towards this Administration, which has done virtually nothing to be an honest broker. I recall Dan Levy's great post on the subject (sorry, don't have a link) where he pointed out that very often the US was able to give Israel cover to be restrained in a way it would not otherwise have been able because it would have been seen as a sign of weakness (and I am paraphrasing that badly, so I apologize to Dan Levy).

When negotiations have worked in the past to minimize violence in the area, there was a corresponding minimization of vitriol as well here in America, maybe because we are more willing to "invest" in a situation that has some hope of peace to it and are disgruntled at giving aid to a situation that seems hopeless. I don't know.

But I do feel very strongly that this Administration has done virtually nothing to truly engage with the parties and act as an honest broker.

Just a few days ago there was a subject "debated" here about why no one was commenting about the growing conflict in Israel.  That subject got a lot of comments, many of which I felt were overly anti-Jewish, and many that I thought were overly anti-Palestinian.  This is just a sensitive subject.

As I posted at that time, I think the main reason for the sensitivity is that none of us can dream of a solution to the conflicts over Israel.  That leads to frustration and anger.  Personally, all of my life I have tended to believe that if folks would just listen to me I could put to rest just about every problem in the world, but in Israel I see a non-solvable problem.  I have no idea how to achieve peace there, and that frustrates me.

Just as I think events are gradually moving in the right direction, and my admiration of Israelis begins to grow, Israel does something I find utterly beyond the pale.  I consider their current invasion of Lebanon one of those beyond the pale moments.

Just as I begin to hope that the Palestinians in the Middle East are rational human beings just as the Palestinians I have known are, they elect as their government an organization known  primarily for its terrorist activities.

One thing I still believe is essential to achieve peace in Israel between the Israelis and the Palestinians is for our president to be deeply committed to the process, willing to use all of his influence to move the parties towards a just settlement of their grievances.  And, our current president's failure to do that also has me frustrated.

So, I much prefer discussing other subjects here. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

sorry I posted in wrong position

I've sent an email to Josh about this article.

It is beyond the pale.

It's one thing when one gets into a spitting match with an individual here at the Cafe.

It's another when a contributor posts a screed like this that basically accuses everyone who responded to his previous article as an "anti-Semite."

This is simply unacceptable. This is an insult to every single one of the commenters at the TPM Cafe.

Josh needs to say something about this.

I am glad in a small way that we will see some but in fairness, Mr. Marshall, that has nothing to do with THIS post, which talks about the publicly posted comments that we have all read and that Rosenberg is commenting on. Mr Rosenberg may be shocked that ANTI-SEMITISM IS ALIVE. I am not. But his assertions that it is not just present but plastered all over these posts is clearly false. So either the posts you show are like the ones that have posted here (in which case I have to re-evaluate my opinion of you) or they are quite different, quite venomous, that we all recognize as anti-Jewish bigotry, which will validate the emerging unappealing picture of Rosenberg that he has painted for us (that is, his quick willingness to draw on the anti-semitic smear to prevent rational discussion).

Dude, there are a grand total of about 4 or 5 folks around here who may well fit your description. You're painting with an awfully broad brush.

Indeed, as I mentioned above, the comment sounded like a troll, and I rated it as such.

I didn't even recognize the poster's name! I skimmed over that, read the post, and recognized a pointless and inflammatory troll.

The current article is more of the same.

What do we call it when a site contributor's article is a "troll"?

Aren't you the (barely) reformed terrorist who at one time wanted to nuke American cities?

"There are also some posters who advocate the end of the Jewish state of Israel, and its replacement by something else: a single state of all the inhabitants of Israel and Palestine, with no constitutionlly prefered ethnic groups. I don't agree with their position, because I believe in is unachievable, and that neglecting a more workable two-state solution in favor of the futile pursuit of the one-state solution is a recipe for further violence and disaster. But I accept their good will, and I think it is fair and important to recognize that these writers are not at all in favor of the destruction of the people who live in Israel. They seek some sort of regime change after which those people will become citizens of a different state."

Indeed, I am one of those posters.

And while I disagree that the one-state solution is "unachievable" in THEORY, practically it probably is. But I also believe the two-state solution is ALSO unachievable practically - and I have the history of the conflict on my side on that one, with the latest results apparently demonstrating it conclusively.

But in any event, nowhere have I ever advocated the destruction of Israeli civilians. While I have PREDICTED the destruction of Israel if it continues on its current path, and possibly even a new diaspora of Israeli Jews as a result, this is not a preferred position on my part, but a PREDICTION of failure.

As a Transhumanist, I really don't CARE one way or the other - that doesn't make me an "anti-Semite", just a radical Transhumanist. I'm an equal opportunity bigot, as the joke goes - I hate everybody.

The only pleasure I get from contemplating the destruction of Israel is the look on the face of the Zionist fanatics who called me "anti-Semitic" who will be sorely disappointed that their Zionist fantasy fell apart. To that, I plead guilty. So sue me.

Not to dredge up the old "but I know good [fill in the ethnic blank] people" canard, but anybody who knows what I think about Winona Ryder (nee Horowitz) wouldn't think me "anti-Semitic."

So as a late comedian once said about how people were offended by his political remarks, "Where do I go to register my offense" at being called "anti-Semitic?"

I brought this up in the past when I was banned for calling Ivo Daalder an "idiot". I asked what happens when commenters get to call other commenters "anti-Semitic." That's okay, but idiot isn't? Okay, that's just commenters - nobody cares about us, just the contributors, I guess. Fine, no problem.

Well, here we have a contributor calling everybody "anti-Semitic."

I think Josh needs to make a statement about what is allowed for CONTRIBUTORS to this site.

If you can't figure out how to use the "Reply" button, selfinterest, at least identify the writer of the quoted language.

Josh is referring to his emails here, not the commenters on the TPM Cafe.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Because if he is, he needs to specify who he's talking about here, point to specific examples of text, and defend the accusation.

You do NOT call someone an "anti-Semite" without being able to back that up, just as you do NOT call someone a "nigger" without being able to back it up.

That is the point of being opposed to racial slurs.

I will use the "n-word" at times (I was in Federal prison for eight years - believe me, you hear it 24 x 7, mostly by black inmates, and with the same pejorative tone.) I will use it according to the definition I give it. If someone has a problem with that, I will explain the definition and they can take it or leave it. If they use that definition to make the incorrect conclusion that I believe that all blacks are niggers, they can do that - but they are incorrect. Period.

The same applies to Jews, except I have NEVER used ANY racial slur against Jews, because I don't see any consistent negative or positive behavior among any particular demographic of Jews. I DO see consistent behavior among many belonging to the political ideology of Zionism, which is an entirely different matter.

Therefore, equating opposition to Zionism, or even the Iaraeli state in general, to "anti-Semitism" is simply incorrect in fact and if done deliberately to win an argument is intellectually dishonest.

And if anyone here does it, I will call them on it - whether it's Josh, the author of the article under discussion, Daniel Greenbaum, Zionista or anyone else.

For the record, once again - are you reading this, Greenbaum? - I will explicitly state that I do not believe and have never stated and never will state that people of the ethnic or religious denotation "Jew" are in any way AS A CLASS "bad", "wrong", "evil", or even my preferred term "incorrect."

Of course, being HUMAN, they're ALL fucked up, but that's another issue.

So the NEXT time some one here calls me "anti-Semitic", they are going to get their asses chewed seriously.

And while I disagree that the one-state solution is "unachievable" in THEORY, practically it probably is. But I also believe the two-state solution is ALSO unachievable practically - and I have the history of the conflict on my side on that one, with the latest results apparently demonstrating it conclusively.

Right. A no state solution is the most likely outcome. Either the Arabs or the Jews will be evicted from historic Palestine. Demographics favor the Arabs...but it's interesting that those -like you - who argue this also argue that Jews are the stronger party and, therefore, should be magnanimous and restrained in their actions.

As a Transhumanist, I really don't CARE one way or the other

This is bullshit. Why are you wasting your time on a political site if you don't care? nobody cares about us, just the contributors, I guess. Fine, no problem.

What a pretentious idiot you are! This is one of the premier liberal sites in the strongest country on earth. Lots of people care, everyone cares...
...but then maybe you aren't a person.

The subject at hand isn't just something existing here on the tpmcafe blog, it's pandemic on left wing blogs on the 'net. Academics at private and public universities and colleges are providing rationales and advocating anti-semitism.. we aren't dealing with one instance of this.. and addressing this in a public way is long overdue.
The last time historically that this happened, it wasn't taken seriously enough, and we all know what the outcome was. I don't think I'm guilty of exageration stating that.

Your guilty of exageration. Your also getting your political fear guage backwards.
Obscure academics make rediculous statements, this is the nature of their profression.
Right wing activists actually drive Jewish families out of town.
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_07_02_patriotboy_archive.html#115205133179072443

The left will never hurt jews in America.
You can not say the same thing of the right.

One thing you can be sure of. Republican activists will try to convince the Jewish citizens of America that the "left" will hurt them. Don't fall for stabbed in the back myths. We all know where the last one ended. I don't think I'm guilty of exageration stating that.

You are naming names, but phrased in the manner you seem to prefer as the means of pulling chains. Since you, yourself, have done so, until I see you engaging in rational and courteous discussion on a consistent basis, I shall not give you the benefit of the doubt.

While I disagree with Transhuman on most topics, I never know when he is going to come up with unique insights, or simply an enjoyably funny comment. Sometimes he is alarming, but other times, I can be reasonably sure he is engaging in deliberate hyperbole.

As to your other question, let me be more precise. I am proud to be an American, without hyphenation. My race is human.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Yes.

Here they come, armies of them, out to squash, insult, dehumanize, all the subhumans...
Beware.

until I see you engaging in rational and courteous discussion on a consistent basis, I shall not give you the benefit of the doubt.

Rational and courteous are two separate qualities...and, quite often, not happy companions. I am always rational...but, on this site, rarely, courteous. You err in ignoring that when you post your ratings.

While I disagree with Transhuman on most topics, I never know when he is going to come up with unique insights, or simply an enjoyably funny comment. Sometimes he is alarming, but other times, I can be reasonably sure he is engaging in deliberate hyperbole.

So what? Plenty of people liked Hitler, Mao, Stalin and - for the benefit of the denizens of this site - Reagan and George Bush.

As to your other question, let me be more precise. I am proud to be an American, without hyphenation. My race is human.

You're living in a dream world, Berkowitz. You left the Republicans because you were a Jew uncomfortable in the company of fundamentalist evangelicals. You're crazy if you think you've found a home here.

VL -- Whatever it has to do this "this post" I was responding to a comment specifically about mail I've received. I wouldn't have painted with the same broad brush MJ did because there was a whole range of opinion in response to his post. But I do understand where he's coming. And I think some of comments qualified for his rebuke.

As for MJ, don't be so quick to judge him. He washed his hands of AIPAC because of their resistance to seriously engaging the peace process and he works tirelessly for a two state solution. matched against him I find your criticisms of him not worth mentioning, candidly.

As for emails, here's one of the tamer ones ...

From the worst excesses of the Stern Gang, whose founder David Stern said of the innocent Jewish victims of his bombings and machine gunnings, that they should be proud to have been part of the sacrifice toward the aims of Zionism, to Deir Yassin and other incidents like it, to the USS Liberty, where claims of "accident" have been thoroughly debunked, to Sabra and Shatilla, to the gross reaction to the inifadas, to the parade of murders of Palestinians by hard line Jewish "settlers", to the bombing and rocketing of urban Palestinian areas where innocent collateral damage is utterly certain, to the sniping of Pastinian children by IDF soldiers, I find that my sympathy for Israel as a victim has worn thin. I have little sympathy of thugs of any stripe, Arab, Jew, American or anyone else. With a minority of exceptions, the Israelis state and a far too large a portion of the Israeli people have demonstrated an inveterate and traditional affinity for homicidal rampages of their own or through proxies. Was Baruch Goldberg unique? No. Justifiable anger over the above mentioned actions is fully justified and those who call such anger antisemitic are engaging in blatant hypocrisy. I simply fail to see the ethical distinction between a suicide bomber and a five hundred pound bomb being lobbed by an F-16 into an apartment block crowded with and surrounded by playing children or the lobbing of a large artillery shell into a crowded beach. I feel badly for the children who are killed on both sides, but as for the adults, a dead israeli civilian occasions less sadness than a dead Palestinian civilian in my bosom. I am rapidly running out of remorse for the Israelis. They are in this position because of their own conscious choices. Remember Rabin. They began to lose me when they murdered their own chance for peace. A prediction-sooner or later, there are going to be some ugly and utterly tragic and regrettable incidents in synagogues on more than one continent.

Rational and courteous are two separate qualities...and, quite often, not happy companions. I am always rational...but, on this site, rarely, courteous. You err in ignoring that when you post your ratings.

You're living in a dream world, Berkowitz. You left the Republicans because you were a Jew uncomfortable in the company of fundamentalist evangelicals. You're crazy if you think you've found a home here.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

*shakes head sadly* Knuckle sandwiches are an excellent way to get the nasty infections characteristic of human bites. Be a bit more creative. "Thrust to the soft, cut to the hard" is a starting point.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Here's your ally, M. J. You're welcome to him.

Describing life as Hobbesian is one of the more rational things you've said. We have the evidence of your words that you are nasty and brutish, and there is reason to speculate that you are short, evidenced in the Napoleonic need you seem to have to dominate all others with your bon mots of bitterness.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

What solution is that again?

Population transfer. Extirmination.

Oh, and where has it worked?

Almost everywhere it's been used.

I was thinking of the exchange between Greeks and Turks in 1922 which the League of Nations cited when recommending transfer in the late '30s as a means of solving the Arab/Jew problem in Palestine.

But extirmination has certainly worked in the United States where Indians are no longer a problem, and in Europe where Yiddish culture no longer exists.

I'm sure you can think of many more examples now that I've shown you a world beyond your ideological blinders.

Jews and Arabs coexisted in Palestine in the 1930's and '40's, but they were under British control as a result of the war (in the '40's, at least). There was no "Jewish state". And the Zionists were conducting active terrorism against the British to force them out of Israel in order to form that Jewish state.

I agree, getting people to realize that the only hope for either of them is to renounce the "Israel is for Jews only" concept, and build a single economy and state for the benefit of Jews and Palestinians both is the main issue.

Unfortunately, that necessitates removing both the concept of Zionism and the concept of anti-Semitism from the equation and resolving the historical issues of land expropriation conducted by the Israelis against the Palestinians.

And the problem with that is that the people in power in Israel and Palestine are mostly adherents to those concepts and the beneficiaries of that land expropriation (on the Israeli side).

I'm six feet 2, have the build of a professional athlete...which is what I was during my working days.

I'm not bitter, Howard. I'm passionate. You should try it sometimes. It's very human. Isn't that what you claim you are - human? I wonder.

If this thing's between you and TW, then, send him a private comment OR -- if you want to make it public -- provide a link.

If you have the integrity to read the site rules and assumptions, and can understand them, you would find that ratings are principally intended to address courtesy and quality of expression.

If I'm being rated on courtesy I certainly deserve my low ratings. I don't care about the rules. I discuss the topics in a way I think appropriate. If that gets me banned, fine.

And how would you know my religion? You seem to be making sweeping generalizations on no data whatsoever.

I don't know your religion but I know you're heritage to a very high degree of certainty. Your picture is what it is, your name is Howard Berkowitz, and you left the Republicans at the time religious conservatives gained control. Who do you think you're fooling?
Enjoy the safety of your anonymity, little boy. It's rather a shame that certain customs have been abandoned. Were you to show your face, I might be tempted to invite you to a field of honor -- if you had any. Cowards rarely do.

Have I so insulted you Howard...by pointing out that you are obviously Jewish? What's that about?

I just downrated his post because in fact it IS a troll comment.

If anybody else here had posted that rant, it would have been downrated as a troll or at most a 1.

Just because he is a contributor doesn't make Rosenberg any less of a troll in his article or his comment.

And as I've said elsewhere and in an email to Josh, he needs to make a statement as to just whether his contributors are allowed to be trolls here, if the rest of us can get banned for similar nonsense.

Actually, you need to get your facts straight, heh, heh. So you should be downrated for that alone, not to mention attitude.

I never said I wanted to nuke US cities. I said US cities might GET nuked when people get tired of the US.

MY plan for bringing down the US state and society was more complicated.

Not that I wouldn't have used tactical nukes on some targets if I had them, but what were the odds I'd ever have them? They don't grow on trees and I have no technical training to be able to use one.

None of which is relevant to my behavior at this site, which is the point under discussion.

O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion.

* Robert Burns, To a Louse, st. 8 (1786)

I see enough of you, Sir, that I shall carefully consider those suggestions you make for my behavior, and, reassured, do the opposite. I commend to you the Stoic philosophy of Epicetus and others.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

If I'm being rated on courtesy I certainly deserve my low ratings. I don't care about the rules.

I don't know your religion but I know you're heritage to a very high degree of certainty. Your picture is what it is, your name is Howard Berkowitz, and you left the Republicans at the time religious conservatives gained control. Who do you think you're fooling?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Mr.Marshall, maybe we can be more than candid. How about even-handed. You say "And I think some of comments qualified for his rebuke". In your careful perusal of this long thread and the previous ones here at TPM did you find any of the anti-Palestinian, anti-Moslem, anti-Arab language that might upset someone who comes at this crisis well-intentioned but with a different sensibility? Were those comments worthy of rebuke too? Now I am sure you did, and I am quite sure you are even willing to append that to your comments above. But my point is that these remarks that may be offensive came from both sides and not so clearly overwhelmingly from one side and not so clearly more offensive from one side. So what? Well, so, this entire post was initiated by Mr. Rosenberg in a rage against mostly civil discourse that he didn't like and he used language that goes beyond the pale.

You also say "As for MJ, don't be so quick to judge him. He washed his hands of AIPAC because of their resistance to seriously engaging the peace process and he works tirelessly for a two state solution. matched against him I find your criticisms of him not worth mentioning, candidly." I do not judge him, I am judging what he wrote. Before he wrote this I was really delighted to have someone framing a discussion in a way that was different from the pat way the issue is always framed by the American and Israeli right-wing and then sold to the media and the public without dissent (as I complained about the Baer post). My concerns like his are that the usual framing will never represent a long term solution of the Arab-Israeli (now the Moslem-Jew) conflict and in the end pose a greater threat to Israeli lives and well-being (and Palestinian as well).

I was adopted, so exactly how do you infer my heritage?

Your foster parents were named Berkowitz? Hindus with Americanized names?

And how do you define heritage based on appearance, rather than genetics?

Appearance - to a very high degree - is determined by genetics. :) You're being ridiculous Howard. If I see a man with white skin I assume he's Caucasian, black skin Negro or South Asian or Austaloid (I can then differentiate by features). When I look at your picture I see an Ashkenazi Jew.

Several friends renounced Catholicism and variously converted to Buddhism or neopaganism. Do you insist they are still Catholic, or is that something do only to those who you think are Jews

They are still of whatever heritage they were. Many times in human history that has trumped conversion in the eyes of a state and its populace. That's been especially true for Jews.

I don't understand you, Howard. Are you really a conservative stereotype, a self-hating Jew?

You do realize that your posts are establishing you as the pre-eminent - or at least certainly one of the most consistently rated - trolls at this site.

Heh, heh.

You presumed...You can't tell what my real attitude is...I implied...or so it seems...

You really aren't sure of much of anything, are you? I'd be in the same boat, if I were you.

Fortunately, I'm not.

You really are an amateur at this sort of thing. Go to Slashdot and get some training. Come back when your uniform is ready, in a couple of years, as Wolverine said.

I rather like myself. Apparently as opposed to you, I have studied modern genetics, and don't rely on head shape or other weird things, as did the RuSHA. Please, enlighten us on how Jews look, or would it be easier just to point to the Nuremburg Laws?

Precisely what do you mean by "heritage"? Geographical? Religious? I must be very confused by being considered part of the extended family of a Sierra Leonean clan.

As far as I am concerned, I am an American. Race is not a scientifically meaningful term. Genotypes can mean something. My religion is eclectic neopagan.

Now, if some state and its populace want to tell me I'm something I'm not, they will find me a much nastier enemy than most.

I don't understand you, Selfinterest. Are you really that stereotype of a race-baiter?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Howard, I can't force you to acknowledge the obvious...but you're not fooling anyone but yourself.

There's nothing to fool about, except your compulsion to put people into categories you can stereotype. You still, I see, haven't been able to offer any definitions, just blustering about what is obvious. Go ahead. Give your racial criteria, with references.

Going to wave your hands some more, anonymous coward? Talk about hating yourself...I have the confidence to use my name...or is that the balls?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Sorry, Michael, I do not agree with any of your "basics." It's just not that easy, and your assumptions are just that, assumptions -- certainly not basics.

I'm sure there would be many who would agree with you, and just as many who would not. I am in the latter category.

Fact is, we can all go on and on forever on this topic and it is doubtful we will reach a consensus. As that is the case, is it so surprising that the principals in the region, who have far more at stake, are still fighting?

The people whose opinion I respect on Middle Eastern matters are those who are involved with the process, who reach out to both sides and who don't make blanket assumptions. I have seen little, if any of this, on this thread.

At this point I have far more respect for both the Israelis and Palestinians, as they are at least honest in their hatred of each other.

You say, "The left will never hurt jews in America. You can not say the same thing of the right."

The thing of it is, you cannot say the left will never hurt Jews in America with a certainty.. we are no longer dealing with the traditional left, we are dealing with a far more virulent Marxist neo-left.. their rhetoric isn't about peace, love and understanding, it's as narrow and dogmatic as the right wing on the subject.. in short their ideologies differ only slightly from their right wing peers. World history can tell you what radical left wing extremes have brought about.. the devotees of Marx have brought about suffering and murder that far exceeds what Hitler and his Nazi's brought about over the past hundred or so years.

We aren't talking about "obscure" academics, you're trying to minimalize the threat of organized attempts at propagandizing in the interest of seeding the hearts and minds of young people with hatred. Yours is the same attitude that allowed the Nazi's to take hold and gain power in Germany.. you are burying your head in the sand on the subject. If you can recognize the dangers of the extreme right wing and the Bush administration, then please try and think outside the box when it comes to the extreme left in the US.

There's no exact definition for racial or religious or cultural or political catagories but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Talk about hating yourself...I have the confidence to use my name...or is that the balls?

Yes. Why is it that you do that when almost everyone else prefers some degree of anonymity? Hmm? Are we all cowards?

Spare you? What do you have against Newton's Third Law? Did you want to repeal that while passing racial laws?

You realize, poor excuse for a troll, that you haven't done anything but bluster in your last several posts, save the occasional self-contradiction. I am facing a difficult choice of alternatives:

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Well, Josh, what do you think of Rosenberg's accusations against the anomynous "we"?  The whole group.  All of us. Are you comfortable with that sort of statement? 

I personally didn't get the implication from Jan's comments that you did.  She wasn't implying that Jews as a class are uncivilized - she's talking about Israeli policy...clearly. 

Hey, our nerves are frayed.  Everyone knows that no good will come out of this.  On the grand stage of history another episode of Man's inhumanity to Man is being played out.  We need to give each other a little slack.

Neoboho

"But thing is, Israel didn't start this fight. Two groups of Muslim terrorists(who have sworn themselves to the destruction of Isreal) did."

To return to the issues of content of fact instead of slander, this statement is not technically entirely true.

Ran HaCohen's article at AntiWar.Com lays out the sequence of recents and establishes that it isn't as simple as two kidnappings and Israeli retaliation. Also that Israel is not entirely without "moral" failings - and more importantly (since I don't argue "moral" issues) failings in international law - see his link to the document "Missing in Legal Action - Lebanese Hostages in Israel."

"And I think some of comments qualified for his rebuke."

I'd be interested, as others have said, specifically which comments "qualified" for the sort of "rebuke" he issued - which as far as I can see was a general insult to everyone here at TPM Cafe.

Calling this rant of his a "rebuke" based on the responses I read to his article is disingenuous to say the least.

He was fairly, if emphatically and perhaps occasionally harshly (certainly in my case), criticized for his one-sided arguments about the current crisis. He responded by posting a comment addressed to no one in particular accusing EVERYBODY responding to his article as "anti-Semites."

Then when he was called on that, he posted another article which expanded the accusations to the point of a troll rant.

And you're calling this a rebuke and "understanding where he's coming from"?

As for his no longer being part of AIPAC, that may be true. But his rant certainly sounded otherwise, and his earlier piece basically sounded identical to Israel Lobby propaganda, as a lot of people here recognized. If he doesn't want to be considered part of AIPAC, I'd suggest he spend some time distancing himself from their arguments.

Finally, as for the "tamer" email, much of what was said there, with the exception of this sentence - "but as for the adults, a dead israeli civilian occasions less sadness than a dead Palestinian civilian in my bosom" - which was inappropriate - is little more than a recitation of facts and opinion. He doesn't even use the word "Jew" except three times. This is an example of "anti-Semitism" in your opinion?

You could find better examples than that, I'm sure.

I tried to uprate you based on content, but somebody rated you very low based on some of your previous posts probably, so you only get a net 2, I'm afraid.

Thanks for pointing out Rosenberg's AIPAC connection, as I did in his previous article.

It's obviously very relevant to his attitude here.

UPDATE: Josh claims Rosenberg has nothing to do with AIPAC "now", based on their "resistance to a two-state solution". If that's true, why was Rosenberg's initial article so one-sided on the current crisis?

Something doesn't wash.

If Rosenberg doesn't want to be taken for an AIPAC apologist, I'd suggest distancing himself from their policies and attitudes, and perhaps removing that part from his bio as if he's proud of it.

A suggestion to follow up on this Josh. Why not try to find a few Arabs (or at least Muslims) to join the official roster of this blog? A significant number of the posters on this site are Jewish and have expressed affection for Israel. There is nothing wrong with this, but maybe some balance would be helpful--it would certainly be interesting to get a more diverse set of viewpoints on foreign policy in the Middle East. Of course, if this site is intended to be pro-Israel that's fine, but then let's make it official so we all know.

Posted in error
Jan Knaus

Josh, In my opinion Israel's overblown response is not a reaction that can have any positive outcome, and seems to me a plan of attack that had been waiting for a provocation.  There is a difference between acting in an uncivilized way, and actually being uncivlized.  The in case of the first, thoughtful behavior can overcome it.  In the second, it takes generations.  And yes, I do think bombing Beirut's airport and civilian areas is not acting in a civilized way.  I realize you must disagree, but what I said was not hateful; in fact it is like telling a child, "You are not bad, but what you just did -- hitting your neighbor -- is bad."

When I said I didn't think the Holocaust was funny I was responding to the quote from the original blog (that you didn't notice, I guess) in which he states that, among other things anti-semites are guilty of "chortling about the Holocaust."  Is it against the rules to even answer these accusations?

I won't argue with you about what is, and what isn't a Holocaust, but, with the heat generated just by this thread, and the massive armaments sitting in the Middle East, it may all be a moot point before long.

I am very impressed with many of the commentators here who managed to keep their heads after being accused without ONE single substantive example of anti-semitism, and I am bowing out of this thread because I think it has not been worthy of the time and real estate it has taken up.

Jan Knaus

we are no longer dealing with the traditional left, we are dealing with a far more virulent Marxist neo-left.. their rhetoric isn't about peace, love and understanding, it's as narrow and dogmatic as the right wing on the subject.. in short their ideologies differ only slightly from their right wing peers. World history can tell you what radical left wing extremes have brought about.. the devotees of Marx have brought about suffering and murder that far exceeds what Hitler and his Nazi's brought about over the past hundred or so years.

 Mary, I don't how your brain processes information to come to conclusions like this but you are not living in the twentieth century.  The left that you are describing are different from the doormats of the past forty years that's for sure but you seem unable to view anything new except to look in the rearview mirror.

There are no good reasons to attach the prefix of neo on every object of discussion, the politically left have a set of philosophies that have never changed.  Every generation attempts to solve the problem of implementing these ideas in different ways.

Marx could be no more irrelevant than faith-healing.  Marx was a by-product of the industrial revolution and anything he actually might have had an idea about expired by the end of WW II.  Can you name a single thing that Marx had to say about Israel, ecology, single-payer health plans, stem-cell research, genetics,...  ???

 Anything?

You post as though you live in a room of black and white photos from the 1920's. 

Assume and you make an ass out U and Me.

That said, it is a justifiable shorthand to refer to "Israel" as a unitary entity because the reference is to its government's actions.

Similarly, it is justifiable for people outside the US to refer to "the US" as a unitary entity (to the shame of some of us).

Get over it.

Uprating both posts, again, not because I think the comments are excellent, but because this is not a troll. Especially considering Transhuman's nonchalant admission that using nukes is even conceivable. Though I won't troll rate Transhuman, either.

Josh,

I believe that you are one of the better writers and analysts in print today. The TPM enterprises are a valuable part of an experiment in giving voice to people in a democratic way. I appreciate and thank you for your boundless efforts. But you cannot manage an open and democratic debate if you are going to censor speakers according to your religious sensitivities.

I understand it is always difficult to stand back and be objective about issues and comments that reflect on one’s cultural identity and soul. But hypersensitivity to an issue, especially a provocative situation like that of Israel, leads to honest debate and criticism being perceived as poisoned barbs aimed over the fence.Surely, you see how attacking a speaker for something they did not intend to say is unfair and a fallacy.

You are totally misreading and misleading C’Ville Dem’s remarks above (as ably defended by her response). Your rhetorical skills should enable you to grasp her message and prevent you from taking some imprecisely worded phrases out of context to twist into a racial epithet. Newt Gingrich is on MTP right now talking about WWIII and the need for U.S. intervention against Syria and Iran. This is serious business. You cannot be unaware of how charges of anti-Semitism (as you’re now implying against C’Ville Dem) have been used as an Orwellian political tool to quash debate and candid analysis. Mr. Rosenberg's unambiguously offensive postings should be the target of your concern.

But I do have a family, and my family is "my people". I tend to evaluate global events, and form political preferences, primariliy on the basis of the impact they will likely have on my family.

Exactly right.

I don't think I've rated any post previously, but I give you a 4 for this one.

Excellent point and note that it was Newt the neocon specifically linking Israel and WWIII not some anti-semite.

My response to this might seem a little weird because it's less about the topic than about the TPM community in general -- I daresay that there are not many anti-semites, or bigots of any stripe, among us.

Israel is a hot button issue and, yes, there are some who are highly critical of Israeli policy and, yes, on the Web, sometimes the language used to express an opinion is... overwrought.

But there are very few people here you should shield your children from. That's been my experience, anyway.

As for anti-zionism vs. anti-semitism... it is a tough distinction and the semantics seem to serve neither side. To me, one of the intellectual problems with Israel has always been that on one hand it's a progressive and effective democracy while, on the other hand, it is a state based on pre-democratic ideals like race and religious fealty. There's a lot of complexity in that.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

What bothers me the most in this discussion is the rationale to imply that the Israeli people are an "other" rather than human beings with a right to exist in freedom and security.

Again with the nonesense.  There is not a single quote in any of these threads that implies what you argue here.

It is telling that you don't provide an example.

Again, not uprating for excellence of comment (which it certainly is not) but because the poster is not a troll.

I'm not "miffed" - it's just that I find it ridiculous that commenters get banned and chewed out for being "anti-Semitic" and then this guy comes along and accuses the whole TPM Cafe readership of being "anti-Semitic".

And then Josh STICKS UP FOR HIM! After his rant has been downgraded by practically everybody here! The whole crew here is "miffed"...

Maybe I am "miffed".

And you're right - I really shouldn't care what "mere humans" have to say. But old habits die hard - even for Transhumanists who haven't yet made the jump to actual Transhuman status.

Mostly, though, I'm curious.

First I wondered what Josh meant in his front page post last paragraph.

Then I wondered about Rosenberg's rant and why Josh didn't bother to comment about how one of his contributors was going off on everybody.

Then I wondered about Josh's actual comments, where he seems to stick up for Rosenberg's attitude and furthermore chooses to take issue with some rather tepid anti-Israeli posts to comment on.

Now I'm wondering what Josh's REAL opinions are about any of this.

As everybody knows, I've been asking where Josh finds these pseudo-neocons like Kleinfeld, Beinart, Daalder and the like to be the "pundits" here at a nominally "progressive Democratic" blog.

Then we get this guy Rosenberg.

What's the real agenda here?

And why won't Josh address the question?

UPDATE: And now I'm wondering why Josh is contemplating banning commenters based on unspecified rules.

My bottom line is that Mr Rosenberg is simply not up the challenge of being a "guest" here.

There is however, an able Jewish blogger (Rosenberg is also familiar with him) named Philip Weiss who is also an activist, engaged, logical and most importantly, consistantly demonstrates real courage.

http://mondoweiss.observer.com/

In the interests of diversity and civil discussions of critically important issues, please invite him for a visit.

I'm for banning Juan Cole.

I know; he doesn't post or comment, here, but you never know -- he might -- and as we all know, in America a 1% chance is grounds for preventive action.  

Afraid to answer my reply to your request of an example? Or are you only willing to attempt to squirm out of being accountable to your own words? Merely rating my response a 1 isn't the same as backing up your claims...

Again, I ask you, why the double standard? That implies an intent to impose a sense of otherness on the Israelis. Perhaps you find that truth uncomfortable?

I got it from a friend that learned it in the Army.

His other fav was "Opinions are like assholes; everybody's got one and they all stink."

For those who have been feeling uncomfortable with being called out on your hatred and bigotry, who attempt to hide behind the excuse that you care only about protecting innocent people.. before you continue to do so, you need to start addressing your double standard.. and you need to start addressing it now.

Where is your passion for the suffering of the people of Darfur, who are being treated to the not so tender mercies of Islamasists. It is a prime example of the genocide the Islamic extremists are capable of, the same ones who want to destroy Israel, wipe it off the map. Where are the posts, the topics on the subject?

Do you make excuses for that, pretend it isn't happening, rationalize it??? Where is your activism on saving innocent people, mostly women and children from rape and murder?

Actually, Mary, I've tried to start several threads on Darfur, with which I have a certain amount of familiarity. Unfortunately, it's much more difficult to intervene in a landlocked area, with no decent roads, rail lines, or pipelines and two minimal airports, than it is in the Middle East.

I'd be delighted to resume some discussions on Darfur, as long as the discussion does pay attention to the realities of geography, logistics, and Sudanese politics. If the Borgias and the Medicis had a couple of more centuries, they might have gotten things as complex as Hassan al-Turabi manages over dinner.

In fact, I believe there are some significant ways the problem could be reduced, but there are no quick answers. Overall sanctions on Sudan are not the answer, but selective investment in South Sudan could put enormous economic pressure on the Islamists in the Khartoum coalition.

If I may, I should point out that the Darfur conflict is not about Islamist law. The major ethnic groups there, the native Fur (Darfur means "land of the Fur" and the nomadic Baggara, who make up the janjaweed militia. Both are Muslims. You could make an argument that it is Arabist versus non-Arabist, as the Baggara language is Arabic, while the Fur language is Nilo-Saharan. Smaller ethnic groups in Darfur include the non-Arab Zaghawa, Masalit, and Midob. There is fighting, and capture of child soldiers, by the two main opposition groups, the Sudan Libertation Army (wants to stay Sudanese) and the Justice and Equality Movement (wants partition).

It's interesting that the MSM focus on the relatively recent Darfur conflict in Western Sudan, when an on-and-off North-South civil war started in 1955, and seems to have ended with the Power-Sharing Agreement last year. During that civil war, the then all-Islamist and Arabist government used ethnic cleansing, again by Baggaras, against non-Arab ethnic groups in the oil areas surrounding Bantiu in south-central Sudan. As in Darfur, the groups being cleansed also fought with one another, until a 1999 reconciliation, through the World Council of Churches, between the Dinka and Nuer. The current coalition has North and South representation, with a referendum about splitting the country in 2011.

Anyway, I hardly make excuses -- but I am also very aware of the technical difficulty of any military intervention in Darfur. There are some creative alternatives that may help, but it won't be simple or pretty.

Feel free to look up my back posts, both discussion table and blog.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Hi Mary, thanks for your reply. I guess what I see as "Pre-Democratic" in Israel is the notion that it must be a state with a state sanctioned religion (ie a Jewish state)... Think of it this way... what if a population moved into Israel and then voted for a purely secular government or a government based on some other religion? Can't happen. The state is meant to be majority Jewish. That's a pre-Democratic ideal. By the way, I totally admit that Israel isn't the only state run that way and you often even have people in the US who want to control immigration because they fear the type of society that would result by demographic changes. So, it's not just Israel. But, it is a pre-Democratic ideal.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Howard, your contributions to the discussion re:the Middle East have seemed extremely reasonable to me. I wasn't online that much during March, so I missed this topic you started http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28133 on the subject of Darfur. Between classes and getting pneumonia, and then my husband's health getting worse... I had very little time to spend on the 'net. I'd be very interested in reading more of what you have to say on the subject if you care to start another thread.

On July 17, 2006 - 12:44am neroden said:
I think probably nearly everyone here condemns the Darfur genocide and supports UN intervention.

Yet, with the exception of Howard, I haven't seen any one of you spending any time discussing it.. so you "think probably nearly everyone condemns the Darfur genocide"..? I am so impressed by your certainty.. 

The accusation of trolling is just another way to avoid dealing with any criticism.. the neo-left have such a love of censoring those, and slandering any one who dares express disent from their narrow world view.. ban worthy? Are you still a teenager? Do you remember when you still believed in free speech, and when you started to believe you had a right to limit the free speech of others based on your ever narrowing tolerance of the rights of others?

Wow, now see, I am really surprised by your reaction. I think comments like that are quite common here, they are accepted by the community without challenge, and have grown so inured to them that I see no offense any longer. There are many I see that I consider much worse, and I just totally missed the confusion of the term "Jews" and "Israel," didn't even see it.

See how 3 members had rated the comment--two 4's and a 3--before you replied? How can another member come in and downrate it without possibly being challenged? See the downside of groupthink & community policing?

This is precisely why I think it is important for someone to speak out when they have been offended by something someone writes on a forum. While it may sometimes be the case that a commenter fights back or gets nasty, think about the lurkers! Others will bring up semantic nuance issues, and some people learn to communicate better this way, they learn that terminology or arguments (or emotional outbursts) that they commonly see being used are hurtful to some, and counterproductive.

It is indeed a shame that two people chose to downrate your comment. This is the kind of communication that can do a lot of good.

Howard, 

You could make an argument that it is Arabist versus non-Arabist, as the Baggara language is Arabic, while the Fur language is Nilo-Saharan.

Perhaps it is even an arguable assertion that the Arabist vs. non-Arabist conflict extends to anti-Zionism and the demonization of Israel.  Sudan is an Arab League member nation; one of the 19 out of 22 member nations holding to the dominant regional policy of diplomatic, economic, cultural and political isolation of Israel.  There are no other regional multinational organizations that are not Arab or Muslim -- there is only the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Conferences.  So why is it so difficult for so many who like to think of themselves as on the side of justice and human rights to recognize a racially supremacist establishment in action?  (And instead, routinely join the Arab-Muslim establishment in condemning the only non-Arab/Muslim state between the Atlantic coast of Africa and the Persian Gulf as "racist.")

Jews are the people, Judaism is the religion. The two are not necessarily or seamlessly compatible. Israel is a Jewish state the way Ireland is a Celtic state but not necessarily a Catholic state. For example, Hebrew is the common national language of all Jews therefore it is the national language of Israel; however, Israel is governed by a civl law and not rabbinic law (halacha).

Actually, this is an excellent template.

May I extend the following to explore the charges of anti-semitism. By my understanding anti-semitism is the hatred of Jews not limited to wanting to see them exterminated.

Now let's talk about anyPerson, someone wanting to talk about Israel.

anyPerson is the person, Israel is the subject. The person may not be a Jew. Israel to the person is just another nation with all of the inherent attributes you just mentioned.

The person does not hate Jews but the person looks at the behavior of Israel and is critical. The person is equally critical of other nations for provincial reasons as well.

Why is anti-semitism ever an accusation leveled at the person?

I'm sick of this shit. There are genuine anti-semitics and there is genuine anti-semitism. Racism is alive and well, as every black or hispanic person in America knows every time they try and vote or appear before a court or look for a job or a home.

Having said that, the term 'anti-semitism' as used in discussing the Israeli/Palestinian situation is horribly abused. It has been abused as a weapon to castigate those who express disagreement, and it has been used recklessly.

Frankly, it is not anti-semitic to point out that Ariel Sharon was a butcher extrordinaire. It is not anti-semitic to point out that Israel has come by its territory by acts of theft or terrorism. It is not anti-semitic to point out land theft in the West Bank, the appalling conditions inflicted on Palestinians in the occupied territories, the plight of Palestinians in refugee camps, or the deaths of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon as Israel undertakes collective punishment.

The charge of anti-semitism is disgusting as it denounces both the argument and the moral character of the arguer. The person who makes the accusation of anti-semitism announces that they have the sole right to set the terms of the discussion... that they will be both the maker of rules and the player within those rules.

Frankly, the term has been abused and invoked so many times it becomes almost impossible to discuss Israeli affairs.

It strikes me that if a proposition is rationally bankrupt, it can be dissected or dismissed on its own terms, without bringing charges into it.

Only if a proposition is both reasonable in some sense, but a person is completely unwilling to discuss it, does the charge of anti-semitism become necessary.

In such a case, the charge is used to trump the discussion.

Frankly, the accusation is so widespread and so abusive, that I can only consider it dishonest.

The 1955-2005 Sudanese civil war (which did have a few periods of peace) involved the significantly African (Nilotic, Bantu, and assorted other language groups) South (Sudanese Peoples' Liberation Movement and Army) fighting the Arab and Islamist North. I should note that the South does contain Muslims, but also significant numbers of Christians and animists.

One of the key steps to peace was for the Northern government to stop its policies of forcing Islamic law and Arabic language on the South.

You do raise an interesting point. The current coalition government contains both Northern and Southern representatives. Is it still eligible to be in Arab or Islamic conferences if it is not dominantly so?

In fairness, Sudan does belong to a number of African organizations. Some creative Sudanese, indeed, see a long-term role for the country as the bridge between Arab and African cultures.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Sorry, that's nonsense. You can't see into other people's heads (you're not claiming that you can, are you?). If that is the case, you must be going purely based on what they wrote. Logically, you then have to be able to show an example of an anti-Semitic post, and also explain why exactly it is anti-Semitic. If you cannot do that, then it would probably be prudent not to charge anyone with anti-Semitism.

Surely you realize that your non-definition of anti-Semitism allows anyone to call anyone else anti-Semitic without having to provide a single shred of evidence? I could call you anti-Semitic too you know, but because you didn't define what it means, it might be kind of difficult for you to prove that you're not anti-Semitic. Just think about it calmly and rationally. Please?

To restate: charging "everyone" with anti-Semitism without providing a single example of what is considered anti-Semitic is unproductive. It just poisons the atmosphere.

This, to me, was true American tolerance for religion, when a Muslim paints a defaced synagogue or a Jew scrubs the sidewalk of a Christian church. I don't know what to call that, for it's far broader than "pro-semitism".

It's called human decency. 

Sorry if it seems like I'm harsh on you, but I'm trying to work this out.

No, I don't have a magic definition of anti-Semitism - and that's the whole problem. The "state of mind" thing really doesn't fly. Unless you're psychic, you don't know what people's state of mind is. You can make some guesses based on what people say and do. But you need to be able to retrace your thinking and point out exactly which words or actions made you think someone has an anti-Semitic state of mind, because if you cannot do that, there's a pretty good chance you are imagining things. Remember, the definition of prejudice is "an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts".

Now, I can see it's not you who is accusing anyone of anti-Semitism. I'm just saying that if you did, you really ought to have some more solid definition of it :-)

I can also see your point that the atmosphere is pre-poisoned whenever "Israel" is mentioned... for whatever reason, people's opinions tend to be very strong and differences irreconcilable. The only difference between TPMCafe and the Middle East is that we're not resorting to guns and rockets to "win" the debate, but the sense of hopelessness and impossibility of a resolution is right here.

I think a black person can pretty much tell, without being "telepathic" when someone is being racist, even if they use the nicest language. And a Jew can usually tell when someone is being anti-Semitic as well. Those are just two examples, but they're pretty classic, I think. I'm sure I could add just about every ethnic and religious category to that list.

I know I have a high sensitivity on a couple issues.  For example,So I get grumpy if someone always uses "he" when complimenting a poster or if someone insists that an argument couched in religious terms is "pandering."  I see an implicit, offensive meaning -- even if it wasn't intended.

But on other issues -- like anti-Semitism -- I don't have that sensitivity.  So on a couple of comments, I couldn't see what had been offensive about them until it was pointed out to me.  That's why I appreciate nightprowlkitty's comments, along with codogen86's questions.  They're much more educational than general denouncements. 

Anyway, I think this is part of the problem: we all have different filters.  And it does take a fair amount of work to explain the subtext.  Then, too, it becomes a question of what is "good faith" ignorance (like I'm claiming for myself) and what is mean -- or, in other words, what is offensive and what is a lack of mindfulness.

Imagine constant attacks in your own home town, every day not knowing if you or your loved ones would be hurt or killed. Imagine all efforts at negotiations towards peace failing. You are so sure you would remain "civilized" in your behavior?

This is exactly what is happening in Gaza. And yet somehow it is perfectly acceptable to condemn Palestinians for whatever they do in response.

You're right that none of this is happening in a vacuum.  But if you try to walk it back to unravel the thread of who was guilty of the first offense to whom, you will find you have the classic chicken and egg problem.  Why is it necessary to establish who threw the first punch, who is the greatest victim?  Can't we just stop the fight? Do we have to go on seeing young girls killed at their weddings and babies killed in their cribs?

This is exactly what is happening in Gaza. And yet somehow it is perfectly acceptable to condemn Palestinians for whatever they do in response.

Yes, it sure is happening in Gaza and now it is also happening in Lebanon. And it has been happening for over 3 years in Iraq. My question did not refer to any one group, Israeli or Arab. And my comment was about anti-Semitic language, not the political situation in the Middle East.

No one with a shred of compassion could disagree with the desire so well put in your post for peace, to "stop the fight." I agree that trying to place blame will not stop the fighting. I am very discouraged, though, that this Administration has not engaged with both the Israelis and the Palestinians, as has been the case with every Administration before (resulting in peace treaties with both Egypt and Jordan and the beginnings of a Palestinian state), to help stop the killing.

Anti-Semitism is not a term or a label, it is a state of mind, just as any prejudice is. As far as defining it, not so easy. I am thinking of writing a post on this, but my head swims at the thought.

Well, on the other thread where Rosenberg went off..he said that he considered anti-semitism to be people who want jews dead!! That was his definition.

Well that certainly would be one definition. I got the sense he was writing a rant against the general language used by commenters on his posts and was not at all concerned with defining his terms. Doesn't really matter to me one way or the other

I understand why it is not of concern to you, but please recall he was accusing posters of being anti-semitic and then defining anti-semitic as ppl who want Jews dead. That was highly offensive and many posters took exception. Rightly so.

The Fur, the major people of Darfur, are non-Arab Muslims. It's a little silly to say Islamofascists are persecuting people based on their Islamic faith and customs.

In Sudan, there were two issues pushed by the North and objectionable to the South (Darfur is more South than North): forcing Islamic law, and forcing Arabic language. The latter is more the issue in Darfur, and driving non-Arabs out of the area, typically into Chad.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Yes, I certainly noticed the posters being highly offended and taking exception. The rest of your post mischaracterizes what I said.

I don't what the solution might be, but it can be a little disconcerting, as here.

There is no perfect solution.  The idea behind making them disappear, which would have a lot of merit if they actually did disappear out of the thread and didn't remain there behind an "invisibility cloak" that you can whisk away by changing one of your preference settings, is that taking deliberately offensive posts out of the discussion avoids having a productive thread sidetracked into a food fight.

I used to work as a sysop on the old CompuServe message boards; when we pulled a message out of a thread, it was relocated to a separate restricted section of the message board, and any replies attached to it came along for the ride.  That's also problematic; perfectly innocent messages end up getting whisked out of sight, and the that, of course, leads to questions about "What happened to my message?"  (Which was why we tried to remove offensive postings quickly, before they were even seen by very many people.) 

I shall exclude, in this attempt at clarification, anything about a Jewish "people", and just focus on defining a believer in the Jewish religion. I shall, with great difficulty, ignore the anthropological definition of "Semite", which includes Arabs.

Can we agree that every adult human being has the right to choose their religion? If desired, I shall quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Understandably, individual religions may have their own rites of entry.

In the United States, we have three broadly recognized forms of Judaism: Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox. Yes, there are various interpretations, there are organizations of secular nonreligious Jews, and assorted other fine points, but it serves reasonably well to hold it to three.

Seamus O'Flaherty meets and falls into passionate love with the wondrous Ruth Cohen, the daughter of a Reform rabbi. I should note that the rabbi is her mother, Esther, perfectly acceptable within Reform, and Ruth thus meets the rule of matrilineal Judaism, unless she renounces it. Ruth tells Seamus that if they are to marry, the children must be raised as Jewish. His love is such that he turns his back on Holy Mother Church, and asks Rabbi Esther to give him lessons so he may convert to Judaism.

The Rabbi, after much persuasion, agrees, and Seamus goes far beyond the basics and becomes an accomplished religious scholar. He goes before a board of Reform rabbis and is converted. They join a synagogue, and his knowledge is so respected that he soon leads a Talmudic study group. Along the way, he has learned perfect Hebrew.

Is there any serious doubt that he would be considered a Jew in America? Now, Orthodox Jews would reject his conversion and marriage as not having been performed by an Orthodox rabbi, but the US traditions of religious tolerance are such, I believe, that if he were discriminated against for being a Jew, it would be considered anti-Semitic. Most importantly, to borrow Catholic phraseology from his youth, he believes himself a Jew, in thought, word, and deed.

The couple decide to visit Israel, and perhaps consider emigration. Suddenly, they discover that neither his conversion nor their wedding is recognized, because the politics of religion in the State of Israel have given control of Jewish identity to Orthodox rabbis. They had planned to have a second honeymoon at a romantic bed and breakfast, but the shocked innkeeper refuses to let an unmarried couple share a room.

So, what have we here? Two Jews, devout in their own minds and to their congregation, are being discriminated against, in accomodations. Why this discrimination? The State of Israel has not recognized the universal right of self-determination to be a Jew, by rules that have far more to do with Zionist politics than any generally accepted theology.

It might be just me, of course, but if this happened in the US, that innkeeper might well be getting a discrimination suit. In Israel, it's not a good idea, it's just the law.

If

a Jew can usually tell when someone is being anti-Semitic as well.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The answer, of course, is nothing at all, but misdirection is a classic technique whenever someone has the temerity to suggest that Israelis might not be angels. Whenever someone objects to the treatment Israel subjects Palestinians to, they are immediately challenged to explain why they haven't objected to outrage A, B, C, and/or D in some other corner of the world, none of which have anything to do with Israel or the Palestinians or probably even the entire Middle East, but it serves the purpose of putting any defender of Palestinians on the defensive and de-railing the discussion.

In their overzealousness they end up saying, "I always loved those lovely Chanukah lights, menorahs, I think they're called. That holiday is your way of celebrating Christmas, isn't it?"

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Howard,

Does that person have any special responsibility to Israel, having decided not to emigrate there?

Aren't we getting a bit too deeply into specific circumstances and individual choices for hypothetical generalities?

Ha.

nix

Howard,

I like the way you think!  ;-) 

Sorry, if I knew what the guidelines were, I wouldn't have had to ask the question in the first place. I appreciate the difficulty in coming up with a formulation, but that very difficulty applies in the other direction, too. It doesn't even have to be a hard-and-fast formula; some actual examples (not made-up ones that are pretty obvious) with explanations as to why what has been said is or is not acceptable would be quite helpful. MJR has never answered any request to be more specific as to just what messages he found offensive.

As it is we're left in a terrible no-man's-land:

TPM: You must follow the rules or you will be banned from the site.

Q: What are the rules?

TPM: We cannot come up with any explicit guidelines, but we will know when you break them.

----

I'm really not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to be sure I understand the rules of the debate. Without that, I'll just have to completely avoid discussions about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that's a shame, because it's a topic that I am keenly interested in understanding better. But if criticism of Israel is completely off-limits, then maybe this is not the best place to further that understanding anyway.

I hope I don't demonize Israel. I believe it has as much legitimacy, certainly in the areas defined by the UN in, and arguably in areas won by the right of conquest elsewhere. While the Texas Republic, for example, eventually chose to be annexed by the United States, most nations other than Mexico recognized its legitimacy. The peaceful split of Czechoslovakia into Slovakia and the Czech Republic is about as noncontroversial an example as can be found. Iceland was founded by settlers. The Vatican City is diplomatically recognized, and I think most would agree it is a voluntary theocracy, with a population (2002) of 555, all dual nationals.

I recognize no divine right for any nation to exist. I recognize an existential right for a nation to exist and hold its lands, although nations do disappear through conquest, through breakup into other states, or by merger.

Without getting into an argument on the legitimate bounds of Israel, Israel certainly has the same right to exist as does France. Like France, I do not consider it a consistent foreign policy partner of the United States, but there are more reasons for cooperation than hostility.

Since the State of Israel has given the Orthodox the right to determine Jewish status and things such as the validity of Jewish marriage, I do not consider it a state welcoming all self-identified Jews, with all their civil rights including marriage, within the context of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Properly, it is a state founded on the political philosophy of Zionism, a working democracy but with an official religion. I understand the 19th century origins of Zionism, but, until a deity establishes the provenance of (any) works of revelation, I don't recognize a divine right of the country.

I will work to protect the rights of Jews, Wiccans, Buddhists, Muslims, and about any other religion, and, without evidence that they owe allegiance to another country, respect their self-identification as citizens of their country. I recognize the right to speak of one's heritage, but I also agree with the position of the US Bureau of the Census that ethnicity, in general policy, is a matter of subjective self-identification. I certainly recognize genetic patterns, but I do not see the usual concepts of "race" as sufficiently precise to map to genotypes.

Does that make me an anti-Semite, or can I enjoy my next date with a Jewish woman, and the one following it with a Buddhist?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*