I take it you use Likudnik like Bush uses Al Qaeada. A term designed to frighten and skew the debate without meaning anything. Muzzlewatch's piece only the review's author's piece being reviewed by the Tuft's editors and one outside editor. Their objection was that Professor Roy's review was so unbalanced that people did not read it to the end. It was not just its onesidedness but the lack of need to fully r ead it that led it to be rejected. Where is Likud involved is this?

Is your new possible that once an anti-Israel group is defended it makes it inherently good and thus above criticism by anyone? Despite Andrew Golis' claims to the contrary it is very hard to distinguish your views from those who want to murder Israelis.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Wow is all I can say, all the way round including with regard to the comment by Daniel Greenbaum. Having commented once or twice before on this issue on this forum I do have the sense that the issue simply cannot be discussed, not just that it cannot be discussed with civility.

MJ, your courage and patience are awesome.

As to the journal, the editor should have either offered to run two or three reviews including the original in some kind of review forum, or resigned.

global citizen

Oh come on, get with the joke. Daniel Greenbaum is engaging in a very deliberate bit of self satire.

Sure, he's got a political viewpoint. But his post carries that beyond any sane or rational point. He's engaging in a sly bit of self parody. No one could possibly be that much of a hypocritical unself-conscious, lunatic. He's just having us on.

My compliments to Daniel.

Enough of the fake outrage. Have you or the rest of the ultra-leftists on this board ever complained about radical leftists on campus silencing pro-Israel and conservative voices? That is an all too common practice.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/11/29/cstillwell.DTL

Mob Rule on College Campuses

Cinnamon Stillwell

Wednesday, November 29, 2006


Cinnamon Stillwell
Archive

America's college campuses, once thought to be bastions of free speech, have become increasingly intolerant toward the practice. Visiting speakers whose views do not conform to the prevailing left-leaning political mind-set on most campuses are at particular risk of having their free speech rights infringed upon.

While academia has its own crimes to atone for, it's the students who have become the bullies as of late. A disturbing number seem to feel that theirs is an inviolate world to which no one of differing opinion need apply. As a result, everything from pie throwing to disrupting speeches to attacks on speakers has become commonplace.

Conservative speakers have long been the targets of such illiberal treatment. The violent reception given to Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, an anti-illegal immigration group, at Columbia University in October is a recent example. Gilchrist had been invited to speak by the Columbia University College Republicans, but was prevented from doing so by an unruly mob of students. What could have been mere heckling descended into yelling, screaming, kicking and punching, culminating in the rushing of the stage and Gilchrist being shuttled off by security.

The fact that the rioting students could be heard yelling, "He has no right to speak!" was telling. Apparently, in their minds, neither Gilchrist nor anyone else with whom they disagree has a right to express their viewpoints. In any other setting this would be called exactly what it is -- totalitarianism. But in the untouchable Ivy League world of Columbia, it was chalked up to student activism gone awry. While condemning the incident, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger has yet to apologize to Gilchrist or to conclude the supposed investigation into the affair. In other words, mob rule won the day.

Bay Area PC Intolerance

Such behavior is certainly not limited to East Coast universities. Last February at San Francisco State University, former liberal activist-author turned conservative activist-author David Horowitz had his entire speech shouted down by a group of protesters. Composed primarily of students and other members of the Spartacus Youth Club, a Trotskyist organization, the group stood in the back of the room shouting slogans and comments at every turn.

Even this was not enough to warrant their removal, so Horowitz and his audience, which included me, simply had to suffer through the experience. Horowitz, whose speech centered on his Academic Bill of Rights, took on his critics and attempted to engage them in dialogue, with varying degrees of success. But those who actually came to hear him speak, whether out of sympathy for his views or out of a desire to tackle them intellectually, were unable to do so fully because of the actions of a few bullies.

It is not only conservative speakers who are at risk of having their free speech rights trampled upon on American college campuses. Those who dare criticize radical Islam in any way, shape or form tend to suffer the same fate.

In 2004, UC Berkeley became the locus for bullying behavior during a speech by Islam scholar Daniel Pipes. I was witness to the spectacle, one I'll never forget. Members of the Muslim Student Association and other protesters formed a disruptive group in the audience, shouting, jeering and chanting continually. They booed loudly throughout and called Pipes everything from "racist" and "Zionist" (which in their minds is an insult) to "racist Jew" -- all because Pipes had the audacity to propose that moderate Muslims distance themselves from extremist elements in their midst; that in tackling terrorism authorities take into account the preponderance of Muslim perpetrators and that Israel has a right to exist peacefully among its neighbors.

This was hardly the first time that UC Berkeley students had espoused hostility toward speakers with "unpopular" views or those hailing from "unpopular" countries such as Israel. Nonetheless, it was a wake-up call for many in the audience who had not yet experienced first-hand the intimidation of the mob.

Arab Reformers Silenced

Recently, reformers from within the Arab world itself have been on the receiving end of such treatment. Whether it be the work of student groups or faculty, insurmountable security restrictions and last-minute cancellations have a strange way of arising whenever such figures are invited to speak on college campuses.

Arab American activist and author Nonie Darwish was to speak at Brown University earlier this month, when the event was canceled because her views were deemed "too controversial" by members of the Muslim Students' Association. Given that Darwish is the author of the recently released book, "Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror," such claims are hardly unpredictable. Like most Arab reformers, Darwish must overcome the resistance within her own community, aided and abetted by misguided liberal sympathizers, in order to get her message across.

Darwish was born and raised a Muslim in Egypt and later lived in Gaza. It was during this time that she had several experiences that led her to reject the anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism with which she was indoctrinated as a child. She eventually converted to Christianity and emigrated to the United States. She has since dedicated her life to exposing the ways that hatred and intolerance are crippling the Muslim world and leading to violence against non-Muslims.

Her pro-Israel views led to an invitation from the campus Jewish group Hillel to speak at Brown University. Unfortunately, the very same organization later backed out, fearing that their relationship with the Muslim Students' Association would be harmed by the experience. But if such a relationship is based on mutually assured censorship, then it's hardly worth preserving. In the end, all of Brown's students missed out on what would undoubtedly have been a thought-provoking experience.

Word has it that Brown University has re-invited Darwish to speak, no doubt in response to the furor, so perhaps students will have that opportunity after all.

Terrorists Recant

Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist turned Christian convert and outspoken anti-jihadist, fared slightly better at Columbia University in October. Shoebat is the author of "Why I Left Jihad: The Root of Terrorism and the Return of Radical Islam." He was invited to speak by the Columbia College Republicans, along with former Lebanese terrorist Zachariah Anani and former Nazi Hitler Youth member and German soldier, Hilmar von Campe. All three have renounced their former anti-Semitic views and dedicated themselves to exposing radical Islam in a no-holds-barred fashion.

They managed to give their presentation, but the turnout was greatly impacted by last-minute changes to security policies implemented in the wake of the Jim Gilchrist debacle. As a result, 75 to 120 people who had RSVP'd for the event were turned away at the door because only Columbia students and 20 guests were allowed to attend. An e-mail sent out 3 hours before the event was the only forewarning, and as one would expect, most of those planning to attend didn't receive it in time. The event had been widely advertised in the blogosphere, and those denied entry were not only greatly inconvenienced but also greatly disappointed.

Members of student groups who had boycotted the event were much cheerier at the prospect of a low turnout. A post at the blog for the Blue and White, Columbia's undergraduate magazine, expressed eagerness for "pretty pictures of empty chairs." Unfortunately, they got their wish, to the detriment of open discourse at Columbia.

Illiberal Mob Rule

It's a sad state of affairs indeed when the figures of moderation and reform that many who call themselves liberal or progressive should in theory support are instead shunned in the name of political correctness. For how can one expect to promote progress while helping to stifle the voices at its heart?

People such as Shoebat and Darwish, who literally risk their lives to call attention to a grave threat to all our rights, are the true freedom fighters of our day. But far too many accord that label to those who choose to effect political change by blowing themselves up in a crowd of civilians or by randomly lobbing rockets into homes and schools or by promoting hatred of other religions. By excusing such behavior and simultaneously helping to suppress reformers, liberal student groups are in fact aiding the very totalitarian forces they claim to oppose. They have in effect become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

It would be nice if we could look to our colleges and universities as the bearers of progress, but at this rate it seems an unlikely prospect. If we are to truly promote an atmosphere of intellectual openness, respectful political debate and the free flow of ideas on campus, then we must stem the tide of thuggery, bullying and intolerance that threatens to subsume future generations.

Otherwise, we cede the day to mob rule.

Cinnamon Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached at cinnamonstillwell@yahoo.com. Read her blog at cinnamonstillwell.blogspot.com/.

You're kidding, right?

David Horowitz does this on purpose. That's his shtick. He goes to college campuses, riles some people up and then acts like he is being oppressed. It's an act and it works because moronic lefties play right into it.

The rest of it sounds similar. College Republicans also do this on purpose. I saw David Horowitz speak at an event sponsored by the Federalist Society at a law school. It's become an industry of right wing speakers who appeal to right wing college groups so that they can go to the campus, and pretend to be oppressed.

They do it because it helps them establish the argument that our colleges and universities are "dens of liberal snakes" and that their insane right wing views aren't getting a fair shake in the academy. That argument then helps them legitimize crazy policies by ensuring that any criticism can be discounted as partisan and purely political. The big picture, though, is that it fits the long running right wing meme that "liberal elites" are keeping the conservative American public from realizing their goals.

And you've taken the bait, hook, line and sinker. Don't post crap like this again, please.

I take issue with anyone who calls Daniel G. a crackpot.

Do I agree with him most of the time?

No.

Is he a valued commenter here and somebody who you can have a friendly debate with? Certainly.

He has his opinions, he expressed them well and if you PM the guy, you'll get a nice reply. He's exactly the type who should be here, whether or not you agree with him.

I apologize if this is "concern trolling," but I've been reading the guy for awhile and fighting with him most of the time and he is no crackpot.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

If they wanted balance, all they had to do was add a second review with a different perspective.

Daniel Greenbaum wrote the following about MJ Rosenberg. "Despite Andrew Golis' claims to the contrary it is very hard to distinguish his views from those who want to murder Israelis."
He is likening MJ to those who would murder Israelis."
If Andrew G is reading this, ban this guy. He is a hater and a debaser of conversations here.

You are acting like a concern troll. Your "valued commenter" said that it was very hard to distinguish MJ's opinions from those who want to kill Jews. Sounds like a crackpot to me, but perhaps to you that was a well-expressed opinion from someone you can have a friendly debate with, and exactly the type who should be here.

LEL,

College students have shouted down nutcase speakers for the last 300 years.  It isn't anti-free speech, it is PART of free speech.  If you bring a crackpot to campus, you are either naive or intending to generate a circus.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with peer reviewed journals.

The article is well written and is the sort of book review that any scholar would be proud to write.  As with most academic articles, only a narrow group of specialists (including the original editor?) can know its factual basis.  That is why scholars rely on peer review.  The flaws cited in the original book (assume the accuracy of the article, which I do not doubt because of appropriate publication practices) are quite troublesome.

The book review is not "one sided."  It is an assessment that provides advice about purchasing and reading the book and provides commentary should the article reader choose to read the book.  The commentary suggests careful attention to the basis of the book's assertions and provides reasons for this warning.

"One sided" is a weasel phrase similar to the assertion that "every one is entitled to his opinion."  Well reasoned, carefully explained opinions ARE better as are well reasoned, carefully explained "one sided" assessments.

Daniel G. occasionally used to make some sense, but it's been quite a while. Most of his posts are now barely intelligible.

That's my take too. All of us have had our passionate moments and times and a lot of us who have been here awhile would take back or ammend some of our comments, I bet.

I doubt Daniel G. is really going for name-calling. Or, more to my point, even if he has gone there, it shouldn't detract from the substance he's so often brought here. 90% of the time, I think he's wrong. But I've interacted with him both in comments and in private messages and am 100% convinced that he's a good guy who's interested in ideas and willing to debate them.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Duncan C. Kinder
http://www.billingsgatereport.net

Enough of the fake outrage. Have you or the rest of the ultra-leftists on this board ever complained about radical leftists on campus

This is a standard straw man. Even if all of use were, in fact, unprincipled hypocrites, that would not justify this censorship.

And allow me not only to state that I often have complained about radical leftists on campus, but have actually been targeted by them.

None of which makes a fig of difference in the present controversy. No matter how bad they may be, that does nothing - nothing - to justify this cencorship. Nor do any problems they may have strengthen your position by so much as a jot.

Both you and the campus left have had a grand time, pointing your fingers at each other - thereby concealing the faults each respectively have. A plague on both your houses.

Frankly, I detest ALMOST everything Greenberg ever posts.  On rare occasion he surprises me.  Likewise, I disagree with destor in this instance.

BUT, by your criterion, anyone who speaks up for anyone is a "concern troll."  In that case half of us are banned.  Give it a break.

If the opinions expressed in Roy's book review are sound, then, there was never any reason to review Levitt's book in The Fletcher Forum. Levitt has no known expertise in the field of study which is the subject of his book, and an academic publication has no business spending time on (marketing?) such a popularization.

Ergo: Jonathan L. K. Reiber should not have assigned the task of reviewing Levitt's book to Professor Roy or to anyone else. Pulling Roy's review merely corrected his initial error of judgment.

As academics well know, many non-academic books influence the general public, the policy public and even other academics.  Even in "quality" schools it is not unusual for undergraduates to be assigned "trade" texts as part of their curriculum.  I recall reading David Broder's The Party's Over at one of the top 20 universities in the country.  If I had known then, what I know now, I would have simply saved my money.

The point, then, is that academics are NOT free to ignore works by journalists and pundits who horn in on their business.  It is critical to identify their shortcomings so that, at minimum, other academics are do not feel free to trash work as if it is legitimate. 

Seems to be that one of the purposes of the academia is that they use the time they spend really getting to know the issues in order to critique the presentation of those issues in the popular culture. The result is usually mixed. Somestimes the academics score points and sometimes the academia realizes that observers and thinkers who work within the popular culture have figured things out. Either way, both worlds are meant to engage one another.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

They aren't liberals, they're utopians or zealots if you prefer. Utopians come in many flavors obsessively devoted to ideology or religion and they tend to cause everyone else a great deal of trouble when crossed or when their utopia inevitably turns out to be a goal beyond any rational means.

;>

correction

"...do not feel free to USE trash work as if it is legitimate."

Wow.  That must be the longest discussion of a member's intentions I've ever seen.  (Well, I know I contributed.)  Now back to our regularly scheduled Middle East debate?

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Sorry Destro. We don't actually no each other as people and have no personal relationship. What we are is two roving collections of written opinions that occasionally intersect and occasionally collide. I acknowledge that I'm a particularly jagged and caustic set of opinions.

The best we can do is achieve some recognition of consistency of voice within the opinions, and form a subliminal impression of the person who might be writing them. I'd prefer to leave it at that.

I mean, does it really help you to know that I'm five feet tall, hunchbacked, club-footed and with an inappropriate sexual attraction to deep sea sports fish? Probably not. Would it alter your views of my opinion to know that I type with my left hand, which is a hook, except for a stuffed index finger appendage, and that I've lost an eye and suffered other injuries through inappropriate masturbation accidents? Doubtful.

What about Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro? Those are two world leaders who could have been brought into the fold of the US had they been engaged in a constructive way, rather than as enemies.

Entirely possible that they could have been brought into the fold. But consider that the choices they were offered was surrender or overthrow? There was no effort at reasonable engagement with either one of these.

Instead, the conversation with them was begun by the Daniel Greenbaum's. They faced a United States of black and white opinions which viewed them as indistinguishable from Stalin and Osama Bin... much as our friend Daniel views Mr. Rosenberg as indistinguishable from a Hamas suicide bomber.

And what would be the fate of a Chavez or Castro who attempted or continued to attempt a dialogue with parties whose opening statement was 'fuck you.' Well, history tells us: Pinochet and Arbenz. Overthrow and death. Maybe abject surrender would have worked. But the effort to pursue their own needs while continuing a dialogue with an America which hand taken extremist positions killed them dead.

Pinochet's and Arbenz' efforts to work with America, to dialogue with America, to reason with America was seen by the CIA and extreme elements within America as a weakness. It invited further attacks and escalation of attacks.

Now, I'm not saying that Daniel Greenbaum will, as his contempt for his opponents and as his fanaticism grows, will eventually determine to act on his words.

But you know what? That sort of thing has and does happen. There was that Doctor in Israel who decided to waste a whole bunch of Palestinians. That's where the process ends up.

Assume that Daniel wasn't making a joke. Assume that he really was arguing and really does believe that M.J. Rosenberg is ideologically indistinguishable from a Hamas suicide bomber...

Then what is Daniel's next step? And the next step after that? Where does it lead?

Maybe Daniel will never go there, maybe he'll be too balanced, or too cowardly ever to follow through on the logical consequences of his words.

But out there, there are a lot of people. And some of them, inevitably, do.

Treating such behaviour, such attitudes as acceptable, as tolerable, legitimizes them. If you have a debate with a man who reserves the right to demonize your character and equate you morally and intellectually as equivalent to a Hamas Suicide Bomber, then in a very real way, you are surrendering to his dynamic in even talking to him. You legitimize his opinion of you by continuing the conversation. We all legitimize his opinion by defending him.

I will not have that. I will not accept it. I will not cater to or tolerate it.

There is persuasion and there is persuasion. But if you have the faintest idea that you can persuade someone of anything while they are spitting on you, then you do not appreciate the dynamics of the debate.

I've become somewhat concerned that Daniel Greenbaum has not acknowledged that his comments were intentionally efforts to be funny. I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But if these are his real sentiments, he's certainly invited to come clean and acknowledge them as such.

This is even low quality straw. No doubt, ultra-leftist should complain that the radical leftists are merely radical. The two groups at at loggerheads as to which one more faithfully follows the Protocols of the Elders of the Worldwide Left Conspiracy.

It is still there at the other end of this series of threads...

But the entire post has been hijacked into a debate over Greenbaum.

Hmmm. When I say things I regret, I just fess up and admit that I was being an ass.

Everyone knows it anyway, but it helps to acknowledge we're all on the same page.

Why did the 9/11 Neocons wait until 9/11 to come 'out of the closet'? When George Dubya leaves office, will they disappear back to the caves they emerged from on 9/11?

Silly me, I thought being one sided was integral to being two-faced.

You shouldn't do that MJ. You can't erase history. People read what you write.

If you regret it, apologize and move on. We all make mistakes.

Growth comes from acknowledging them, not burying them.

On July 7, 2007 - 12:01pm Reece said:

They do it because it helps them establish the argument that our colleges and universities are "dens of liberal snakes" and that their insane right wing views aren't getting a fair shake in the academy.

Liberal college professors permeating academia is one of the right wing's staples along with "Clinton did it."

I wonder how Horowitz and the rest of the wingnuts would explain how so many escape college with conservative/right wing views. Isn't The Heritage Fnd loaded up with college grads? How about The Federalist Society? AEI? The Bush gang?

Are you implying that Daniel Greenbaum is no better than a Nazi? That is beneath comment

Since when is it an Enlightenment value to insist that one Jewish state in the region is too many while 22 Arab states are not enough?

How is it liberal to advocate for an Arab monopoly on national rights, manifest in the 22 member-nation League of Arab States, while opposing one Jewish state in the region? 

Yitzhak Rabin was correct when he said that the Middle East conflict is no longer a conflict between Jews and Arabs, but between warmongers and those who desire peace.  Only warmongers insist that Jewish and Arab national rights in former Mandatory Palestine are mutually exclusive.

Tell that to the hundreds of LIBERAL DEMOCRATS in the House and Senate who agree wit me and not you about Israel's right to defend itself from terror.

I'd like to read Greenberg's dumbass things though.

JohnW1141

Oh don't mind me. I'm being mischievous and perhaps a bit rude and unkind. My comment may well have been inappropriate, and perhaps I should apologize for it.

I didn't actually read Bar Kochba's post. I assume it was a rant consisting of a stream of emotionally loaded adjectives on the subject of Arabs or their governments being subhuman scum? There might have been a personal attack on MJ Rosenberg thrown in there for spicing? The whole thing superheated to near incoherence?

I've read Bar Kochba's posts in the past and there's a depressing sameness to them. Pretty much any issue brings out the same response from him:

"Bar Kochba, what do you think of this fluffy kitten?"

"I think that those traitors in league with backstabbing muslim governments who oppress their own people and would dearly love to have Israel blotted from the earth with nuclear weapons blah blah blah..." It goes on for a while, and the kitten never actually enters the conversation.

At some point, I told Bar Kochba what I thought of him. Or more accurately, what I thought of the character so nakedly revealed by his writing. He didn't have a response to that.

But he shows up from time to time, so I say hello just to be polite. But I swear, it just gets more and more tedious to read his stuff.

Still, I suppose I should make the effort.

Or someone should.

I find the use of code language by the partisans of Israeli quite amusing:

"Right to Exist" = Right to deny Palestinian's their right to exist.

"Right to defend against terror" = Right to terrorize others.

Valdron,

so what you're saying is reading his posts is like being Bill Murry in Groundhog Day?

That gag rocked.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Sort of, its like being attacked by the Groundhog in Bill Murry's Groundhog day. Lots of ineffective nattering and thrashing, rodentlike teeth going for the bite, and a small furry body wriggling and squirming. In the end you find the skin isn't broken, but it's defecated on your pants.

I suspect that John did it by accident, but its one of those delightful ironies. I'm glad you followed through when he deleted.

We are all quite aware that our politicians can be bought and that they are deathly afraid of offending the well heeled Jewish financiers of NYC.  This does not amount to good public policy, it amounts to cowardly politicians... but why should I call politicians cowardly, that is redundant.

And before you assert that this statement is anti-semitic, examine the number of times that proponents of Israel on this list serve have extolled the power of wealthy supporters of Israel.

The issue is not terrorism, the issue is apartheid.  When Israel gives up apartheid, everyone here will welcome it into the brotherhood of nations.

Meanwhile, forget the bullshit about all the other nations that discriminate against this minority or that minority.  (1) We are not, as the USA, distorting both international and national public policy to support those other nations. (2) For the most part, those other nations are not engaged in prolonged wars with their own citizens. (3) Most of those other nations do not have official non-citizens within their borders. (4) Those other nations are not entirely dependent on the US for their existence. (5) The people of the US don't approve of those other practices either, but they are not specifically enabled by the US.

You probably have a low enough karma average from others' ratings of your own comments that is making comments rated lower than one invisible to you. Thats how the rating system works. Either that or you have comment viewing set to not show low-rated comments.

Others have given Daniel's comment at least 5 zeroes, this will no doubt put him in the same karma boat as you-he will not be able to see comments rated lower than one (except those authored by him) until he gets a lot of high ratings.

An important note to all of you that rated Daniel G's comment zero:

when you did that, you censored it; all lurkers that are not logged in cannot see it, as well as people without a good average karma. So your comments about Daniel's comment may seem nonsensical to readers who are not logged in.

The use of zero rating is a troll-control measure, it's main purpose: that other people are not tempted to a long debate with an inflammatory commenter, the method: make the comment invisible and do not react to it.

Good ol' Bar Kochba, you can set your watch by him.

I dunno. Are you prepared to make reading Bar Kochba a regular thing, just in case he some day says something sensible? It's a lot to ask, and it might be a thankless job. But it could be a worthy public service.

I wouldn't ask that of anyone. But if it works for you...

Does Daniel's single comment to MJ differ that much "having fun cutting" Reed Hundt "to ribbons" in multiple, lengthy comments? You got lots of 5's for hyperbole ridiculing Hundt as a warmonger on that thread, deconstructing each word Hundt wrote and guessing meaning and intent, when Hundt's original short post actually says very little beyond wanting to hear something on foreign policy on "Asia" from candidates. You read all kinds of evil intent into Hundt's admittedly simple unponderous post, talking about "people like Reed" just like Southerners used to talk about "those blacks." Seems to me that Daniel's comment is imitating your methods. How come he doesn't get high 5's for doing it like you do?

Not that I like it as a reader; I'd prefer if a lot more zeroes were given out. Some call it vigorous debate, I call it a once good discussion board sadly falling into useless personal attack nonsense while the grown-ups are all busy with other summer activities. Some of the discussions here lately are not even worth rating and I forsee lots more contributors going on "vacation" until fall.

Um, "cutting to ribbons" is a metaphor while saying someone wants to kills Jews ascribes an actual mental state to that person.

Quite a bit different. For one thing, I took my time and did it properly. I made my case.

That's the way you do it. You take what someone says and you look at it. You deconstruct it. You take what he says and you think about it. You examine the logical consequences of those ideas and then you take them apart.

You can take pity on Reed, but frankly, he did it to himself.

You can complain about my references to 'Reed's class of people' but frankly, I'm not frightened by your 'class warfare' charge, we've seen six years of class warfare by the rich upon the poor. And truthfully, I ain't the one that opened up that can of whup-ass. You'll recall Reed's condescending comments about the ignorance of the Blogosphere and dismissively telling the readership to go watch Bravo (television). If Reed's going to open doors like that, why can't we walk through them?

You got lots of 5's for hyperbole ridiculing Hundt

Oh you wound me. There wasn't just hyperbole there.

There was sarcasm, and irony, wit, cultural and literary allusions, I used metaphors and similes. I used the whole bag of tricks. Even worse, I used facts, and history, and logic. And I used it in a lighthearted mocking manner, taking Reed's own words, holding them up to the light so every one could see how empty they were, and then skewering them.

I didn't get those fives for ridiculing Hundt. Any asshole can take a cheap shot. It don't automatically get you fives.

I got Fives because I was right, and because I was right in an entertaining way. I got them because I lined up my argument, hit it, told the truth and tied it up with a pretty little bow.

Poor Reed Hundt, calling him out just because he thinks its important to be ready to bomb and invade other countries. Poor Reed, there he was reasonably expressing his contempt for international law and defending power ubber alles, and I skewered him. Bad me. What was I thinking?

And meanwhile, on the basis of a short but sour little post:

Despite Andrew Golis' claims to the contrary it is very hard to distinguish your views from those who want to murder Israelis.

Greenbaum collects a bunch of zero's.

Isn't life unfair.

But let me ask you something: Are you going to defend Mr. Greenbaum's words or not?

But isn't there something missing here? Where is Greenbaum? I stood my ground and punched away. Greenbaum made his hit and snuck off like a thief in the night.

Where's the case? Where's the breakdown of facts and logic, the quotes, the analysis, the history? What work did Greenbaum put into it? What truths did he reveal? Plays almost like a cheap shot, don't it?

Oh, and where's the entertainment? The irony, the wit, the hyperbole, the allusions, the analogyies, the metaphor. Where's the style, the flair, the panache. What do we have but sullen mean spiritedness. The words of a pouty, not too bright boy, resentful of being caught stuffing a firecracker up a cats ass.

We both know that Greenbaum earned his zeroes.

Y'know what? I think your problem is that you're just pining away for the days when Conservatives could just go "You Libruls SUCK! Heh, heh, heh" and that would win the debate.

Well, ol' pal, I weren't never one of those kind of 'libruls', and to tell you the truth, those days are just about done. Your 'grownups' are never coming back, and even if they do, no one is listening to them because we've wised up.

Now, I do believe I have answered your question.

Have a nice day.

Yes MJ, but when you do that you automatically remove all of the comments that are attached to that post. Some of those comments might be very short, but in other cases the authors may have put a substantial amount of their valuable time and mental effort into composing their comments. It is not fair to erase other people's work like that, just because you are personally embarrassed about something you have written.

I have been writing things on blogs for three or four years now, and now have various dumbass comments scattered all over the internets. They make me cringe every time I see them, but it's something you just have to live with.

I challenge you to name one U.S. politician who agrees with you that Israel practices apartheid but is too afraid of people like me to say so. Rosenberg has never been able to name one for over a year, despite my repeated requests. Maybe you can.

Absolutely right and if you ever asked one of the hundreds of LIBERAL DEMOCRATS in Congress who support Israel just as much as I do--like Senator Barbara Mikulsky, Senator Robert Menendez, Speaker Pelosi, Senator Dick Durbin, Rep. Nita Lowey, Rep.Charlie Rangel, and Senator Chris Dodd--why they do that in service to their U.S. constituents, every one of them would tell you that it is in the U.S. strategic interest that Israel be strong and secure and a vital ally in preventing terrorism.

The United Nations was wrong in 1948 to authorize colonial theft of the native land of Palestine for the benefit of refugees from Europe.

Funny man.  US interest would be to eliminate dual citizenship and get rid of Israel's drag on American image, foreign and domestic policy, and position in the world.  Israel represents moral rot.

On July 8, 2007 - 9:26am bar_kochba132 said:

I have always wondered how people can call themselves "liberal" and yet support the fascist/chauvinistic Palestinians who daily carry out aggression like indiscriminate bombing of Israeli towns like Sederot, whose state-controlled media extolls genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass-murder of Jews, denies the Holocaust, supports mass terror like 9/11.

Bar, what liberals support those charges?
Lets try this; Can you name a liberal who denies the Holocaust?

Either that, or he's being eaten alive by Ann Coulter!  Quick!  and exorcism!

Jan

Code words: "Defending itself against thugs" = continuing to illegally occupy Palestinian lands.

Congressman Paul Findley and Sen. Fulbright all expressed their views - and the pro-Israeli lobby went after them like a pack of wild dogs.

Nah, MJ, do what you want. I've taken down my own comments on this site, and I use the edit option liberally, though I'll stop editing if someone replies. I don't think you're under any obligation to leave comments up.

Hmmm. Seems to be a typical Bar Kochba post. Is he ranting about MJ yet? I think that's all he missed from his last one. Or is he just repeating himself?

And I also agree that Israel has a right to be "strong and secure". In fact, Israel would, at this time, be strong and secure without any help whatsoever from the United States. I mean, it has nuclear weapons, right? Who can really put it out of existence, or push it into the ocean, however Israel and its "friends" whine about the possibility?

What I and others object to is the mindlessly uncritical attitude toward Israel that Daniel G and Dershowitz and Lieberman always display. It's always Israel right-or-wrong for them.

And Israel absolutely is wrong -- brutally, shamefully wrong -- in how it treats the Palestinians.

And of course you have to point to politicians for "liberal democrats" who support Israel as mindlessly as do Daniel G and Dershowitz and Lieberman. Why? Because, of course, the Israel lobby can and will work on politicians like crazy behind the scenes to support every thuggish right wing scheme in Israel that further undermines the Palestinians.

But here's what you WON'T you be able to find: a legitimate "liberal democrat" who ISN'T a politician, and can't be muscled by the Israel lobby into perfect compliance.

Why won't you find such a beast? Because the principles of liberalism don't make exceptions for a country to whom one has chosen to have a wholly uncritical attitude. Liberalism is about equality and justice for ALL human beings, not just for those who happen to be in national groups one deems worthy of concern.

All your invocation of the "liberal democrats" in the House and Senate really establishes is the bizarre and shameless power the Israel lobby exerts over our politics. It has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the "liberalism" of Daniel G, or Lieberman, or Dershowitz.

Doing the right thing is always a choice.

If it was easy, everyone would do it.

Yes, doing the right thing requires volition, but there can be an obligation even if one chooses not to comply with it. Not to get too far into this, but it seems the dispute is this:

I am saying there is no rule requiring action X.

You are saying that X is still the right thing to do.

I respond by saying that if X is the right thing to do, there is an implied rule that one ought to do X.

Discussion forums like this are probably the only place where free time can be put to such pitiful use.

In any case, MJ will do as he pleases, which apparently means he will not be deleting future posts.

I think you're wrong. I can see Daniel G's comment now. Again I think it was removed, and (now) put back up.

No.  Nobody but you thinks it was deleted.  I had a computer crash and it was still there when I brought my system back to life. We are all pretty sure it has to do with your local system.  I actually did have a comment deleted once -- it appears that one should not characterize practitioners of misandry with common vulgarisms (I haven't noticed a prohibition on other vulgarisms around here).  The point is, the comment was deleted, but traces were left (an empty comment with the word "deleted" in brackets).  Time to give up on the deleted theory.

seth. Go back to Daniel's post and click on "see individual ratings". That will bring up the list of raters and the "scores" they awarded. Remember that there were 12 ratings earlier and now there are 13.

It's not your system or any deletion. It's your karma score that doesn't allow you to view any post rated under a "1".

Well, if one is doubly correct, XX is that girly. Do two rights make a wrong?

How about about triple X? XXX? Can we be so correct its scandalously obscene?

It's late, I'm silly. X's leap like sheep.

Too much of the debate is reduced to "pro Israel" or anti-Israel". Its the right wing mentality writ large' 'yer either wid us or agin us'. Those who type "pro Israel" or anti-Israel" should be banned unless their comment is followed by what it means to be either pro or anti.

I'm actually pro/anti Israel.

On July 9, 2007 - 12:22am Valdron said:

If one does other than X is that sexy?

No,"other than X" is NOT sexy, Sophia Loren is sexy. If you ever saw her in my hot tub you would know the difference.

Replying to myself seems a bit bizarre, but after going to bed last night I thought that a bit more needs to be said about this.  The real problem, MHO, is not what what happens to senior scholars like Juan Cole or indeed Sara Roy, the subject of the original commentary by M.J. Rosenberg.  The problem is what happens to junior scholars without tenure and aspiring scholars in graduate school.  This kind of thing is absolutely chilling to them. 

For those who don't know how the tenure system works in most institutions, The American Association of University Professors Statement on Tenure (1940) is a good place to start.  One might also read an interpretation of the value of Tenure as protection against internal politics at Universities (what? universities are political?) as well as external pressures.

In brief, following a probationary period during which one works on a short term contract, the institution makes an either/or decision:  the faculty member is denied tenure and given a one year terminal contract, or granted tenure, after which the faculty member is protected against firing for arbitrary or capricious reasons.  Peer review, internal and external, largely determines who gets granted tenure when the system works as it should.

Tenured professors do get fired:  numbers get fired every year, but the burden of proof falls on the institution.  Prior to the granting of tenure, at many institutions faculty can be let go for any reason or no stated reason. 

As one can imagine, year six is a horrendous cause of anxiety.  It takes a brave young scholar to flaunt conventional wisdom in those first six years.  Denial of tenure can lead to an exit from the Academy altogether.  Prospective employers can't help but wonder, "why wasn't he/she granted tenure at University X?"

When outside forces intervene in the process the situation is immeasurably worse.  In the 1950s and 1960s, it wasn't McCarthy who exercised chilling influences on Academic Freedom--it was organizations like the John Birch Society...even the American Legion occasionally tried to keep certain views from being expressed on the campus.

Currently, there are a number of external pressures on higher education in the United States.  Among them, Campus Watch.  Campus Watch's Mission Statement seems innocuous enough:

CAMPUS WATCH, a project of the Middle East Forum, reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them. The project mainly addresses five problems: analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students. Campus Watch fully respects the freedom of speech of those it debates while insisting on its own freedom to comment on their words and deeds.

Indeed, I would find nothing about which to complain in this statement, if it stood by itself and the organization was independent.  However, in the context of the Mission Statement of the Middle East Forum, the words take on a different meaning entirely.

The Middle East Forum, a think tank, seeks to define and promote American interests in the Middle East. It defines U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, whether terroristic or lawful; working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; improving the management of U.S. democracy efforts; reducing energy dependence on the Middle East; more robustly asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia; and countering the Iranian threat. The Forum also works to improve Middle East studies in North America.

Given the defined objectives of the Middle East Forum, can I expect Campus Watch to exercise impartiality and really protect "alternative views?" <rhetorical question mode> Would it defend a scholar like Juan Cole?  Is Bill O'Reilly "fair and balanced"? </rhetorical question mode>.

I trust this as much as I trust David Horowitz' Students for Academic Freedom.  Check out the Complaint list to see the kinds of pressures under which we academics operate. 

aMike

OK, I can't resist.

In this post, you have challenged the decision of Fletcher to not publish Sarah Roy. I agree that doesn't smell right, although as evidence of stifling critics of the so-called CW, Sarah Roy is ultimately a poor choice since she happens to be the Senior Research Scholar, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, at that little-known and humble Harvard University. That said, I am troubled by Fletcher's decision (based on what we know) and I wish it wasn't so.

You also suggest in this post that Daniel Greenberg reminds you of the early Nazis. That makes me grog, but if you want to go there, if you want to buy into that kind of attack on even Jews with views I consider to be extreme (although dare I say that Greenberg ain't no Avigdor Lieberman), then MJ so be it. I trust that practice of calling Jews Nazis is not endorsed by the Israel Policy Forum.

And, please, you are not the only Jew who has gone to Germany and who has not blamed the post-war generation for what has happened; I've been to Germany too, and the German people are my brothers and sisters as much as any other group. I am not one to assert that groups other than the German people are incapable of heinous degradations of humanity and even holocausts. That said, I don't call my fellow Jews or even people whom I disagree with on here, Nazis. It's a vile sport and frankly beneath someone of your stature.

I will say that your admission that you have deleted things you have written on here in the past baffles me. I'm glad you've decided that such a practice is bad form.

Finally, here's what compels me to post: You represent to your readers that hundreds of legislators are shaking in their boots about AIPAC, you say you know who they are, and yet you won't tell us who they are. So you are protecting ELECTED officials from the people.

Ladies and gentlemen: welcome to inside-the-beltway think. And, dare I say, does this not conjure up the late Senator McCarthhy waving his list of commies in the air? OK the analogy is awkward but still, MJ, your protection of all these poor ELECTED representatives is hardly consistent with the TPM Muckraker spirit.

Then you tell us the story of Representative McCollum, who took on AIPAC, and banned them from her office. Good for her; AIPAC's representative treated her like shit. But what happened to McCollum? Is she back home licking her wounds or is she still legislating and probably getting some good political mileage out of telling AIPAC to stick it?
So much for the power of the Jews via AIPAC to stifle debate.

MJ, it's one thing to chastize legislators who don't have the guts to challenge the "CW" on the Middle East, and to criticize AIPAC's inflexible and overly strident defense of the paralysis that constitutes our policies in the Middle East. It's quite another thing to assert, as you have done here, that you have first-hand knowledge of myriad legislators who are stymied by the power of AIPAC (and by doing so reinforcing the latest in the centuries-long diatribe against our people that we, wherever we go, have extraordinary control over non-Jews).

I think you should identify the ELECTED officials about whom you speak, or you should withdraw your assertion.

Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York

Update: I called Daniel Greenbaum, Daniel Greenberg. Sorry about that; I trust we all know who I was referring to.

Second Update: After attacking AIPAC it appears that McCollum was reelected in her district with 70 percent of the vote.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/?id=4822

That is what Findley would have us believe.  But IL-20 is hardly a hub of controversy over Middle East issues, and it doesn't explain any real reason why Dick Durbin beat him...

Durbin ousted 11-term GOP Rep. Paul Findley in 1982 in part by holding him responsible for the national recession that took a heavy toll on the region's farming and industrial sectors. Despite a voting record that Republicans claimed was more liberal than his district, Durbin coasted through subsequent re-election contests in the 1980s by focusing on constituent services and frequent trips home to travel the district.

Given the defined objectives of the Middle East Forum, can I expect Campus Watch to exercise impartiality and really protect "alternative views?" Would it defend a scholar like Juan Cole? Is Bill O'Reilly "fair and balanced"? .

Only someone ignorant of the state of Middle East studies in American universities, particularly elite ones, could make such a statement.  It would be one thing if these departments didn't have a bias problem and organizations like Campus Watch were trying to introduce bias.  But that is not the case.  Middle East studies is riddled with the worst kind of anti-Israel bias, as has been documented over and over.  The "alternative views" that it protects are anything that dissents from the orthodoxy that any and all evil in the world stems from the Israeli occupation.

For all the talk of pro-Israel forces shouting down opposition, the fact remains that on campuses, more often than not the opposite is the case. 

I appreciate your pithy reply Valdron, and I agree with it without reservation. Thank you.

I hope you understand that the reason I wrote my post was because I had specific objections to what MJ wrote,and I do hope he gives me the courtesy of a response.

As to Sara's review, she is not alone. See my review of Levitt's book under the customer reviews at Amazon. I have a longer, more academic version coming out in a journal soon. Bottom line: this is one of the worse books I have ever read on Modern Middle East politics.

petermschwarz52,

Here is the most recent news I could find from the Forward, 

Leaders of Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum and Brit Tzedek v’Shalom are weighing the idea and are expected to reach a decision by the fall. The discussions are being held within each of the groups and between leaders of the three organizations, under the auspices of several Washington-based activists who are promoting the idea of a pro-peace Jewish lobby....

The project got off to a difficult start after being initially portrayed as a challenge to Aipac. Ever since, those involved in the initiative make it a point not to talk about Aipac. They also avoid positioning themselves as a counterweight to what is seen as the hawkish pro-Israel lobby.

Yet in private conversations, the issue of serving as a dovish balance to Aipac is discussed frequently. One activist involved in the initiative spoke of the need to send Congress a message that “there are other voices in the community” and that lawmakers “don’t have to automatically support unnecessary resolutions” about Israel. Another activist said that many in the Jewish community “are dying” to present an alternative to Aipac on issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. At the same time, all those involved stressed their strong appreciation for Aipac’s role in supporting and strengthening Israel. They made clear that the new group — if and when created — would not aim to challenge or replace Aipac as the leading pro-Israel lobby.

TPMCafe regular contributors Daniel Levy and MJ Rosenberg are both directly involved in the effort and should be able to provide updated information if any is available.

Warren:

Kindly explain to me what the hell you mean here. Can a person who believes that Israel has a right to exist within secure borders be a liberal in your view?

By the way, what are your other litmus tests for being a liberal? Let me try some on you, just for kicks:

1. What's your job?

2. Do you live in a racially diverse community?

4. Do you drive an American car made by union labor?

5. Do you know all the words to that famous song from the late 60s/early 70s, the refrain to which is: "Love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal".

6. Do you put fertilizer on your lawn?

Are you a REAL liberal Warren??? Do you think it would be fair for me to judge your liberal bona fides by my own tongue in cheek litmus test?

Give me a break. You know, historically there are lots of movements ending in "ism" characterized by showroom dummy think-alikes. I didn't think liberalism was one of them.

Is that what you're pushing here Warren? Must we all accept your canned version of the Middle East conflict in order to qualify for an invitation to Warren's exclusive liberal shin ding? Please don't bother sending me one; I'm too busy making believe I'm a liberal.

On July 8, 2007 - 10:29pm Valdron said:

"Doing the right thing is always a choice."

" I always do the right thing....er, the thing I do is always right." George W Bush

"You might check to make sure that your comment viewing options are set to show low rated comments." As I've said I don't have that option
Here's a screen grab

"I don't think the general public can read the low rated comments."
If that's the case then my fears (read: contempt) are fully justified.
Not meaning this as an insult, but if you're going to give me a 5 I'd rather it were because you understood the grotesque intellectual design of this place. I'll take it though.

It's also interesting since if lack of popularity really does result in limiting your access to information, then TPMCafe is an ideal poster-child as counter-example for the arguments promoting network neutrality.

And did you know: I get in my biggest fights when I argue that most liberals don't understand the point of the rule of law? It's funny.

Reply to John--See Above--Self-Deleted

John:

Please read what I specifically wrote.

I did not accuse MJ of McCarthyism. I expressly stated I was making an awkward analogy. Candidly, I respect MJ for what he is fundamentally about, and I have written just that in the past. It is MJ's post that I take issue with, and I believe I have addressed that with specificity.

If you want to focus on one line in my piece (for whatever reason), and if you wish to construe it in the most negative light possible (i.e. that I am accusing MJ of McCarthyism), then John, thanks to folks like you (and I do mean that from the bottom of my heart), this does remain a free country.

By the way, if MJ, a lobbyist, were to assert a journalistic privilege about conversations he's had with hundreds of politicians over the years, by golly we'd sure as heck have a story then now, wouldn't we? Could you imagine the precedent that would set?

Remember, MJ is a good guy and all, but he is first and foremost a lobbyist. That's not bad; some of my best friends (for real) are lobbyists with e-mail addresses that end in things like "beef.org". So if MJ is protecting sources here, he's protecting sources he's derived from his status as lobbyist, and not as journalist.

Respectfully,

Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York

Postscript: By the way John, I respect your right to defend MJ, but as to the reason for MJ's refusal to disclose the elected officials who are unable to do their jobs because of AIPAC, he offers his own explanation having nothing at all to do with privilege. MJ writes:

Although I doubt any would lose their seats for speaking the truth about the Middle East, and I believe they should come forward, it is not my right to expose them to attacks and losses of campaign money. Asking me to do so would be like challenging an assertion that there are CIA agents at work in Iran right now and asking for their addresses.

In short, MJ states, and I don't really think he believes this, that revealing the views of elected officials is analogous to giving away the addresses of CIA agents in foreign lands. Now that is an awkward analogy, and one which I take serious issue with. I assume you do as well. MJ's stated concern is that elected officials might be exposed to attacks (can you imagine that?) and be subjected to a loss of campaign funds (heaven forbid).

It's not designed to restrict information based on lack of popularity, but it does work that way. The point of the ratings system as far as I can tell is twofold.

First, it is supposed to be a community enforced punishment. Instead of having moderators as you would typically find on old style forums, "the community" is supposed to self-moderate so that trolls are punished and removed while fair debate is rewarded.

Of course, this does not really work since 5's are given out freely, which artificially inflates the number of people who can give 0's, and since there are no other limitations or controls on how the community uses the rating system.

The second part, which actually is kind of important, is that it does allow people to hide comments from the public. As I'm sure you've seen, other sites occasionally get in trouble for some hateful posting at an inopportune time. It gets picked up by the media and used as a political football for a while. To that end, I think it is useful to hide offensive comments.

But since the system is essentially broken, i.e. there are no overriding community standards on the use of ratings, and since the community is deeply divided on a lot of issues, particularly MJ's posts, very little ever gets hidden for very long. Even if a post racks up a couple 0's, someone else will certainly give it a 5.

But this is true for all issues, and makes it impossible to ensure that the commenters at this site are generally liberal or center-left. After all, this is a site for Democrats, liberals, progressives, and lefties of all stripes. It is not a site for conservatives or right wingers.

So, given the situation we're in, it's probably better that all registered users can see everything and give ratings as they please.

I also have to say, Seth, that your comment about liberals not understanding the rule of law suggests that you might not be here in good faith. You have clearly distinguished yourself from liberals. As far as it goes, I don't really care what your political affiliation is so long as you are here in good faith. If you are, however, using this site to bait and argue with people on the opposite side of the political spectrum from yourself, you might want to find something else to do with your free time.

So, with all that said, I don't mind giving out a few free 5's in order to get your karma up some, but that does not include any promises for the future.

Pithy, bslev? That's not an adjective I normally hear applied to me, but thank you.

As for MJ, what I notice is that most of the folks who start these threads don't spend a lot of time replying to individual posters.

There are exceptions. There was a thin skinned fellow named Stirling Newberry (real name as far as I know) who took just about any response as an attack from the Rush Limbaugh brigade and would generally respond with a hysterical tirage. I never got that actually. It was quite the shame, he had a knack for the occasionally brilliant turn of phrase and dragged it down with the emotional stability of a five year old. Go figure.

Most of the 'bigg'uns' who post here seldom reply at any length. And frankly, I like it that way. It's their thread, they had the first crack, and the opportunity to say what they wanted to say. All the rest of the comments are just that... commentary, dissections of what they've said.

I'm satisfied to have the little people like you and me talk to each other.

MJ's done his job. For the most part, he should just stand back, stay out of it, and let his words fall or stand on their own merits.

"seth. the easiest way to know if you can read

Not true. I've never been able to troll-rate, even when I was rolling in 4's or 5's which has happened on occasion; but until recently I guess I've always been able to read troll-rated posts. I must have bottomed out for the first time over the last month. It also must not help that Josh Marshall has troll-rated me at least once for statements of fact that he didn't approve of. Rosenberg as well.
Incidentally I just tried Firefox without clocking in and saw Daniel G's post, without the ratings of course, so I guess the limits on information apply only "within the family." That's less offensive but still silly.

Some academic should write something about this sort of setup. It's a mixture of the dictatorship of the majority with a discrete dose of authoritarianism tossed in in a crisis, or when the headman decides there is one.
It's the neoliberal's definition of a republic.

And now that I remember: I sure as hell won't apologize for this or
this.
I'm not a politician. I don't try to win popularity contests, and barring extreme behavior I don't think I should be forced to join them. And again, this is all in the context of a discussion of censorship: and censorship of ideas presented as such.

I mentioned below that I tried the site without clocking in and saw every post so nothing is hidden from the "public" only low ranking members.
As to the rule of law [vs the rule of "reason"] it's a common theme of mine. Here, have fun. You're the one who thinks Chomsky's a crackpot, remember?

And don't ever give me a 5 out of charity.

And don't ever give me a 5 out of charity.

As if you can stop me. =P

I mentioned below that I tried the site without clocking in and saw every post so nothing is hidden from the "public" only low ranking members.

That's certainly odd since I just tried this and low rated posts did not appear when I viewed the comments while logged out.

On July 9, 2007 - 6:14pm bslev said:
John:

Please read what I specifically wrote.

I did not accuse MJ of McCarthyism. I expressly stated I was making an awkward analogy.

Bruce, here's what you said;

"Ladies and gentlemen: welcome to inside-the-beltway think. And, dare I say, does this not conjure up the late Senator McCarthhy waving his list of commies in the air? OK the analogy is awkward but still, MJ, your protection of all these poor ELECTED representatives is hardly consistent with the TPM Muckraker spirit."

I never used the word "McCarthyism" I used the words "McCarthy charge" as in " bslev, its gratifying that you don't refer to some as "Nazis" and condemn those that do, but you are quick to throw the 'McCarthy' charge at AJ"', and that's exactly what you did.

I'll use the word now, you all but accused him of McCarthyism, then you backed away, saying; "the analogy was awkward", but then you added...."but still.." But still???

As to your accusation that I wanted to focus on just one line of your post, that's just silly. I suggest you read it again and take note of my mentioning other lobbying groups and their influence, my speculative reasons for why MJ wants to keep the names to himself, and the piece on Cynthia McKinny
which I supplied as an example of at least one who may be on MJ's list.

You added;

"So if MJ is protecting sources here, he's protecting sources he's derived from his status as lobbyist, and not as journalist."

I don't know that this charge is entirely accurate.

Finally, you say:

"In short, MJ states, and I don't really think he believes this, that revealing the views of elected officials is analogous to giving away the addresses of CIA agents in foreign lands."

To this I agree.

Then you end with (referring to the above):

"Now that is an awkward analogy, and one which I take serious issue with. I assume you do as well."

Yes, I do take serious issue with that "awkward analogy" just as I took serious issue with your "awkward analogy"
concerning McCarthy.

I agree, Val has much pith.

This just came over from Ha'aretz.  It is worth reading to understand how some of these folks think i.e. that criticism of Israeli policies is part of an effort to "delegitimize" it.

These folks apparently live in a world in which the mainstream media, academe, politicians, etc, are all pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.  What planet do these folks live on?

I appreciate the clarification from MJ on the role he ascribes to AIPAC, as one of many examples of powerful special interests that pursue policies which are not consistent with what most Americans want, and which deters independent and responsive legislators.

A major problem with these discussions, as I see it, is that issues surrounding AIPAC touch on themes that have surrounded Jewish communities for centuries and millenia. I confess a sensitivity but not an apology here, and I submit that it is something that anyone who seeks greater understanding and consensus about the Middle East should attempt to be more sensitive about as well.

No need for me to take up space on MJ's thread. I am happy to discuss the above with anyone interested on a separate reader blog. Let me know.

Thank you MJ; I'm sure you're jet-lagged.

My experience of being a damned if you do, damned if you don't author, with respect to academia, when I found that one of my engineering books was being used, as a text, in a graduate program I was informed I was unqualified to join.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

aMike has only told part of the tenure, promotion and academic status story.  Students may see all professors as the same or even see younger, more energetic professors as preferable to older more established ones.  However, this is not the world of professors in practice.

Professors have ranks, with which comes pay and benefits.  Schools also have (although less obviously) ranks.  It is pretty easy to tell that a Professor is better than an Assistant Professor.  Where does the Associate Professor fit in?  What is a Lecturer?  What is a "University Professor"?  How does Yale compare with University of Michigan?

Certain schools, principally the Ivies, do not hire Assistant Professors with the intention of promoting them to Associate Professors.  They use 'em for 8-9 years and farm 'em out with an eye to hiring back some superstars as tenured full professors 10-15 years later.  They also, occasionally hire other superstars.  It is a SHITTY system. 

I actually advocate that the non-Ivies REFUSE to take the Ivy castoffs.  The reason they cast them off is to continue combing through the apparent cream of new PhDs for the rare gem, denying the rest of the schools even a chance at these top ranked graduates.  If all the other schools simply rejected their refuse, they would soon find their game was up.

It is bad for the other schools in another way, too, because everyone who thinks he might be a superstar (e.g., Juan Cole) is doing everything s/he can to get the attention of the Ivies so they can be called home (or up) to heaven. 

Juan got screwed 'cause he was called up to heaven, but then the angels fought over him, then rejected him.  So, rather than hanging out at Mt. Olympus, he remains at the rather earthly Univ. of Michigan.  Poor Juan, a lesser god.

It would be one thing if these departments didn't have a bias problem and organizations like Campus Watch were trying to introduce bias.

You think the following is not biased? David Horowitz had it published in the Emory Wheel, Emory University's campus paper, under the guise of a Public Service Announcement.

I. Terrorism Awareness Project Ad

What Americans Need to Know About Jihad

The goal of jihad is world domination

Jihad demands the suppression of all Infidels

Jihad’s battle cry is “Death to America”

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it…to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them…” – Osama bin Laden

Jihad is a war against Christians

Jihad is a war against Jews

Jihad is a war against Women

Jihad is a war against Gays

Jihad is not about American policy towards Israel

Jihad is not about Israel’s policy towards Palestinians

It is about the global rule of radical Islam

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” – Hamas Charter

“The Jews are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment. There is no solution to the conflict except with the disappearance of Israel. Let the entire world hear me. Our hostility to the Great Satan [America] is absolute. Death to America. I encourage Palestinians to take suicide bombings worldwide. Don’t be shy about it.” – Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah

www.terrorismawareness.org

A Public Service Announcement by the Terrorism Awareness Project.

On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. H.L. Mencken

Valdron,

When someone can't or won't distinguish between Hamas and Rosenberg, that tells us a lot more about them than about either Hamas or Rosenberg.

Spoken like a gentleman above the fray, if I may steal a particularly ironic turn of phrase.  Otherwise, like a self-righteous hypocrite affecting a pretense of immunity to extreme positions.

bar_kochba132,

Thus, the political Left in Israel now has total control, and so if they aren't doing what you want, it is because of objective circumstances (throwing another 330,000 Jews out their homes is not a simple thing, and people have an averstion to having rockets fall on Tel-Aviv like they are now on Sederot). It is now widely accepted in Israel, by the LEFT, that the Arabs are not capable of making a peace agreement with Israel on any sort of terms that Israel, even with the most Leftist gov't in power, could ever accept.

The facts you state regarding the dismantling of settlements under Likud governments and the lack of such action by Labor governments is indisputable, and it supports the point that you make with it.  But to argue that the political left in Israel is in "total control" of Israeli policies is a stretch of rhetoric if not of imagination.  It may be more accurate to suggest that the line between left and right, in Israel at least, is fading in the light of reality.

Further, to portray the reversal of settlement policy as throwing Jews out of their homes one would first have to establish that the settlements were legitimate homes to begin with.  In fact, every Jewish settler left their home and country with enormous and misguided political risk, for land that no Israeli government ever hinted any willingness to even annex.

Meanwhile, it remains to be seen whether your assertion of the radical incapability of the Arabs to make peace with Israel is arguable.  While it may give the appearance of repetition, history certainly does not happen all at once, and an Arab League delegation arrives in Israel this week -- which, meanwhile, puts the lie to MJ Rosenberg's, Clayton Swisher's and others' insistence that Israel has rejected the Arab League peace initiative.

ROTFL! Hoist on my own petard, am I? What is a petard anyway?

But my dear Zionista, I never pretend to be above the fray. I'm perfectly willing to take a position, I'm perfectly happy to defend it, and I'm quite a good counter-puncher as you well know.

And unlike certain people, I don't make a sneak hit and run away. I stand my ground. Occasionally, when I say something stupid, I apologize. Once in a while, if I'm out argued, I change my position.

And while I'm inclined to call a maniac a maniac, and racism as racism, I do try to recognize that there are a continuum of positions. The world is not black and white. There are only certain people who see it that way, and who regrettably follow the consequences of that viewpoint. Forgive me for having a problem with them and their lack of nuance.

So, alack and alas, I'll have to reject your appellation of 'self righteous hypocrite.'

Of course, you could call me a snake-mean, sadistic, rat-bastard with a short temper and a quick hand with the knife... But then I'd have to accuse you of talking to my Mom.

It's perfectly all right that you don't like. I don't really care. I suppose I could dislike you, if I gave you any thought. Is there any reason I should bother? Don't think so. The occasional cheap shot isn't worth the time taken to notice.

But 'self righteous hypocrite', lol, not quite me. Sorry.

But hey, since that hat is vacant, why don't you try it on. Check it out in the mirror. You might find it a better fit than you realized.

Have a nice day.

I mean the nation of Israel that the nations of the world voted to establish in 1948, by a vote which I understand you believe to have been illegitimate, an extension of colonial rule, and a form of apartheid. Have I your talking points down Good 4 America? Or should I also stick in the phrase "aboriginals" to define Palestinians, such that I have now cited your complete intellectual repetoire on these issues.

Your ongoing contribution to these discussions is so very impressive Mr. Good 4 America. It's like deja vu' all over again, or that movie Ground Hog Day.

What would you do Good 4 America, if you didn't have the Daniels and the Bar Kochbas and the davais to engage in pseudo intellectual ping pong with? What would you do with yourself?

Let me make it easy for you Good 4 America. I believe in a two-state solution that provides peace and security and freedom and equity for both Jews and Palestinians. I don't pretend to understand with precision how to do that Good 4 America, but I know that a final resolution is going to require sacrifice on both sides. If that makes me a racist in your mind, please don't be offended if I tell you that your perception of me is something that I can live with.

TPM Cafe is so lucky to have people like you Good 4 America. You are the mirror image of those whom you love to hate. I think you live for the kinds of petty ass jousts you have on here week in and week out, and the story never changes.

Whatever rocks your boat Mr. Good 4 America.

I have to say that I see nothing wrong with a double standard in some situations.
Israel now controls 100% of historic Palestine and the Palestinians control 0% (they do not control Gaza except in the sense that prison inmates control the jail).
The Palestinians are utterly powerless while Israel is the 4th strongest military power in the world (with 200 nuclear weapons).
And yet, in the US, all demands are made of the Palestinians and virtually none on Israel.
As a Jew and an American, I can best use my influence, such as it is, to help provide some balance.
It is also important to me that non-Jews see and understand that there are Jews (a majority?) who hate the status quo and want the occupation and the violence to end and work for the establishment of a West Bank/Gaza Pal state with a capital in East Jerusalem alongside Israel. That still leaves Israel with 78% of historic Palestine.
As for Clay Swisher, he is my friend and he wrote the best book on why we are where we are today. But Clay (a Marine) can defend himself.

Thanks, Bruce. Good points. I am tougher on the "pro-Israeli right" because they have influence (in fact, they are pretty much running US foreign policy in the region). The occasional anti-semite or Israel hater who posts here are just crazy cries in the wilderness, of no significance whatsoever. I am also more upset with Jews (who, after all, are connected to the victims of the Holocaust) who mouth the kind of racism the "usual suspects" do here than with random haters.
Also, we may differ on what constitutes legitimate criticism of Israel. For me, anti-semitism is a racial animus to Jews.
As to Clay's book, I will put it on the website today.
Thanks.

Thank you MJ. On this point:

"Also, we may differ on what constitutes legitimate criticism of Israel. For me, anti-semitism is a racial animus to Jews."

I don't know where that comes from. I think I am fairly proficient, respectfully, at distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Israel, and downright anti-semitism. But feel free to give me a tap on the shoulder if you ever think I have blurred those distinctions.

Actually Bruce, I was not referring to you on that point. I apologize.
I meant only that that is my definition.
MJ

Israel is the spark that lights the terrorist fire. I hardly see how anyone could argue that Israel is a strong ally in preventing terrorism, any more than one could say a bloody chunk of beef is a strong ally against tigers.

MJ,

I have to say that I see nothing wrong with a double standard in some situations.
Israel now controls 100% of historic Palestine and the Palestinians control 0%....

What moves us closer toward or further away from resolving the conflict?  Would you advocate for the right of return inside green-line Israel for all Palestinian refugees and their descendents?  Or is their right of return to an independent Palestine as fair as any Jew's right of return to a secure Israel?  I submit that accepting the former amounts to a position as intractible and extreme as arguing to maintain or expand Israeli settlement policy in the territories, and sustaining any tolerance for either argument amounts to maintaining the status quo of occupation and violence. 

Can it not be just as important to you that non-Jews see and understand that there are Jews defending the legitimacy of Jewish national self-determination in the only historic homeland the Jewish people ever had as it is for them to see and understand that we want the occupation and violence to end and diligently work for the legitimacy of two states for two nations?  Why would you so casually tolerate a double standard where these principles must remain mutually exclusive?

Zionista, I "advocate" where advocating is necessary. Few in the United States reject the Jewish right to the State of Israel. In fact, virtually no one in any position of power would deny that right.
However, large numbers of influential people (Congress, the Bush administration, much of the Jewish community) do not believe that Palestinians have any rights except those they earn by behavior acceptable to Israel and the US.
Accordingly, I work to push people to understand that Palestinians have intrinsic rights too.
Fortunately, only a few on the extremes need such convincing about Israel.

I remember it well. Is that stuff really erased?

MJ,

Few in the United States reject the Jewish right to the State of Israel. In fact, virtually no one in any position of power would deny that right....

Fortunately, only a few on the extremes need such convincing about Israel.

My experience is such that while few reject the Jewish right to the state of Israel, many more don't give it much real thought at all. For the record, yes, Palestinians have those intrisic rights.  Both peoples have asserted those rights, and the case for the necessity of their respective national self-determination is obvious.  History has proven that statelessness for either people is cruel and unsustainable.

As for you and I, our respective points of view seem to reveal different Americas.  Where I am, the Middle East is a grim mystery to most people.  Most folks have a limited curiosity about it at best, and are satisfied with the most simplistic notions of the region and its peoples:  the Arabs are scary cartoons that the government must protect us from, and the Jews are biblical artifacts that serve their clergy from one sermon to the next.  Even those with more secular tendencies who give it any thought at all seem satisfied taking sides according to military sycophancy or a shallow and reflexive identification with the underdog.  I live in a congressional district where a guy who got busted selling his vote in the state general assembly beat a decorated combat veteran brimming with public service credentials, because 52% of the electorte  were scared into believing that their social security benefits would be transferred to Mexican illegal immigrants.  The power of any argument is only as strong as the last thing we hear.

You are fortunate enough to be in a position of greater access to the means of communication than I am, and this is why I am concerned over your tolerance of double standards and simplistic either/or choices.  I don't need to convince you to advocate for Palestinian national self-determination.  But neither you nor I can effectively advocate for one without advocating for the other just as vigilantly, regardless of their respective percentages of political control over the territories.

Accordingly, I work to push people to understand that Palestinians have intrinsic rights too. Fortunately, only a few on the extremes need such convincing about Israel.

I am not sure that his statement is at all accurate when applied to the TPM community, the posting community at least. My impression is that, with the exception of a very few extremists, TPM posters on the I-P conflict fully recognize the intrinsic rights of the Palestinian people.

Mercy

Israel controls something like 20% of "historic Palestine", Jordan controls 70-some percent of it and Lebanon has the rest.
What you call "Historic Palestine" started in 1922. There was no "historic" border between Trans-Jordan and what you call "Palestine" before that. There never was an Arab people that called itself "Palestinian", the term "Palestinian" before 1948 referred to Jews, that is why the original name of the Jerusalem Post was "The Palestine Post".
The Arabs strongly rejected calling the country "Palestine" and rejected calling themselves "Palestinians", they referred to the country as "Southern Syria".
Before 1922, the Arabs on both sides of the Jordan River were Arab/Muslims, there was no difference in national identity between them, both spoke the same language and practiced the same religion. The division of Eretz Israel between "Jordan" and "Palestine" is totally artificial.

Repeat-what you call "historic Palestine" is a modern invention that did not exist before 1922.

-

File under WTF!

From today's Jerusalem Post: Congress Captivated By Dog Tags When US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to the Middle East in April, she brought with her a piece of jewelry that was not part of the standard politician's attire. It was a replica set of dog tags of the three IDF soldiers kidnapped last year...

Now almost every member of Congress has such a set of dog tags, as the United Jewish Communities distributed them ahead of Thursday's one-year anniversary of the abductions of reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev near the Lebanese border. They were handed out on June 25, the anniversary of the capture of the third soldier, tank gunner Gilad Schalit, near the Gaza Strip.

The dog tags met with a warm reception from nearly all members of Congress, according to the UJC, though a few legislators did not accept them, explaining that their policy was not to accept gifts. The dog tags have become the symbol of a campaign organized by the UJC and other Jewish organizations for the soldiers release.

The dog tags were first given out by the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles, and subsequently adopted by the UJC as a national campaign. More than 10,000 have been distributed across the world. In March, Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik and Karnit Goldwasser, wife of captured soldier Ehud Goldwasser, met with Pelosi in Washington.

During their visit, Goldwasser presented Pelosi with a set of the dog tags. While speaking at the AIPAC annual policy conference in Washington later that month, Pelosi repeatedly held up the dog tags and spoke about their significance. "I keep them on display in the Speaker's Office as a reminder of my promise to do everything in my power to get information on the soldiers and work for their release," Pelosi said in her AIPAC address."

THIS is truly sweet UNTIL you realize that almost 4000 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and I don't see Pelosi and the gang wearing their dog tags. American soldiers are missing in Iraq, just like those Israeli soldiers, and no one wears their dog tags. All I can say is WTF!

You say "no Palestinian ever set foot in Jordan before 1948". Prove this nonsensicle statement. Where you posted at the Jordan River for the last few hundred years? You never saw anyone cross? There never was a border there until 1922 and even then Arabs crossed it. I am quite relieved to see you use arguments of this type. It makes our task much easier.

Good 4 A Merica,

They give no credit to the view that THEY are wrongful actors in the mistreatment of Palestinians nor to the view that perhaps some humility would be in place.

This is a very good and fair point.  I agree that it is in Israel's best interest to take the risk and allow Palestine the physical and socio-political space to evolve into the responsible nation-state that it is capable of becoming, and to allow itself the chance to fulfill the ultimate goal of the Zionist movement -- namely, the reintegration of the Jewish people in its native region with all the national dignity it deserves.  It will not happen overnight, but I and many others have the faith and the will that it will happen eventually.

But unfortunately, for yourself as well as for the America that you claim to speak on behalf of what is good for it, you consistently and willfully descend into the fevered fantasy where The Jews speak "in one voice" that is necessarily nefarious and irredeemably illegitimate as the "Perfidious Jew" of the medieval Church, and then you fortify this insipid perspective with a vain sense of victimhood if anyone even thinks that it might approach the level of antisemitism.

If you really want the nations of the world to "go away" and leave America alone, try doing something about your attitude that America can aspire to be the sole military and economic superpower on the planet while insulating you from the complications of the rest of the world; try doing something about an arms trade dominated by American manufacturers cornering roughly half of its market and in the interest of its shareholders it is to sustain conflict and carnage wherever it is most profitable and convenient.  Until you do, feel free to go Cheney yourself.  The Jewish people have asserted our national self-determination, will continue to sustain a viable alliance between Israel and the United States of America and any other nations, whether you are comfortable with it or not, and will no longer be anyone's christ-killing spiritual whipping boy. 

Sorry, Bruce. The Nazi mentality is not some sacred singular phenomenon that has no meaning except as applied to the German killing of Jews in the period 1939-1945.
The Nazi mentality applies wherever one group considers itself racially superior to another and condones acts of violence of innocent people because they belong to the inferior group.
Bar K exhibits this mentality. He is not a Nazi and I never said he was. I said that "Bar Kochba tells us he is a man of deep faith. That explains his political views. Faith-based. God gave the Jews this land. Jews are chosen. Pals are not. End of story. I read all about this mentality at the amazing holocaust memorial museum in Berlin."
I stand by that statement.
The holocaust has no meaning unless it's lessons are applied to places other than Nazi-occupied Europe in the 1940's.

Bruce, you accused me of writing provocative things to "sell papers" which I don't do.
Two, I do not share any sense of ethnic solidarity with the likes of Bar K, Daniel Greenbaum or the like which would lead me to the, may I be so bold, sympathy you feel for him.
You don't help Israel by sympathizing with Bar K. You help Israel by letting TPM type liberals know that types like him are extremists and unrepresentative of Jews at large.

If I were a Palestinian, posting on a Palestinian site, I hope I would attack those Palestinians who become suicide bombers and killers without having to prove my bona fides by attacking rightwing Jews as well.

With a lifetime of pro-Israel activity, I do not have to prove that people like me are pro-Israel by stating it over and over again. TPM readers know who I am. They even know I once worked at AIPAC. Some here, and on other blogs, consider me just another Zionist racist.

So be it. But I will not act like those anti-Iraq war Dems who wear flag pins and say how much they love the troops. Some things are just obvious.

But thanks for exchanging views with me. Off-line for now.

What started as a post about academic censorship has been irretrievably hijacked once again.  Because I feel an obligation to read what people write in response to me I check all the threads where I've been active on a daily basis.  However, this has become a waste of time as far as this thread is concerned.  If anyone does respond to something I've said, I'd appreciate a note in my inbox.  Otherwise, I'll take a permanent vacation from this particular exchange.  Thanks.

aMike

Thank you Bruce, for injecting a little civility here.

MJ:

I thank you for exchanging your views with me too, and for doing so with patience and grace. I am genuinely flattered by the time you have taken to respond to my concerns. And I shouldn't have accused you of trying to sell schmatas or papers or anything: I apologize for that.

I don't question your love for Israel, and I don't disagree with taking on the likes of Bar Kochba when he criticizes those of us who seek compromise with our Palestinian brothers and sisters.

I disagree with your approach on here as exemplified by how you debate Jews with extreme views. In particular, I believe that you can educate TPM posters about the sentiments of the majority of Diaspora Jews without drawing analogies between Nazi-think and Bar Kochba, particularly when your analogy was prompted by Bar Kochba's attempt to make political hay out of his view that Palestinian nationalism--as distinguished from pan-Arab nationalism-- is a relatively recent phenomenon. That might be immaterial, divisive, counterproductive, and even wrong as a matter of fact, but it's not Nazi-think.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce S. Levine

aMike:

My bad in large measure, and I apologize. In defense of what I have done here, if it is a defense, I first responded to a post that MJ placed in the thread of posts, as opposed to his initial piece on the debacle at Fletcher.

This is my first time posting at length after a long and self-imposed hiatus, and I hope you accept that, to the extent I keep posting, I will be mindful of the ease in which these chains can be hijacked.

Genuinely sorry,

Bruce

Again, you have not refuted a SINGLE point I made about Palestine and Arab identity.
BTW-I do not say "there are no Palestinians"-of course there is an Arab population in Judea/Samaria and Gaza and everyone is striving to reach some sort of political accomdation with them. The point of stating that there is no historical "Palestinian" identity doesn't change that.
The thing that is really eating at you is the fact that you, as a ZIONIST and supporter of Israel, are really forced to defend the "Bible" and all the things you cursed out in the infamous posting. Why does Israel exist today as a recognized nation-state. Because of the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate granted to Britain in (IIRC) 1922 which was based on the Balfour Declaration. And what was the Balfour Declaration based on?.....the JEWS' BIBLICAL CLAIM TO ERETZ ISRAEL and the subsequent unbroken Jewish settlement and historical attachment flowing from it. Balfour and the others in Britain who pushed for the Declaration were believing Christians and even those who weren't recognized the Bible as a world-historical document. THE JEWS HAVE NO OTHER CLAIM TO THE COUNTRY. The Holocaust, as Ahmedinejad (!) himself correctly pointed out, gives the Jews no special claim to Eretz Israel, only the Biblical and subsequent historical link. The large majority of Jews in Israel view our rights as being based on the Bible, so if you are going to call me the "N"-word, you are in addition defaming the large majority of the Jewish population of Eretz Israel, and outside of Israel as well.

This puts you in a dilemma. On the one hand, you are a Zionist and a proud Jew, but on the other hand you, and other so-called "progressives" view Eretz Israel's part in Jewish tradition as "primitive", "parochial", "backward", "obscurantist", "unprogressive", "racist", "hatemongering", and whatever other epithets I have seen in this site. This is tearing away at you on the inside so you lash out at those who expose your contraditory nature to the world. You want to support Israel but the logical extrapolation of your "progressive" views are inherently contradictory. (note the many who participate in this group who do make the extrapolation and yet you never rebuke them).

You truly have my sympathy, as one Jew to another.

IL-20 doesn't have to be a pro-Israel hub because of the way that the pro-Israel lobby works in channelling money to the opponents of Congressmen who don't toe the line. This is old news.

Its funny - one minute the Pro-Israeli lobby boasts about how influential it is, the next minute it denies being influential. LOL!

Fortune magazine rated AIPAC as the second most powerful lobby in the US - are they all just anti-semites too?

And you know what? I don't see our Presidential candidates lining up to swear never-ending fealty to Germany, Spain, Armenia...but they do to Israel. Why is that? Hmmm...Why oh why oh why....can't possibly be because of Israeli agents that have infiltrated our electoral process, no, not at all, that would be an unauthorized "anti-semitic" thing to think so banish the thought...

Good:

I don't speak for Bar Kochba, but I don't think he denies the existence of Palestinians. I think Bar Kochba wants us all to accept that Palestinians don't have national rights because Palestinians are just part of a larger pan-Arab nationalist grouping. I don't agree with that to any extent, but I don't think that's analogous to Nazism. Of course, in our country Good 4 America, you are free to believe what you wish, and my hunch is you disagree with me, and that's cool.

Now, if you are asking me to defend the Occupation and the conduct of Israel there, I can't do that because I don't defend it. You'll have to ask someone else.

Finally, it sounds like you are making the linear argument that extremist Jews like Bar Kochba are worse than Nazis because Nazis never denied that Jews existed. OK, think what you wish. Again, our country, even under GWB, remains free enough for you to express such thoughts.

Regards.

Bruce

Good really said that second thingie about you Zionista?

Good, you either engage in namecalling or you don't.

Bad form Good.

Actually, I went a further step and said that American lives are not found on that scale at all.  I will admit that there are variations between Zionista and you on the mild (not moderate) end and Bar_Kochba and others on the rabid end. 

Perhaps you and Zionista do not fully support Israels "retalitatory" strikes against Palestinians that do in fact kill Palestinians at a rate of 10 or more to 1.  However, neither of you have given any hint that you oppose those strikes. 

On the other hand, I would be shocked to find out that Bar Kochba has any regrets at all about such strikes.  Those strikes are what I call slow genocide.  The land grab is ethnic cleansing.  But, not satisfied with that, Israel has moved forward with genocide.  Of course, at its current rate, the genocide will take 150 years, but Jews, of all people, should realize that in the course of history, 150 years is nothing.

So, what about it?  Do you condemn the "retaliatory" strikes?  Do I owe you an apology?  Or do you value the lives of Jews 10 to 1 over Palestinians?  

Zionista,

Do you condemn the retaliatory strikes?  Or DO you value the lives of Jews 10 to 1 over Palestinians?  If you declare outright that Israel is wrong in its military actions in Gaza, I will apologize. 

Thank you for agreeing.  Israel is interfering with US politics in a way we would never tolerate from 100 other countries.  Americans have tolerated it out of guilt over the holocaust (although I cannot fathom why Americans, of all people, are guilty over the holocaust).  But as Israel continues down the path of its own holocaust, Americans are getting mighty suspicious.

On the other subject, Bruce was defending Bar Kochba's denial that Palestinians exist at all.  Read Bar Kochba's posting. 

Bruce argues that is not what Bar Kochba meant, but of course the whole point of saying they are just Pan-Arabian is to turn them into mirage-people who can be shunted about wherever is convenient or subtract them from the face of the earth because, after all, there are plenty more where they came from.

Bar Kochba doesn't go quite that far, he is not focused on the Arabs, who are just an inconvenience, he is focused on the Jews, to whom the Arabs are an inconvenience.   But of course, his objective is to turn the Palestinians into mirage-people, just some inconvenient nomads who happened to be camped out in Erzatz Israel when Israel was formed.  The inconvenient mirage-people should GO HOME.  If not, they are the interlopers.  Israel has stolen nothing.  If the mirage-people won't go home, we will just have to deal with them in whatever way we have to...  Does that get your point Bar Kochba?  

How about we all judge statements by others here based on what they say not in the context of ethnic solidarity. Which means that Zionista needs to stop treating Jews who spew hate as her wayward siblings.

It's the 21st century, for crying out line.

Forgive me, I just got back from the EU where this ethno-nationalism is rapidly receding.

As for Israel. It should be judged like any other country. It's here. It's going to be here. It should be here. But it will not have security until it ends its occupation of land that belongs to another people.

Is that so hard?

MJ,

...Zionista needs to stop treating Jews who spew hate as her wayward siblings.

Any reference at all...?  Maybe it's the jet lag.  Get some sleep.

Well, your "ethno-nationalism" is ACCELERATING in the Middle East. Look at Iraq. Look at Lebanon. Your friends, the Palestinians are at the forefront of chauvinism, religious extremism and official state-sponsored hate. If you want to give me the line "they are allowed to be that way, they have been under occupation", well then, you have just given Israel even MORE justification to be like that EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOT, because no one has been under more "occupation" or even worse than have the Jews. If you want to release Marwan Barghouti because his being a murderer is "understandable", then I presume you would want to release Yigal Amir too, because he had exactly the same supposed motiviations "love of his country, idealism, blah, blah, blah".

Shimon Peres once said "land isn't important, the spirit is". Okay, I have a suggestion.....we should all OPPOSE giving the Palestinians a state in order to teach them to be good progressives like yourself, MJ, i.e. not "infected" with "ethno-nationalism", and Peres would want to show that that "land isn't important, the spirit is".

Zionista, perhaps you are unaware of your cloying defense of every rightwing Jew who poisons discourse at TPM. Klal Yisrael should not extend to haters; it does for you.

I just got out of a meeting, and I don't get this: a dig by MJ directed to Zionista notwithstanding a record that reflects the following: (a) a poster lumps Zionista, me, and every other person who has ever said something positive about Israel into a group that thinks, G-d forbid, that the only good Palestinian is one that no longer breathes; and (2) that same poster receives praise from MJ for reminding us that Israel is not in the United States.

Sorry, this is not the public sector and balance is not required. But a little more couldn't hoit.

More two faced quoting of posts you rate as zero? Cannot face the question?  The whole force of your thousands of posts is that Israel can do no wrong.  "prove it"?  What does that mean?  When have you ever allowed that Israel has made an error. 

ISRAEL KILLS 10 PALESTINIANS FOR EVERY ONE ISRAELI KILLED BY "TERRORISTS." 

Is that wrongful?  How hard can it be to say "they are wrong"?  If you cannot say it, why am I mistaken to understand you mean exactly what I said you mean? 

It is a very interesting development to the debate.  Level an accusation, and put the burden of proof on the accused.  Guilty until proven innocent.  As American as baseball, apple pie and internment camps.

Could there be a new thread? I'm finding myself, rather by surprise, doing computer and communications support of commercial fishermen.

I actually know a fair bit about naval operations, and even antisubmarine warfare. In this context, however, it just doesn't make sense to send out your helicopter to drop a torpedo, when the adversaries are scallops.

When it comes to small boats, I am reasonably sure that the pointy end goes forward most of the time. If I were aboard, and ran into a North Atlantic storm, my only response to a crewmember's command to jump would be "where and how high?"

That, however, is how most of the captains feel about computers. It's not completely clear, but some of them may think that Jonah being swallowed by the whale is a metaphor for installing Windows Vista on a computer that had been working.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Guilt by screenname. How progressive!

Meanwhile, let's examine all those examples that support these accusations....

Are Palestinian's policies motivated by their ethnicity? Are Northern Ireland Catholics policies motivated by their ethnicity? Are Scottish Nationalists motivated by their ethnicity? Was Muslim Pakistan being carved out of united India motivated by ethnicity? Was MJ' attack on the US Supreme Court reducing support for affirmative action motivated by ethnicity?
Are Quebec separatists motivated by ethnicity?

None of these ethnicities bother you. Only Jewish ethnicity bothers you. Simple hypocrisy.

There are his "facts"...

...fascist/chauvinistic Palestinians who daily carry out aggression like indiscriminate bombing of Israeli towns like Sederot...
...whose state-controlled media extolls genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass-murder of Jews, denies the Holocaust, supports mass terror like 9/11.
...mass-robbery of their own people's money through ... corrupt, monopolistic businesses that are controlled and regulated by a corrupt state apparatus.
...repressive, totalitarian states like Libya and Syria ... intra-Muslim fratricidal slaughter in countries like Iraq, Algeria, Somalia, Lebanon, etc, not to mention things like "family honor killings" , clan feuds, etc.
These people have recently called on Israel and the US to open talks with HAMAS who supporters thew handcuffed prisoners off tall buildings.